Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post 766
The Recording Industry of America's favorite courtroom lawyer, Tom Perrelli, who has sued individual file swappers in multiple federal courts, is President-elect Barack Obama's choice for the third in line at the Justice Department. CNet's Declan McCullagh explores the background of the man who won the RIAA's lucrative business for his DC law firm: "An article on his law firm's Web site says that Perrelli represented SoundExchange before the Copyright Royalty Board — and obtained a 250 percent increase in the royalty rate for music played over the Internet by companies like AOL and Yahoo," not to mention Pandora and Radio Paradise. NewYorkCountryLawyer adds, "Certainly this does not bode well for CowboyNeal's being appointed Copyright Czar."
Is this really a surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
To the Obama Koolaid drinkers (Score:5, Insightful)
Between that and this pick [time.com], will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!
Oh boy this should be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on
But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.
And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.
Then why do you engage in it?
Your first post presupposes *way* too much to be anything other than partisan.
Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.
My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy. It could be that the lawyer in question is indifferent to the RIAA's ideology and was simply representing them in a professional manner. It definitely doesn't make Obama's pick any less questionable and the lawyer any less scummy, but it would at least assuage my fears that the appointee would be pushing the RIAA's agenda from a position of power.
Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, that was some of the driest humor I've EVER read on Slashdot. Impressive.
Reagan Republicans That Call Themselves Democrats, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. Clue-stick for the clueless -- no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is on Capitol Hill, change happens in Washington very, very slowly. The government is a big bureaucracy, run by bureaucrats. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, and as a result -- the changes are usually for the worse, not the better.
Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure he doesn't want to burn through all his change in his first term. He's probably starting slowly, pacing himself. I'm sure that's it.
Honestly, I lost all hope when he won the election. Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign. Here it comes geniuses, are you ready for it?
Hehehe. It's going to be a spectacular four years. I have no faith left at all, so it's all for entertainment value now.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lawyers are paid to represent clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.
#ifndef MOD_FUNNY (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
I do wonder how this one is gonna get spun, though...
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't wait to watch all the hardcore supporters roll back expectations, deny all the claims they made about change, and finally blame the system itself for any failures on the chosen ones part.
And the rest of us who maybe had a little hope for change are just going to be disappointed with more "new boss".
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.
I don't. The bait [boingboing.net] and switch [senate.gov] was telegraphed months before the election. If you voted for him anyway you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.
I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.
Not Suprised (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm laughing to myself, because anyone who thought there was going to be serious change in DC was only deluding themselves. Now the truth is becoming apparent, Obama is no different then any other politician except he has a greater personal charisma.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep.
And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?
Re:There is a Silver Lining (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA types are allowed into the discussion, but they don't CONTROL the debate or its terms.
His picks for the Justice Department are pretty fucking scary. He picks a pro-gun control/pro-war on drugs person to lead it and a former RIAA lawyer for #3? Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.
Dear Mr. President: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a man who has represented an organization that has hunted down and victimized children and college students using the legal system as a weapon. He has knowingly and willingly attacked America's supply of future skilled labor, and potential doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and more have all been forced to go into debt to pay off what they have been blackmailed out of.
And all of this was not done in the name of profit, but of control. Proof has been shown that the RIAA has done nothing but lose money by attacking their customer base, calling them pirates and thieves, violating their rights, and leveraging out of court settlements out of families who do not believe that they have what it takes to fight this injustice in court.
The man you have chosen for this position is the wrong choice. Please revert this decision. I and others are deeply afraid of what it means to see you appointing him.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign
I think it had less to do with his PR campaign and more to do with Republican incompetence. Independents in this country have historically broke Republican in Presidential elections -- Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.
Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood (Score:5, Insightful)
Years ago, I wrote Saint Wellstone that I thought it was ridiculous that I could buy a DVD and be a felon for playing it on a linux machine. The reply I got from Saint Wellstone's office said the DMCA was a great thing and he would vote for it again if he had the chance. Just look at where the money comes from.
Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients (Score:3, Insightful)
Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.
Most of what the RIAA has done in the courtroom has shown a total lack of ethics and has been judged by many (including many judges) to be illegal. That's the Bush way of running the executive, and it sickens me to see someone like this appointed by Obama.
Re:Well.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunate, but the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty. We have to make sure we do our best not to lock up the innocent. Despite the outcome, I'd have to applaud the lawyer for defending a client to the best of his ability, even if he thought the client was guilty. I don't think I'd have the stomach for that, but its a job that needs to be done for our legal system to even resembling something close to justice.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
There - fixed that for you.
Hey, Libertarians! (Score:1, Insightful)
Guess what? Our government is itself a product of the market system. Cities like New York, London, and San Francisco are successful precisely *because* of their enormous governments--they compete for capital, talent, and prestige against cities with small, ineffectual governments that are unable to effectively lure and corral said capital, talent, and prestige. And as goes the city, so go city-states and nations: Somalia, being a libertarian paradise, is a rather unpleasant place to live for non-ideologues. Somalians, those who can, vote with their feet and leave.
Now go suckle Ayn Rand's rotten tits some more and leave the rest of us alone, you stupid fucking Paultards.
Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I could stomach a person that defended cases that I disagreed with based on the case that everyone deserves fair representation in court, and carries out that representation ethically. The RIAA cases, however, have been pretty unethical from top to bottom, disregarding whether you agree or disagree with their position.
Ashes in the fall (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So is Obama a Politian after all? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:2, Insightful)
I helped campaign for him on the weekends with my sister... got on stage when he came to Newport News and was on the tv, and got to shake his hand and stuff...
I never got that close. I did get to shake Governor Sebelius' [wikipedia.org] hand, for what that's worth. I don't actually have that many regrets about campaigning for him as I did have a blast doing it. The highlight of my trip was getting an elderly voter to the polls (in my own automobile, the one the campaign rented was somewhere else at the time) 30 seconds before they closed. She got to vote and I have to say that was a pretty good feeling.
I did stand on principle after the FISA reversal and wrote them a letter demanding a refund of my contributions. I actually got it too. Donated every single penny to the EFF.
But in VA, you don't need a permit to own a gun
In New York State you need a permit to own a handgun. In New York City you need a permit to own a long gun. As far as pistol permits go it's really up to the counties here. I'm lucky enough to live in an Upstate County where I can actually get a carry permit. In the Peoples Republic of New York City you can't even get a premise permit half the time, let alone a carry permit. Unless you are rich or well connected of course and then different rules apply.
actually, sales records are destroyed 30 days after purchase
In NYS they do ballistic fingerprinting of all handguns. It's been around for six or seven years ago and cost the state millions of dollars. Guess how many crimes it's solved? Zero.
while having an RNC card in my wallet
I've never been able to reconcile the GOP's embrace of the religious right with my own beliefs. That's probably the biggest reason I'm not a Republican. I'm still a registered Democrat. If I get disillusioned enough to leave the party (I'm close but not there yet) I'll just wind up registering without any party enrollment.
I just want someone sane and relatively moderate
I'll give you that much. At least Obama is going to be competent. I wish McCain had managed to defeat Bush back in 2000. I think things would have worked out quite differently if he had.
Re:Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.
For the most part, criminal defense attorneys are a different breed than corporate attack attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys often need to believe in their clients, while corporate attack attorneys simply need to believe in the pay cheque.
Re:Well.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunate, but the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty.
Common misconception. The guilty deserve nothing but the punishment the law requires. Only the innocent deserve a vigorous and thorough defense. The problem is deciding which is which, before the trial.
It does not work like that... (Score:5, Insightful)
WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?
It is very much different than here on Slashdot.
You get moderator points only once every 4 years.
Everyone gets moderator points at the same time.
You only get 1 moderator point.
It lasts only 1 day (half actually).
You get to moderate posts of only 2 posters.
Rest of those 4 years all your posts are automatically moderated as -1 Overrated+Troll, and nobody reads them.
But if you happen to have shitload of money - you can buy yourself golden undemoteable +5 Insightful+Informative posts.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of curiosity who said Obama would solve all our problems? I keep hearing this drivel from sore republicans looking to blame Obama for the failures that Bush Jr already caused.
No one I know at least seriously thinks Obama can solve the majority of the problems that Bush has plagued us with, we all saw it coming as reckless spending always results in this outcome.
Most people I've talked to voted for Obama because they believe he will at least put the country on a path that the majority of us can agree is better for the majority of us. The recession will not end anytime soon, Obama taking office will result in a stock market spike because history puts a good economy at the helm of democrats traditionally at least over the last 60 years.
Like the ole saying goes, it's easier to destroy than it is to create, no one is expecting miracles because creating everything we lost will take some serious time and a lot of serious effort from people in both parties. One of Obama's biggest strengths was that he wasn't afraid to work with people that disagreed with him unlike Bush. We all like a reasoned debate and this country is in dire need of it.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over. "Aw, heck - there's people suffering there and we can help!" No, that would not be a good way to run things. States' rights are there for a reason.
And every level of government in Lousiana failed the people.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny how Bush "going to bed" didn't seem to affect the people in other places that were hit just as hard, like EVERY county in Mississippi.
The clear difference between Mississippi and Louisiana was that one place heeded the warnings and didn't wait for the government to hand-hold them out of town while the other still thinks government is the answer to everything.
I guess when one grows up depending on government handouts, it's hard to make choices on their own even when their lives depend on it.
Re:One character makes all the difference (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree with everything you said, and in addition, I would have modded him down for going:
not broken (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think it's broken? Just because the results aren't exactly what you like, doesn't mean that the system is horribly broken.
Change? Guess not... (Score:2, Insightful)
Was I American, I'd be very tempted to do so. Ugh, I was hoping this time the promises weren't empty...
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what you're suggesting, other than that you like to gripe.
Who should you have voted for instead? Hillary? She's a hardcore DLC [wikipedia.org]er, working tirelessly to pull the Democratic Party to the right (not to mention her bog-standard low-road campaigning). McCain? Please.
No one ever said Obama was perfect or the Second Coming (except in Republican attack ads). I was a Kucinich man, till he dropped out, then for Edwards for the five minutes it took before he dropped out. Only then did I back Obama.
Obama was by no means my first choice, but, in the end, was by far the best choice.
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Insightful)
Those sentiments are no less true for being repeatedly stated. We won't see real political reform until more Americans abandon the ridiculous idea that politicians of either party are actually acting in the interests of the general public.
Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood (Score:5, Insightful)
Political expedience (Score:5, Insightful)
I can guarantee you that the votes would have been reversed had Obama lost the primary contest and Hillary been the nominee.
The only reason Hillary voted against the FISA bill was because she could (politically).
Obama is a political pragmatist if nothing else. His campaign didn't want to be painted as soft on terra or hamstringing intelligence efforts by the Repubs in the general.
It's still to early to REALLY know what Obama will do as president. We'll just have to wait and see.
I agree that his vote was pretty repugnant, but I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong. HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! I have to believe that he felt this was a situation where the ends justify the means...
(But just you know know, I contributed probably a couple hundred dollars to the Obama campaign - until the FISA vote. That night I went to the ACLU's site and saw the headline "Senate passes telco immunity: ACLU sues", and I became a member. I voted Barr in the general. I want a president that respects the constitution with more than just flowery speeches...)
I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.
From the outside looking in, at least to myself, it appeared to be more a case of who could amass, and consequently spend, the greater amount of political donations.
I could be wrong here, and I am perfectly willing to accept that, but that is how it appeared to be to me.
Political donations, or more accurately "bribes," (because that is what they are, regardless of what your government tells you) are used during the campaign to pay for speech writers, spin doctors, and also to pay off the media so that they are cast in a favourable light.
Then once the vote has been carried out, and the winner decided, all of those people who have donated substantial amounts of money to the campaign, then start demanding their dues. After all it was they who ensured victory, therefore they should be rewarded for their assistance.
$712M (Banking on becoming President [opensecrets.org]) dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen. So once again, the corporations have elected a president, and now they want something in return.
I know that democracy is "government for the people, by the people," and I believe that that is what the intention was. However in recent times it has wavered from that ideal, and we are all having our freedoms stripped by our governments on the behest of the corporations (lobbyists, etc) who financially support the campaigns of the political parties.
Re:It does not work like that... (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you meta-moderated lately?
Re:Here we go again... *sigh* (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't think of any other president who has been so hounded with criticism before they even take office - including much-hated Bush. Is it a new trend of accountability for our chief executive? Is it mere racism? I don't know.
I am not a racist and I supported Obama.
But this is a detestable and frightening appointment.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is the attorney's that strategize the attack. So, you are attacking the lawyer's tactics and thus the lawyer himself. And, there's no need to defend a lawyer. Get real.
Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.
Well, so far, most of the comments have been about how evil Obama is for doing this, so what's the difference?
Re:not broken (Score:2, Insightful)
What makes you think it's broken? Just because the results aren't exactly what you like, doesn't mean that the system is horribly broken.
Actually the system is broken because we, the people, let it get broken. (In truth, our parents/grandparents started letting it break around 50 years ago).
Who was it that said (I paraphrase) " a democracy is doomed as soon as the people discover that they can vote themselves stuff out of the public treasury".
The people with the money call the shots. They are our new aristocracy. We the voters are only needed to get them into and keep them in power. "Bread and circuses" works as well today as it has in the past.
The hope with Obama was the his campaign was primarily funded by individual donors and therefor he would be less indebted to this aristocracy. The real proof is in who he chooses to surround himself with.
There are really only 2 ways to salvage the system:
A- Revolution
or
B- Enough people taking personal and civic responsibility (aka casting off their laziness and desire to simply be entertained) to make meaningful changes starting at the local levels.
The problem really can't be fixed from the top, no matter how much people may think Obama can do it. He could make the change easier though by surrounding himself with people who themselves are not beholden to the money.
Re:Quick! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
2nd worst is NOT best.
The politicians never promised *good* change. (Score:3, Insightful)
See how politics works now?
I'll take that up and defend Obama. (Score:5, Insightful)
All right, I'll defend Obama. This really sucks but he's still the right man to be President.
It's pretty darned inconceivable that he was ever going to agree with us on everything. This particular issue is going to be a difficult one for us to win, even with reasonably enlightened political officials. Don't forget that NOBODY voted against DMCA.
I still feel wonderful that Obama's going into office rather than McCain. And you can't seriously believe that McCain was going to help us on electronic freedom issues.
I do hope that EFF, Lessig, etc. raise a platform on this issue that we can help them with.
I'll be in DC, and in front of some politicians and their staffers, next week. I'll be sure to put in a word about this. But that's going to be the first word, not the last.
Bruce
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Insightful)
If he really wanted to change the system, he'd leave most of the "do nothing" cabinet positions empty, including the whole departments under those positions, and then apply the trillions of dollars saved to payoff the national debt (read: Chinese, Arab, and European bankers) so we are no longer at their mercy.
By the year 2016 Obama could claim to be the third president (and third Democrat) to operate the government with absolutely no debt.
THAT would be impress me.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not really a Messiah kind of guy I'm more of a realist though, and I've realized the following.
I'm not thrilled by this appointment, but it doesn't really surprise me. IP, whether you believe in it or not, is one of the few things the US produces domestically which anyone else actually wants to buy. For better or worse, protecting the value of IP is important to the survival of the US economy.
There was never any chance that any president was going to eliminate copyright, and there is still a chance(though slim) that, despite this appointment, Obama will work to rationalize the process. I doubt it, but on the grounds that no one else(no one sane at least) was going to do it either, it's not the end of the world.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards role the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them,"
he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep. And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?
Were they employed as counsel?
Do you seriously believe that defending a client on a murder charge amounts to an endorsement of the act?
A lawyer as a duty to represent their client, irrespective of the lawyer's personal beliefs. I would expect any reasonably ethical lawyer to be able to separate those two interests. Whether they do in fact is a matter of examining the actions of any particular lawyer.
Whether Bush & Cheney were able to separate their duty to the corporations by which they were formerly employed, and their duty to the American people is similarly a matter of examining their particular actions. It would be invalid to conclude that any person, having been at one time in their life an employee of a corporation, would automatically be incapable of dutifully serving in some governmental capacity.
Would you like us to lock up any soldier returning from a the front-line where it was their duty to kill, on the basis that now they are killers it's not safe to have them roaming the streets?
This isnt the place to bitch and whine.... (Score:3, Insightful)
tm
Re:Quick! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
It is the attorney's (sic) that strategize the attack. So, you are attacking the lawyer's tactics and thus the lawyer himself (sic).
Again, the lawyer has a duty to represent their client's interest zealously, irrespective of the lawyer's personal opinions. The only questions regarding their tactics are 1. are they permissible within the rules of the game and 2. are they reasonably competent, inasasmuch as they are likely to secure an outcome favourable to their client. If you do attack the lawyer personally on the basis of their tactics, (other than for a breach of the two considerations), you are a simpleton. I guess you hate actors for the parts they played in their last movie too.
And, there's no need to defend a lawyer.
This topic and you post clearly demonstrate otherwise.
give the guy a chance (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw this a lot with our fairly recent election in australia and im seeing it here now on slashdot.
The people that vote for 'the messiah' aren't necessarily convinced they are voting for a solution to every problem they ever had..they might just be voting for a guy who finally seems to agree with their way of thinking and might do some good things with the country. Its ok to get excited about that isnt it? I was when we were getting rid of our ultra conservative party in favor of the sortve liberal one here. Obamas probably pretty busy, give him some time to sort out his shit.
dont you people have any faith in anything at all?
Re:Quick! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Figures (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawyers are lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
I think alot of people are forgetting that lawyers are lawyers. They are paid to represent and fight whatever battle if someone throws enough money at them, regardless of their personal views on the case, much like mercenaries. I think Obama knows this being a Law Professor, so I'm personally not too worried about this appointment and don't see what the big deal is.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
I shouldn't feed the trolls but I do think this is an example worth pointing out.
The confederacy was right about states' rights. They were wrong about slavery. I think that a war to end slavery was justified, but it really sucks that "limited government" was killed along with it.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
Cry me a river. Idle bureaucrats employed by the government are a waste of our tax dollars.
The government's purpose is to effectively serve the public; not employ those that can't hold a regular job in the private sector.
Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple. Obama represents a larger set of AMERICA than /. Some of those people are rich and make large campaign donations.
When I voted for him I knew I was compromising. I knew he'd do all kinds of things I wouldn't like. But I also knew that the alternative was going to fuck up everything at least as badly, if not far worse. Even this included, and with the AG appt, I like Obama more now than I did before the election. He'd have to appoint Jack Valenti* to the Supreme Court or AG or Copyright Czar or something for me to dislike him too much, and what would it take for him to suck as much as McCain or, god forbid, Dubya?
Sure. Politicians sell out. They support bridges to nowhere (Obama did vote for it, after all. Riders suck). They make compromises and cut deals to get things done. Some of those deals suck for some people.
* It's funnier if I wait for someone to point out he's dead first, but I'm going away after I post this. http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/eler-highlights-2008 [geekz.co.uk]
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
Insightful? Sounds to me like cynical flamebait
When did anyone ever say that the job of a politician is to make everyone happy? Of course politicians aren't going to please all of their supporters all of the time, that's not how it works.
Obama didn't run on a platform of anti-corporatism. He ran on a platform of more government control of corporations, and more public transparency of the government.
We currently have had a vice president for the past 8 years who was the CEO of a major defense contractor. On the other hand, one of the many people that Obama selected for a DOJ position worked for a law firm that represented a company that many of us don't like, and people flip out over that?
Sure, he is going to make some moves that don't fully satisfy the tech sector, but the sky is hardly falling, and I personally don't think the tech sector has had it this good in a long time.
Add the info to his WIkipedia article (Score:3, Insightful)
> The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of
> the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind
> of morals they have.
Someone should add this tidbit, with linked evidence, to the guy's Wikipedia article, no? His article reads like a press release right now.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
Presidential responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
And a President's first responsibility is to the US Constitution. But that didn't stop Obama from voting yes on the FISA Reform Bill.
Does it surprise anyone that a politician willing to put politics above the constitution would choose as a DoJ appointee a lawyer who puts client above the court?
I'm still cautiously hopeful for the Obama presidency, but I do not have high expectations. I have yet to see a high level politician put the good of the people above the good of the government. I hope he surprises me, but I don't expect him to.
Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama. (Score:5, Insightful)
As a non-US citizen living outside of the US, I don't think the problem is Obama. The problem is that the US allows a ridiculous "democratic" system where corporates are allowed to sponsor elections, at all. This is an institutionalized form of corruption and I don't think it exists in countries that call themselves democratic other than the US.
For the rest I agree, Obama was the best choice, even if he was overhyped. This is for a big part due to the fact that the combination of candidates from the Republican party was an outright failure. I really wonder how they got to Palin. Maybe they thought that voters were already dumb enough to fall for just the show value of Palin. Could they, in all their members, not find ANY CANDIDATE that would be at least halfway competent to do the job better than Palin?
a kdawson post is always this skewed (Score:3, Insightful)
this is posted by kdawson. You really expected it to be impartial? The guy only posts anti-copyright anti-content producer, pro-piracy bullshit.
Its like digg, but pretending to be for grown-ups.
Re:Lawyers are lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
When you make a choice in your life you make a personal statement. Every time you decide who is your employer you take a big decision. There is a speech in the movie Clerks where they debate about the workers on the death star killed by the rebellion. They were working class, supposely the people the rebellion was fighting for, but they choose to work for the evil empire so they deserved to die. Well that's the point.
This guy choose to work for a organization that recklessly goes after private citizens, lobbied the government into absurd laws and hs been twice in judgement for the abuse of RICO tactics ( http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7767 [p2pnet.net] ). This would have rang a bell in any "non sociopathic" human being looking for a job. Me for one would feel very bad in pursuing normal people with small incomes and ruin their lifes just to make a billion dollar industry richer. But this guy looks like he hasn't got these feelings and did indeed choose to work for them. But does being a lawyer qualify you for a moral licence to accept and pratice social unacceptable behavious like those emploed by the RIAA? I don't think so.
He is a lawyer but I hope not all lawyers are made this way. On slashdot there is a very active member that decided, for instance, to have a carreer standing with the people.
In other words Obama "for a change" instead of being lobbyed as his predecessors took a step forward and appointed the least qualified to rapresent people in a public institution. Infact this man with his choice has already shown to prefer money over ethics.
Good luck with your change.
Re:Well.... (Score:2, Insightful)
The guilty deserve nothing but the punishment the law requires. Only the innocent deserve a vigorous and thorough defense.
Very wrong. Under our system, evidence obtained by illegal means is inadmissible in court, even if said evidence could otherwise be used to convict. This rule is referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The idea of this metaphor is that no bad tree can bear good fruit, so if a system is unable to give equal protection to every defendant (even if guilt is a foregone conclusion from the beginning), then no conviction under that system can be valid.
The bottom line is that our system is not just about determining guilt and innocence - it is also about demonstrating and preserving the legitimacy of the system itself. This means giving everyone the equal chance to defend him/herself, both in practice and in theory.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the State of Louisiana spoke as to who was actually responsible for the Katrina & Rita mess when it didn't even give Kathleen Blanco a chance to run for re-election...
As true as that might be the fact remains that POTUS has the biggest bully pulpit in the World. It seems inexcusable to me that he opted not to use that bully pulpit when Americans were suffering and dying. I got modded into oblivion for pointing this out but really, what happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?
Would Reagan have been content to let Americans die because of incompetent state government? Would FDR? Eisenhower? It just seems like a really piss poor excuse, IMHO.
Re:Quick! (Score:5, Insightful)
think that a war to end slavery was justified
The war wasn't launched to end slavery. The war was launched to bring the southern states back into the union. Lincoln actually went out of his way to say that ending slavery wasn't the goal during the beginning. Ending slavery become the goal later for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which was keeping France and England out of the war.
Re:And so it begins (Score:3, Insightful)
The democracy part isn't broken though. Regardless of how horrible you think our officials are, they are our elected officials. When you say "revolution", you are talking about overthrowing the leaders that the people voted for. What kind of government are you planning to replace the current one with? Your revolution will require the governments overthrow by force, so a military dictatorship? Or do you believe you can lead some kind of enlightened aristocracy? There is no need for "revolution" until it the ability (not the willingness) of the people to vote is suppressed. As someone said already, you are just a nutjob.
Re:Presidential responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
I think every Obama supporter (and I am one) needs to temper their lofty expectations with a dose of reality. He's not the Second Coming -- he's both human and a politician, so he already has two strikes against him. He will make (and already has made) some decisions and appointments that will piss us off. It's all a matter of contrast and degree. Considering the debacle of the last 8 years, if Obama is even moderately successful, it will be a vast improvement. He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.
If you've been living off rice and gruel for years, you may dream of steak and lobster, but at that point even a humble peanut butter and jelly sandwich is going to taste pretty damn good.
Re:Quick! (Score:1, Insightful)
Please. If Bush enacted the Insurrection Act and threw out Posse Comitatus, you would be bitching and screaming about how Bushitler was taking over the country with his private military force or something. This is simply all about blaming Bush for whatever you can get away with, because he can do no right.
Re:Presidential responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.
That remains to be seen. Thus far what we have are promises, nothing more. If we should reserve judgment on the potential for disappointment, then we should refrain from claiming success as well.
As for competent, Mr Panetta has no qualifications for his rumored post. I'm hopeful that Obama will pick someone who IS qualified.
Re:South Park (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that this is the situation we're in, I ask why it has to be that way. Why do we only get the choice between hanging and shooting, why can't we get a politician that we don't see as the lesser evil, but one that we actually want to win?
A) Because those people generally don't run for high political offices.
B) A great many people in this country (so many that I have to wonder if the distribution is still normal, or if the mean is far too stupid) DO want either the cocksucker or the jerkoff to win. Usually based on one insipid bullet point. "The cocksucker will make the 10 Commandments into law and talks to Jesus! He MUST win!" "The jerkoff wants to make sure people have enough food to eat, and can get it just by making sure that no one gets TOO much to eat! HE must win!"
I seriously doubt, even after the clusterfuck of the last eight years, that Americans will ever understand the gravity of the choices they make (if they bother to make one) every other November.
Instead, they seem to think "Woah, Cool. It's like Bud Bowl, but with real people!"
Re:Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't tell them that, they don't logically understand the purpose of the president, after all they are democrats. To them, the president controls what food is on the table and how much gas costs, and the fact the neighborhood strip club raised its drink prices by $3/shot, and etc.
To those that think the president is the end all be all, read the constitution.
His mandate is over the military and approving or denying congressional bills. NOT infringing on the rights of state governments as people seem to imply was his duty for katrina, the fact that louisiana's gov was incompitent was not the presidential responsiblity, but the responsibility of the state and population of the state to pick a capable leadership. They failed.
This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility. Learn the purpose of the government department that is at hand, and what powers they actually have before you assume.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Obama is falling short on his "hope" message. There is a serious lack of magical pink unicorns that we all expected.
In fact, it looks just like the perfect intersection of Clinton and Bush II.
Could have used those unicorns... I hear they fart rainbows and glitter.
Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama. (Score:3, Insightful)
The thing to understand is that Obama has to lead where the whole country will follow. This means that there is lots of change he might like to make, but can't.
Regardless of what the RIAA wants, the market has rejected DRM for audio recordings. What's happening with iTunes is proof enough of that. Obviously this doesn't extend to video yet.
But the real issue we need to fight, of which the conduct of RIAA and MPAA are just one one symptom, is corporate totalitarianism. The rights of corporations stop somewhere short of the micromanagement of individual conduct represented by DRM and the legal structure supporting it. Leaders in other countries have come to understand what that is, and it can happen here too.
Bruce
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
And this guy's client is whom exactly?
Sorry, but for my taste, given his background he has too much experience representing the interests of the scum of the earth. His motives are suspect from the get-go, so of course the reason for his appointment is suspect.
Re:Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you know any lawyers like this? I'm not going to stick up for a guy who's behavior I find to be inexcusable, but let's not set the bar (aha ha) too high here.
Re:Figures (Score:2, Insightful)
And "checks and balances" is not the same thing as "someone else's responsibility." That's the part I take issue with. If a President pushes for stupid legislation and then signs the legislation when it's passed, that's not "somone else's responsibility." That's the President and Congress screwing up.
The president can push all he wants, congress has a DUTY to shoot it down if they disagree. If you disagree that they had done their duty or not, then you shouldn't later elect one of those that failed to be the next president. Nor should you reelect them to the same spot where they may later fail you again.
So you're suggesting that, say, the PATRIOT Act, which was essentially written by Bush officials and submitted to Congress for their amendments and passage, and then signed into law by President Bush, is the responsibility of Congress because they passed it, and there's no way of knowing if Bush actually supported it?
Again, Congress in your eyes failed its duty to shoot down someones agenda. That means they either agreed with this agenda or failed to do their duty and must be replaced, NOT elected to a higher office
Those appointments are typically apporved by Congress. And Congress screwed up by approving a bunch of them.
See a patern here?
There's another reason the President is the fall guy. First, he signs the legislation. That gives him an equal share of the blame unless it's passed overwhelmingly. Often, he proposes the legislation. Finally it's usually his job to implement it and appoint people to implement it. Example: I thought that going into Iraq was a bad decision. Even if it wasn't a bad decision, its implementation was a complete clusterfuck. Congress gets a share of the blame for the decision. The executive gets all the blame for the implementation. "Someone else's responsibility" doesn't enter into it.
Going into Iraq is the only thing that people complain about that he was truly 100% responsible for. This was his duty. The rest of peoples gripes and complaints, guess what? Failures of congress, as it takes CONGRESS to propose a bill, Congress must have so many supporters before a vote can take place for this bill, Congress then still has to have a majority vote to have it pass, then the President can veto or pass it.
After all this, SCOTUS can then declare it uncostitutional.
If you want to end "more of the same" and have real change, you have to replace the whole lot. Not place all the blame of the 488 people who saw this same piece of paper before the president and had a majority say "sure, this seems like a good idea" as his fault.
Re:Presidential responsibility (Score:3, Insightful)
.
I beg to differ.
.
Obama supporters should demand the lofty expectations he promised. Otherwise, it is truly politics as usual and we voted in a guy that will likely sit on his laurels since ANYTHING opposite to Bush or even logical will be better (according to those that support Obama).
It's politics, not medicine. The people need to demand performance. Come on people, he's just now doing the "I'm smarter, from harvard, so trust me" talk to set expectations low, when he originally set them high to get YOUR VOTE. Don't believe the hype, demand it.
Re:Figures (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the role of the President, and I know that Congress wields the real power in the Government, but I also know that Bush abused signing statements and executive orders to increase his influence in vast swathes. I also know that the President wields a lot more power as a figurehead than a lot of people give them credit for, and one who is good with people can have undue influence over individuals.
Besides all that, I fail to see how "democrats are dumb and don't know how the government works" is worth 5 points of insight.
Re:Hey, Libertarians! (Score:1, Insightful)
Yea! New York [nytimes.com] and California [nytimes.com] are shining examples of successful economies working without the need of government handouts!
Perhaps if the federal government didn't take our money and redistribute it to fly-over states, we wouldn't need to ask for some of it back.