Democrats Appoint RIAA Shill For Convention 698
An anonymous reader sends us to Boing Boing for a report that "the Director of Communications for the RIAA, Jenni Engebretsen, has been appointed Deputy CEO for Public Affairs for the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver." The DNC site has the official press release. Cory Doctorow notes that the RIAA is the most hated "corporation" in America, having beaten out Halliburton and Wal-Mart for the honor, and writes for the DNC's attention, "This represents a potential shear with the left-wing blogosphere."
So does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So does this mean (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So does this mean (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So does this mean (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess we US Citizens have short memories because we can tend to forget the injustices that the Democrats did against the US people? Their corruption does not count.
Now there are ties to the RIAA again, and all one has to do is cite Wikipedia allowing us to completely ignore or rewrite history in favor of the Democrats.
I'll bet people even forgot when Tipper Gore was censoring music lyrics and forced warning labels on CDs and video games, and doing so had the prices of them raised up to cover the cost of the rating system. Full support of the Democrats on that one as well.
Anyway I hope Barack Obama gets the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton, as I trust him a whole lot more than I trust her, because Obama hasn't stabbed the US in the back like Clinton has.
Re:So does this mean (Score:4, Insightful)
I just entered a maddox-like rage... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I just entered a maddox-like rage... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I just entered a maddox-like rage... (Score:5, Funny)
You mean like "dot-bomb"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I just entered a maddox-like rage... (Score:5, Insightful)
There. I said it.
It had to be said.
What a self important bunch of wankers. Nothing about the concept of a blog is derserving of its own ism or sphere. Its just a website. Ever hear about what's happening in the Shoppingsiteosphere? Or the OnlineNewsosphere?
No.
You know why? because those particular areas of the Internets are created and staffed by professionals, who dont need to go around inventing self-aggrandizing titles for themselves.
The ability so sign up for a Blogger account and blabber on about whatever the fuck you want in no way designates you as worthy of buzzword-creation rights. Fuck off and give the rest of us a break. Isnt there a coffee shop you should be posing at with your MacBook Pro or something? I think there is.
And before all you
So there's my
Now feel free to continue modding me down as flamebait or troll because i cussed at you, and because you're *really* that special.
What did you expect? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not a fucking thing.
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why ? Isn't their agenda removing the remaining limitations from total contractual freedom, allowing Corporate America to use its vastly superior resources to force even more onerous demands on the people who have to deal with it ?
Libertarians seem to think that removing state power makes people free. It does not, it simply creates a power vacuum for someone else to fill. The large corporations seem most likely, already practically controlling most countries, but even if they fail to seize power someone else won't; no matter what, you will always have an overlord, and in the end, despite their numerous flaws the current semi-democratical Western states are amongst the most benevolent overlords in human history.
All of this, of course, assumes that the libertarians will actually keep their word if elected, which would require them to be resistant to the temptation of power. Given history of politics, that seems a rather generous assumption.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, so is this new party going to be pro-choice or pro-life? Try to be centrist on that one.
The fact is that there are about 1000 political issues: manufacturing vs labor, social liberals vs social conservatives, fiscal liberals vs fiscal conservatives, business vs environmentalism, pro-choice vs pro-life. Some people care about some things, some about other things. But the way our system is set up guarantees that all of the millions of different possible viewpoints have to be amalgamated into exactly
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, it is worth noting that the laws you allude to as being put in place by Bush are the same kind of laws sought by the RIAA. And a lot of democrats voted for those laws.
In other words, if you're running an ER and you get somebody who's hemorrhaging, you don't treat him/her by breaking an arm.
Just because a person doesn't like the republicans is no excuse to let the democrats slide on this. If anything, they should raise more of an uproar about this, because it's t
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another poster down the page a bit has listed Dems that created and passed bad laws on behalf of the RIAA and MPAA. That's a good deal more than hiring someone near those organizations. Granted, Oryn Hatch and that other turd (I forget his name at the moment; but he's a Republican... Specter, I think) did the same sort of thing.
With the liberals we get slick liars, and with the Republicans (not conservatives) we get sincere hypocrites, to quote my history professor. The real issue is that from both side
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well you won't find me defending any political party. But... Some of those things were different.
I agree with you that we the people are no longer represented in our government. It is the corporate money that allows politicians to win the elections and that's what they care about most.
Politics is a dirty and complex game. The more I look at it the more I want to resign from the human race. At least with Bosnia we were stop
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA was signed into law by Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
There's a tax on blank CD media in Canada - passed by liberals.
You'd think the self-professed "smart people"* who vote for "smart candidates"** would realize this. But they don't, because they're nothing more than sheep being led to slaughter.
* who are actually just stupid liberals who have less intelligence than a mildly retarded squirrel
** dumbasses like John Kerry (C+!) and Al Gore (flunked out)
Re:What did you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
The original poster got modded troll but there is truth in it. The Democrats need the net crazies like Kos and Moveon. But they equally need the big sacks of filthy cash that they can raise from Hollywierd and drug addled rock stars. They are betting that dealing in the RIAA will bring in enough cold hard cash to offset the negative effects from some disgruntled netheads. After all, what are they going to do, vote for a Republican? They might donate less, but who cares when you have huge sacks of money and when the race gets serious does anyone really believe Kos & Co. won't be fired up and frothing at the mouth to destroy "Evil Republicans!"?
Same sort of cold calculation that makes both parties pay lots of lip service to core groups but dis em in their quest for the magical middle. Rove totally broke with that in '04 and by concentrating more on getting his base out pulled out a win, but 'everyone' realizes now that stategy is dangerous and probably won't work too many times.
So now we all go back to courting the 'middle.' And by middle it is generally understood we mean the clueless nitwits who know nothing about politics, policy, issues or any of that stuff. No, they want telegenic, charismatic people who talk in platitudes. So we on the road to getting an Empty Suit vs. a TV star.
Article is flamebait (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Article is flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Article is flamebait (Score:5, Funny)
01 Sept 39_____posted by: Adolf
Well, our tanks rolled into Poland today, and let me tell you, it went even better than I thought it would. Got a bunch of military stuff to handle tonight, so I can't post much for a few days, but it let me just say, I expect a lot more Vaterland and a lot less Juden, if you know what I mean
Permalink Comments(20)
Trackbacks(1)
Perhaps we should have given him Luxembourg too... posted at Peace with Honor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At least "left-wing" and "blogosphere" are in a quote from someone else...but the editor still chose to use those words.
Oh well, it wasn't exactly going to make me happy no matter how it was phrased, so maybe it's better this way!
Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a political party needing the general population to vote for me, but I'm going to have the most hated company by the general population represent my party by letting them running the show.
Lets just tattoo a giant "L" on their forehead...
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I would hope that there would be more democrats than republicans who would support consumer rights over corporate profits, I don't expect to see any progressive entertainment legislation anytime soon, if ever. There is just too much influence in our fourth branch of government to enact any meaningful change. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.
I hope I'm wrong... perhaps the people-powered, grassroots politics that is beginning to influence politics may eventually bear some fruit in that regard, but I am not getting my hopes up.
Thanks,
Mike
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one that notices when an anti-republican or anti-Bush article is posted, most of the replies focus on how evil Republicans/Bush/Rove are, but when an anti-democrat article is linked, the closest thing to criticism is "both parties suck!"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, as a bleeding heart liberal, I'll say it. The Democratic party sucks their own big donkey balls.
I'll take McCain, even though I disagree with him on several issues, over Hillary any day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't say that the results are quite what I hoped.
Me, I once ordered a pineapple and ham pizza and ended up raped by wild boars and left bleeding on a Pacific island to die.
I dunno, I guess yours was worse.
I'm getting jaded with gov't and politics... (Score:5, Insightful)
DNCC is just worried... (Score:2, Funny)
They plan on flooding p2p networks with podcasts that are just bogus loops during the convention.
Lincoln? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Shill? (Score:5, Interesting)
They didn't hire a shill. They just hired someone who used to work for the RIAA. Big deal. The Pope used to work for Hitler too, but it's not relevant work experience.
Re:Shill? (Score:5, Interesting)
Using that line of reasoning, one could then say the same about Cheney and Haliburton's past relationship when he became a part of the administration:
"He's not a Haliburton guy. He just used to work for them. Big Deal."
Your comment is actually not that uncommon. You will see similar comments whenever there's any hint that a person affiliated with a political organization has a less-than-acceptable prior 'relationship record'.
However, you'll see a lot more leniency when the comments are being made about someone in the democrat/leftist/liberal camp.
Now you understand the double standard that exists in general when reporting political relationships depending on which political party you're referring to at the time.
Not quite the same (Score:3, Informative)
Ummm, it's a little different. The director of communications for the RIAA is the chief marketroid, nothing more. If she wielded real power I'd imagine her title would at least be vice president. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, was the freakin' CEO of Halliburton. He was the proverbial
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Halliburton had won the LOGCAP contract with the government in 92, later on in the 90's they lost that contract; but Clinton in 97 went ahead and gave them no bid contracts for the Balkans even though they had lost their LOGCAP contract, nobody made a peep (in fact Clinton had even given Halliburton under Chenney an award). In 2001 the US LOGCAP contract is backup for renewal and Halliburton wins the contract again and everybody is fine
not to late (Score:5, Interesting)
you know the Lib party is pretty sound once you get past the "smoke pot" platform. and honestly I firmly believe that because they push that platform so hard is why nobody even thinks of jumping ship from republican or democrat to Libertarian.
I personally like their ideals and goals, and for the most part they do make sense in every aspect if you sit and listen to them.
too bad 90% of americans are baying sheep that are to cowardly to vote for a 3rd party.
Re:not to late (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing says "vote for us" like insulting 90% of the voting population!
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, simply get the low income and minorities to actually vote, that will overwhelm the fixing of the elections taht is going o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No harm done
Wait... What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, so you're advocating the libertarian party... and you don't even believe people have the right to use whatever recreational drugs they want?
It just seems like if you're going to be pro-personal freedom, the War on Drugs would be the first thing you'd want to get rid of, not the last.
Re:Wait... What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the poster's point was that a pro-drug stance shouldn't be the first thing to tout while on the stump. There are many more "pro-personal freedom" stances that are far more palatable to liberals and conservatives alike than "free the weed, dude".
ok, but (Score:3, Insightful)
But, there are few issues where "the evidence" is so compelling. I would wager that most people, when they answer honestly, realize weed is no "worse" than alcohol. But yet, the subject is never seriously debated and the same ol' War continues on. Do you realize we spend almost $40bil/yr fighting the drug war? That's a lot of people's paycheck.
The reason its such a hot-button issue is because the War on Drugs has probably had the largest impa
Re:not to late (Score:4, Insightful)
Example: calling people cowards is a conservative frame. Call them slaves instead - that's a libertarian frame. If you want a liberal frame, call them selfish bullies.
Party Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Small political parties are only devoid of corruption because they have no power yet. The conservatives swept into power in 1994 with the promise of reform -- look what happened. I guarantee the same corruption and shit will happen once the democrats are in power because this cycle is endless. Both sides are the same and we are on a giant merry-go-round with the same shit every time.
I think one of the best politicians recently was Jesse Ventura, and he ran as an Independent. Kept his word on many things and stepped out after 2 terms. Not a career politician by any means.
Contrast this with the average career politician willing to say anything publicly to get elected while toeing the party line while in office. Beholden to so many interests, its no wonder most suck.
If people ever started electing people without even looking at party affiliation, there would be no need for political parties. And a lot better job would get done. I would rather be for election reform if that meant that voting booths could just have the name of the person on the ticket, without party listed (do they list their every stance on issues in the booth too, I don't think so - this is a product of the 2 party system helping each other out - like they rig every other part of the electoral process). Then maybe people would be forced to look at who they are voting for rather than check it off all one party or another. Maybe then we'd getter better choices than between a douche and a turd.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And there is nothing wrong with handgun deregulation. You have a right to own one. Its the second most important amendment to the constitution. That some people misuse them for illegal activities is no reason to take my gun away from me.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets assume for a second that all guns were outlawed in the US and were no longer available. This guy would have found some other way to go on a killing spree - be it with a knife, some improvised weapon, or even a homemade bomb.
The whole argument about guns is purely an emotional one. There is no logic behind the anti-gun
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you're for Handgun Regulation? How do you suppose to keep people off your lawn if you are unarmed? You see, you claim to be against one thing, not realizing it is required to do the thing you do want.
Of course, when I do show up on your lawn, and throw a party, you are helpless to stop me, as I set my sights upon your house, wife and daughters (assuming your are a male).
And who is gonna protect you from abusive police powers, legal system run amok, and legislatures who writ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just Ask Howard Dean (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortumate choice (Score:2, Insightful)
a lot in the preparation and at the event and one would have to be naive to think she won't be lobbying for the RIAA.
The Democrats rightly
Re: (Score:2)
Acording to the RIAA they ARE a non profit, what with all the money they're losing from piracy and all..
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Thats one less (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is a surprise? (Score:4, Informative)
Secondly: the RIAA is everyone in power's best friend. Republicans love the big companies, Democrats love the film and rock stars, and both parties just absolutely adore lobbyists. They're like groupies only they give money.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"
- Bill Hicks
Follow the money (Score:3, Informative)
DRM loses my vote. Period. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bottom line, if the Dems go hard with DRM I will go with the independents and libertarians...regardless of whether this gives the Republicans an edge...I will not support a DRM friendly party that puts the rights of corporations over individual human rights. For Christ's sake Democrats are suppost the represent us...the people...corporate interests should always come second to any true Democrat in office.
I'll save you all a lot of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, do not believe that we, the voters are their constituents in the sense that they are beholden to our interests. This is not the case. They are beholden to those who can pressure them by providing or withholding money, usually (but not always) through lobbyists. If you are not represented in such a way to your government representatives, then you are not in any practical sense one of their constituents. Your vote was the single act in which you are able to influence the process. In principle, you can write to them once they are in office and attempt to sway them, but unless you are onboard with the money-providing players, or unless you are part of a massive broad-based campaign, you will be ignored and will receive a canned response.
I claim that the above is neither an opinion nor ideology, but an expression of practical facts. Please refute that claim.
Riiiiiight (Score:5, Insightful)
like there's a difference (Score:5, Insightful)
as for the media, et al., all those hollywood big wigs (like David Geffen), who love the RIAA. they are all HUGE democratic donors. connection? I guess not.
vote libertarian!!
First Order of Business is DNC Acronym Change? (Score:5, Funny)
Big Democrats are VERY Pro-Big Media (Score:5, Informative)
A while back, I complained to my Senator, Diane Feinstein about how the Broadcast flag would cut into time-shifting and other fair use rights, and that it was basically corporate welfare to preserve a flagging industry in the face of a changing environment. Here's the response I got:
Diane Feinstein is what I call a DINO - Democrat in Name Only. She's pro-drug war, pro big media, anti-consumer rights, and is a socially conservative fiscal liberal. Her and Joe Lieberman give progressives a bad name.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think the word "bitch" applies, though.
fuck em all. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is my strong belief that we need to abolish the two-party system as it stands. maybe if we stopped putting letters after people's names, the masses would listen to what they have to actually say, rather than what "side" they say they are on.
Fuck that. Fuck all of you who vote republican OR democrat.
What you have done to our country disgusts me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:When will people learn (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is, we haven't had a conservative government for decades. Conservatives want LESS government involvement, while the current neo-cons want to control every aspect of our lives. Democrats are often labeled as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If what you said was actually true we might actually have some distinctive candidates.
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:5, Informative)
It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States [wikipedia.org].
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
And exactly two of them have a chance in hell of actually being elected.
Voting against the worst-possible-outcome (i.e. a Republican being elected) isn't ideal, but it's the reality of American electoral politics for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, you control but a single, insignificant vote. What have you got to lose? We can't even count accurately enough for a single vote to be significant should a large election come down to it.
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for being part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, thanks for assuming that the trade-offs are worth it without any evidence. Even if I like the Prohibition Party (just to pick a rather unlikely candidate) more than the Democrats, that doesn't mean that it'd make sense for me to vote for them; it depends on exactly how much more I like them than the Democrats, how much more than the Republicans I like th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now it's not likely that we can (soon) remove that requirement. We can, however, start voting for these parties so that they can at least qualify for those dollars and have a chance at some publicity in the next election.
It's
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And exactly two of them have a chance in hell of actually being elected.
And THIS is exactly why it is imperative that single-option voting be banished from the U.S.A. There are a number of voting systems of interest, such as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) [wikipedia.org] and Condorcet [wikipedia.org]. In these systems, voters rank all candidates in order of preference instead of casting a single yes-vote for one candidate. In such a system, a voter never has to fear to vote their conscience because a despised candidate might win due to a fragmentation of the voter base.
Over time, this would enable viable thi
keep believing that.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been hearing the same shit for 40 years now -"don't waste your vote-don't vote for an independent or third party!"-it was wrong then and is still wrong, but the brainwashed parrots keep convincing themselves and other people to do the same thing over an
McCain? (Score:3, Insightful)
On a more serious note, Ron Paul [wikipedia.org] seems to be a good match if one really cares for liberty.
Re: (Score:3)
Because both of those guys are worse than worthless pieces of shit?
Seriously, all of you put down the McCain crack pipe and take a look at who he actually is.
He lost the primary in 2000 mostly because the Bush campaign spread rumors about him having a black baby.
Apart from what that shows about the deep seated hatred of liberty endemic to the Republican base that that would matter even if it
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look -- I'm fairly typical Democrat material. I'm not associated with any organized religion. I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm maybe even starting to think about conceding that universal healthcare might be a good idea. That said, any time someone simply shuts down and goes into an "us vs. them" mentality, it means they aren't seriously thinking about their opposition's viewpoint and perspecti
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States.
And until our voting system is completely overhauled, only two of them are electable. That's the reality of it. If you don't like it (and I don't), press your congresscritter for reform of our voting laws. Even then, why do they want to change the system that keeps them in power?
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
So only 2 parties are electable and neither will fix the problem. I submit to you that you must vote for an unelectable party in order to get things changed.
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope this doesn't turn me into a target for the army of Nader-Haters out there, but I voted for Nader in 2000 and I would do it again. (FWIW, I was registered in Washington state at the time, and given the (absurd) Electoral College system, my vote did not actually play into the final outcome of that election.) When Democrats tried to convince me I should vote with them, nobody ever tried to make the "we support those issues also" or "actual progress requires more compromise" arguments. All I ever heard was, in essence, "Yeah, but the Republicans are worse." That just seems pathetic.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh...No.
It's been going on 30 years that the Republicans tossed out their old platform. When they rejected Goldwater in favor of that death squad forming, crack dealing, biggest government supporting assclown Reagan.
The old Republican party died completely back in 1980 and it's done nothing but rot ever si
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
No thanks
How about considering some of the _other_ parties out there? Yeah, you may not win, but if you get enough seats guess who holds the balance of power?
Re:They suck, yeah. (Score:5, Interesting)
The democrats are just as much panderers to corporate interests and net stupidity as the republicans are. No more, no less. Both parties are drifting, and it's not right or left, it's just downhill.
Free speech is neither a right-wing nor a left-wing value. It's simply a value.
Re:I stopped reading (Score:5, Funny)
Way to stick it to the man.
Re:could this affect the /. crowd? (Score:5, Funny)
How many butterflies would I have to stomp on to keep that from happening?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Worst Company"? Hardly. Read here. (Score:4, Insightful)
The BULK? What bulk? Here are your points from your original post:
* The contest was between exactly two companies - Hallibutron and the RIAA. Those were your choices if you participated in this survey. The RIAA won by 3.8%. Wal-mart or none of the above were not choices.
* The 'survey' was done by The Consumerist. Sounds impressive, eh? Like The Economist magazine, perhaps? No, not really. It's basically some shitty blog. Hint: their web page currently has ads for 'Replica Rolex Watches Rolex, Cartier, Gucci, Brietling Only $189!!'
* So, this poll was a web poll. Hardly what we'd expect from a true 'Most hated company in America' type deal.
* See it for yourself here [consumerist.com].
So out of these four bullets, one simply states that this was a web poll, ok true, but not exactly insightful. The last point is not a point at all, just a link to your source. The first point you already admitted was wrong, leaving only your second point as anything that could fall under your term of "bulk" and I would hardly call a single valid point bulk by any stretch.
In addition the consumerist website is not some tiny fly-by-night blog, it's been around for a while and they are the slashdot of constomer service issues and are part of Gawker Media which handles other such blogs as Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Lifehacker just to name a few. While these may be niche blogs in that they have a sharp focus, they are by no means somebody's part time basement run website. In March 2007 the Consumerist received over 5 million visitors [gawker.com], and they have consistently had over 500,000 visitors per month for the past 12 months, and over 1 million visitors/month for the last 6.
As for the SINGLE advertisement you chose to judge the quality of the page, (ignoring other advertisers such as the prominent T-Mobile ad) the replica watch company is not selling counterfit goods, it sells replicas, clearly marked in both their URL and product page, so it is not an ad from a scammer. Also considering the nature of the consumerist blog, I would certainly think that they vet companies before accepting ads from them.
So in short, you overreacted and shot down a completely legitmate site which ran a survey over a period of weeks that reached a very large audience. Is it a scientific poll? No, but it's also not some two-bit blogger ranting about poll results culled from a handful of readers. Kudos on you for posting a semi-retraction but your "bulk" of remaining points is essential naught.