Slashdot Mirror
Don't Be Evil — Hire It Done
MarkusQ writes, "The NY Times among others is reporting that Google is ramping up its lobbying clout (registration or bugmenot required). The 'Don't be evil' search engine company has hired the infamous astroturfing and dirty tricks firm Direct Connect, Inc. You may remember DCI from their recent attempts to pass off their 'Penguin Army' video as a product of some lone wit, unconnected with their client, Exxon. Or their involvement in Microsoft's 'even dead voters love Microsoft' campaign. With a staff of veterans in the biz (such as Chris 'Swiftboat' LaCivita and Jim 'Electioneering' Tobin), led by Tom 'Big Tobacco on the Dole' Synhorst, I'm sure DCI will be able to give Google whatever they're paying them for. The question is, what are they paying them for? And does 'Don't be evil' imply 'Don't pay professionals to be evil for you?' Or could there possibly be a non-evil reason to hire these clowns?"
No can do...
This guy's the limit!
Perhaps Google is just trying to balance out their lobbying efforts?
When you start handing out money to both sides of the aisle, you can get better results.
IIRC, Google was mostly throwing money at Democratic party people.
P.S. here's the No-Reg Required RSS Link
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Corporations do shitty things to increase their profit margins! Shocking, I know! Come on, do people honestly believe that Google is some sort of sintly organization? Their goal - no, their legal responsibility - is to maximize the profit of their shareholders. Same as any other company. Get over them already.
Just because you hire a firm known to have pulled dirty tricks for dirty companies like Exxon and Microsoft doesn't mean that they'll necessarily pull dirty stuff on behalf of all their clients.
If pulling crap would make their client angry, they won't do it. Not to mention, that irrespective of "dirty tactics" the firm might be simply the best at getting the job done.
Don't imply that Google is or will be doing anything wrong with this company until some negative action is taken. This company will do what it takes to make their client happy. If "Do No Evil" is what makes Google happy, then they will do their job within the confines of that model.
Let's just wait and see.
Sugapablo
Wo, since when's kdawson a Slashdot editor? Anyhow, if he does half the job he did with TBTF, /.'s going to rock soon.
All the best, Keith!
--former TBTF reader
Go somewhere random
I just love how innovative companies like Google are forced to spend all this money on lobbyists just so Congress doesn't screw them over. Why isn't it all spent on making a better product? Because some people gave the government so much power beyond its strict Constitutional limits, which given enough time would mean lobbyists would be fighting over all that juicy government money and to shackle their competitors. "It's okay though, we can give the government all this power, we just have to, you know, limit the lobbyists!" YOU CAN'T. With that much money at stake, they will steamroll over whatever petty contributions limits and ethics rules you set up.
Companies can compete on the market, or in lobbying ability. Thanks, voters, for making the latter so ripe.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
And does 'Don't be evil' imply 'Don't pay professionals to be evil for you?'
Actually, some would even say that it implies that you "Don't fatten the coffers of companies that do do evil". Even if you aren't planning on using them for evil purposes. It's not like they are the only game in town and Google should have more than enough clout to pick someone who was, at the very least, less "evil".
But that just goes to show what I've said all along, Google is all about marketing and making money. "Don't do evil" was perhaps one of the best conceived marketing slogans ever for a tech company. They know their market very well. Some, like me, would consider their ad spreading technologically incremental search "core" evil in and of itself. How much better is my web using experience due to Google, well, other than Groups (which they purchased) and Map, not much.
Just wait, the "real" Google will slowly show their hand and then everyone will understand.
In the old model of computing, the nerds were sort of like priests who went into a special room in which the unwashed masses were not permitted, to go commune with God (the computer.) They therefore became a sort of priestly elite, honored for their special place in society. Of course, only certain societies really felt this way... But the nerd priest made way for the nerd expert, and while the grapes-on-divan factor is lower, it still keeps geeks in a position of some power. The masses still want to be told what to do, because humans are pack animals.
Thus, when someone wants to know how to find something on the web, they ask a geek. And up to now, the geeks have been telling them "use google!" But that can change any time, and begin the inexorable loss of market share to someone else.
I have a feeling that google is riding on a wave of hubris, and it puts them at risk of crashing on the rocks of reality. Or some other such metaphorical bullshit.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Machine Politics is about graft. You vote for me, I'll give you a job. You don't vote for me, I'll make sure we pass a law to put you out of business.
Google probably started talking to some politicians about Net Neutrality(or something else that effects their business) and the politician said "Huh? I can't hear you. Maybe you ought to drop my buddies at DCI some ka-ching to help fix my hearing problem."
See: K-Street Project
Washington DC has vastly increased in size in the past six years, and it's all been lobbyists, shills and political hacks. Lot's of people profiting at the tax payers expense.
Nuff Said....
RTFG - Read The F#$%ing Google!
The "it's all for the greater good" line sure wouldn't feel nice if you were the person who ended up tortured in some Chinese prison because Google gave up the contents of your gmail, or spreadsheet.
Anyway, I realize this post is coming off trolling, and I apologize, but I'm sick of the double standard vis-a-vis google vs. any other large company. Judging them by their actions, not their words, they are not significantly different these days than Microsoft (these days -- not necessarily MS's historical actions).
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
If Google didn't hire them, then there's every possibility that a competing interest would hire them instead. There's a lot of legislation bouncing around that affects Google directly and its users indirectly by weakening privacy laws. When the lynch mob is headed into town, you better hire gunslingers, not the local minister.
"Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey?"- Peter Gabriel
These guys and the politicians they work with are powerful enough to change the definition of "evil" itself. Just as the government does it with torture and terrorism (only evil when the other guy does it), the government can do it with whatever Google wants. Google wants to spy on users - simply pass legislation to redefine it as "good" not "evil" - and Google will be still doing no evil.
You would have to be a fool to try to take "high road" tactics with the US administration and congress. That's not a anti-republican jab, that's true no matter whose asses are in those seats. The game isn't played nicely there.
If we have to play dirty to protect net neutrality and the last semblances of online privacy - then we should get the dirtiest fuckers out there.
Sometimes the ends justify the means.
Us: "Really? Google? You guys are jumping on the guerilla marketing bandwagon?"
." (You know you love that movie)
::Searching for "google + DCI"::
Google: "Hey! Look over there! A unicorn!"
Us: "Where?"
Google: "Guess it was just a regular horse . .
Us:
Interweb: "404"
C'mon, you thought they'd only do it in China? I mean, they are doing this in an effort to gain the sympathies of our current regime...
And speaking of guerilla marketing, this article was disturbing:
Confessions of a guerilla marketer
"By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
Just because they do dirty tricks doesn't mean they are evil, they are just doing what they are hired for. If MS wants a voting ad thats what they will get, if Google wants something a lot tamer they can do that too.
They just hired someone to do it for them.
People at /. tend to mistake the prospect of being in power with being corrupted. The correlation% between the two is very high, but just because you have power or money does not mean you are evil.
I still think Google will be using their powers (or monies in congress) for good. It's ok to look to gain more power if it benefits others. Regardless of what the depressing "LOOK OUT!" books tell us, no one in history has managed to obtain that level of power, and keep it [if they had, we wouldn't be talking about this now]. I think Google may be the first company that sees not just the next several financial quarters, but the next several hundred. They're too smart to fall for the lock-your-customers-in-and-rape-them business method that is so popular now days. If you want to be a dictator, the people have to like you. If you want to remain dictator, people have to still like you and your policies. Regardless of what evil wants, it seems that it cannot have what it desires without some good. In this case, that good will be keeping us happy. I know this flies in the face of Huxley and BNW, but if we die happy, what gives?
...Naive Adult" campaign would be for the following types of people:
1. Anyone who believes "evil" can apply to a corporation?
and
2. Anyone who believes a company when they say they won't be evil?
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
This is a little disingenuous. Direct Connect is an astroturfing company; that's what their people are good at. They make things (like the Microsoft letters, or the Swiftboat ads, etc.) that are specifically designed to look like they are coming "from the people" when they in fact are not. While they have many ways of going about it, it seems to be the only service they provide.
If someone hires a high-priced specialist, it seems reasonable to assume that they want the specialist's services, doesn't it?
--MarkusQ
P.S. For the record, I like Google. A lot. I used it to dig up most the links in the story. But that doesn't mean that I blindly trust them and everyone who works for them, or want to possibly sit quietly by while some quislings pervert them from within. It is much easier to keep a basically honest company honest then to bring one back from the dark side once they've gone over.
Let's look at this question from a philosophy angle. Let's say Google is bent on doing good, or at the very least, committed to avoiding evil. If they then employ or otherwise use the services of someone, like a lobbying organization, with a history of doing evil, is Google doing evil?
There are two possibilities here. One is that the lobbying organization with a track record of evil does no evil while being payed by Google. The other is that the lobbying organization continues its standard practice of evil behavior while on the clock for Google.
In the first case, one could perhaps argue that paying someone who used to do evil that no longer does evil is giving them a new start, a chance to make things right. However if the lobbying organization doesn't do evil on behalf of Google, but still does evil on behalf of other clients, then one could argue that Google is supporting the evil-doer financially, even if it isn't contributing to evil directly.
Let's examine the second case. If the organization actually does commit evil directly while on the clock for Google, and Google is aware of it, then one would have a difficult time arguing that Google is not at least guilty of contributory evil.
Of course, none of this says what good or evil actually are. I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader.
Near the bottom it says "clowns" when it obviously was supposed to say "assclowns".
Probably just the start for them too.
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
It's 2006. If you still buy Google's "don't be evil" B.S., I have a rich friend in Nambia who wants to meet you.
Palatine: The Dark side of the force is a pathway to many abilities some considered to by unnatural.
...Anakin Googlewalker: Is it possible to learn this power?
Palpatine: Not from a Jedi, but only from a corporate PR/lobbyist Sith Lord.
Anakin Googlewalker: (shudder)
Given the lobbying firepower being deployed by the anti-net-neutrality side, if Google, usually portrayed as pro-neutrality, is serious about a pro-neutrality stance as something more than a quixotic PR stand, it needs the capacity to go toe-to-toe with the cable and telephone industries.
And that means you need people that are familiar with the broadest possible spectrum of lobbying tactics, capable of advising on how to counter them, and capable of deploying whatever tactics Google is willing to go with in response.
Anything less is bringing a knife to a gun fight.
The submission seems to say "Google may do something evil in the future, let's start the backlash now so it's over with".
Wake me up when there's something real.
I really fail to understand this irrational love affair some Slashdotters have with Google The Corporation.
Let me refresh your memory on some basic principles of large corporations:
Based on these rather basic points, people who believe corporate propaganda about "doing no evil" or "being ethical" can only be described as naive dolts. All of the corprate policies are a mere device put in place at any particular moment by the CEO for the sole purpose of making money and can be changed or revoked as soon as they become invonvenient or a more profitable way is found.
In other words: why won't you people wake up and realize that you are giving your trust and allegiance to someone else's way of making money? How brainwashed and inane can you get?
They ( in this case China is a different matter) haven't done evil yet. They paid money to a company. That company has done bad things, but hasn't done any for google yet. Maybe google is paying them to do good. If people paid thime to do good, they wouldn't have time to do bad. Sort of like methadone.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
I know it's not quite on topic, but I notice Google's new "for profit" philanthropy program hasn't been mentioned, and I thought it would've been a hot topic for this forum. I'm personally all for it; by changing the emphasis on a business model from "making money" to "helping people", you're doing a good thing, whether you make money on it or not.
(Shamelessly stolen from the Simpsons)
This is an interesting take on the issue. In submitting the story, I intentionally focused on the part I object to (DCI's long history of unethical conduct) and did not mention either party by name. But, as you point out, there seems to be a sad assumption underlying this story (and reflected in many of the news reports about it) -- that the only way to gain influence with the Republicans at present is through corruption.
Think about it...Google hires a corrupt astroturfing firm, and your immediate response is that they are trying to balance out their lobbying efforts--that the way to balance out giving to Democrats is to give to Slimeballs too. I'm not saying that you originated this take on it; it seems to be pretty much universal.
--MarkusQ
It's here: http://malfy.org/
This isn't about campaign contributions to parties, this is about hiring a company of professional astroturfers and generally dirty-tricks experts. You know, people who _are_ the evil kind that Google supposedly distanced itself from.
You can't balance _that_ like that, or not so easily. This isn't D&D. You can't say, basically, "oh, I've done 3 good deeds this month, for 4 'good' alignment points total, so I'm entitled to gut two orphans for 2 'evil' points each." RL doesn't work that way. Al Capone's kitchen soups, very good deeds as they may be, don't simply balance out that he was an evil psychopath the rest of the time.
But more importantly, Google's motto doesn't work that way. It says "do no evil", _not_ "keep the balance by doing as much evil as good stuff". So exactly how and what are they, in your opinion, balancing there? Surely not their motto and promise.
I don't care if it's for Google itself or for some political party or whatever. Evil is evil. Evil done to "balance" something else is still evil by any definition. And hiring evil people to do evil for you, is still doing evil.
We have a long history of laws and precedents, in both criminal and military justice, saying just that: you're personally responsible for the people you paid or commanded. We've had plenty of Mafia Dons trying to claim basically, "see, I never hurt a fly. It was my subordinates that shot people and threw people in lakes with cement shoes. But me? I never personally even slapped anyone." And society eventually decided that, no, it doesn't work your way. If _your_ goons did evil stuff, _you_ are responsible for that.
Or we had military commanders willing to claim basically, "nah, I never shot a civillian. It was my soldiers that shot and raped civillians. I was just standing there and watching them." And again, society decided that it doesn't work that way. If they're your subordinates, you're responsible for them. It's your duty to stop them if they do something evil.
So, ok, astroturfing isn't subject to criminal laws or anything, but from a moral standpoint it's the same thing: if Google pays to get action X done, Google is morally responsible for it. You can't claim the moral high ground by just paying others to do your evil stuff.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I am glad to actually get a comment before the masses of Slashdot jump on their new favorite villain Google.
But let's be honest. The "Don't be Evil" motto was made when Google was a startup of 50 or less people. Everything is based off an ideal in a startup because you want to change the world. In order to do that you need passionate and idealistic people. It was the same in the two startups I have worked for as well and it will be the same in my current startup. Nobody changes the world without some ideals. Nobody wants to work like crazy without a sense that you are going to be doing something profound, something worthy. Everybody wants to be a knight in shining armor. Maybe that is a bad side effect from the amount of RPG's good software developers play.
The unfortunate part of it is when you become a big corporation you are pulled in a lot of directions and sometimes the ideals you were founded on take a back-seat. This becomes especially true when you are publicly traded and have wall street to deal with. The fact is Google is now headed by more than just the two founders as a matter of fact I think they are probably just content to sit back and do what they do best develop new technologies. The actual Google is run by a bunch of savvy businessman who are there to leverage every single aspect of the company and a large part of that is lobbying.
Software patents - check
Using their user's information for competitive advantage - check
Being secretive about changes to their product - check
Being one of the most secretive but somehow comes across open and sharing company - check
I think it's time to take the "Don't be Evil" slogan for what it is, just clever marketing. There is simply nothing most of us can do. I am tied into Google probaby more than others and I don't care because if it wasn't them it would be somebody else who is analyzing my data, hosting my emails, storing my chat's, selling me viagra (oh wait not that last part).
Software Defined RFID - The Rifidi Emulator
..as long as you get them to do good stuff. Worked out great for the CIA and Osama afterall.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
It is very admirable that Google is attempting to bridge this divide but the effort is ultimately futile. Google has shown that when it gets down to the bottom line, it must choose profit (i.e. China).
Hiring this lobby firm is just what is necessary for business as usual in the good old USA capitalist system. You buy youself whatever laws you need to maximize your profit. I love Google just as much as the next person but to expect a corporation to not be evil is unrealistic.
The Economist (a pro-capitalist magazine) has some more information on this: http://www.economist.com/business/displayStory.cfm ?story_id=2647328
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
If taken at face value then "Do no evil" is an absolute that can not be achived, as there is no definition for evil itself.
For example is is Google evil for providing valuable services to computers when we know that the production process for computers is harmful to the evironment?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Dude, you are seriously killing the liberal buzz. Lay off, we were having fun...
"Don't Be Evil" was one of Google's many beta products. They worked out the kinks for the final release, entitled "Don't Always Be Evil, But Sometimes is OK", which was unveiled shortly after the IPO.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
Did somebody wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Seems a bit grouchy here...
What on earth does this have to do with anything?
Anyone who truly believes any corporate slogan is a fool.
You can wake up now. Google actually did something; they hired an astroturfing company.
They may not have known that's what it was; I'm still holding out hope that some new hire did this as his or her "career limiting move" and tomorrow we will here about them firing DCI without ever using their services. But they actually did it.
The point is, our best chance to act is now, before they go too far down that path. Although it may be hard to resist the dark side, it's a heck of a lot easier to resist than escape. And the best way to help someone resist is to turn the light on, bright. Going to sleep while your roommate looks over contract proposals from the devil (because nothing bad has actually happened yet) is not a survival trait.
--MarkusQ
"Don't be evil" went out the window the second they became billionaires.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Has anyone seen those "Net neutrality is evil!" commercials on TV? It's entirely possible that Google hired the company to fight back against the telcos and their ads against net neutrality.
Saying that the Penguin video must have been made for Exxon because they're a client of DCI is a rather tenuous connection. I think they have other clients-- and the fact the video was traced to a DCI employee still doesn't prove that it was an official company product.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Paladins can Detect Evil at will, an unlimited number of times per day, for free. If you want to be on the watch for evil or you have a mission statement of "Do No Evil" it really makes sense to have a Paladin around to check on things. Why Google doesn't already have a Paladin in their party yet, I have no idea.
And a ten foot pole, too. You should always have a ten foot pole in your party.
"Or could there possibly be a non-evil reason to hire these clowns?""
Keep your friends close; keep your enemies closer.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
It's hard not to be evil when you have shareholders (and a private party plane)
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1152227885"Direct threats require decisive action. " Dick Cheney
Wow, a completely fabricated bit of liberal FUD. How is this a story?
you cannot be afraid of getting dirty, because you opponents will not be Google has a lot of political battles on the horizon, net neutrality, gov demanding their records so forth. Best way to win is to have as many politicians as you can in your pocket Most likely they have learned, don't sit and wait till they come after you, rather head them off at the pass
The 'The have to maximize profits' line is because in theory they have to obey the will of their share holders, also known as owners. To do otherwise is a breach of their fuduciary (sp?) responsabilities. It is assumed that the reason for purchasing the stock was for profit, and thus the need to maximize profits. Of course if at the time of the sale of those stocks, the company was being very loud about their 'do no evil' policy, it is reasonable to assume that the share holders (owners of the company) purchased their stock with the express purpose of providing a service to humanity while doing no evil. To go directly against the will of the stock holders is what is cause for lawsuit, not the lack of maximizing profits. In fact there is likely a case to be made that if Google chooses to 'do evil', they have breached their fuduciary reponsibility and thus are liable for 'damages'.
Of course if we get to the point that the real reason for liability is forgotten and we, through precidence, decide that corporations must make profit at any cost, we will have then set up a situation where by definition, corporations are evil. That would be disasterous for our economy as moral people would only do business with sole proprietorships, and sole proprietorships have far less potential for growth. Not to mention that they also would require the concentration of wealth.
Obviously, he works for an astroturfer hired by Yahoo!
Bottom line is politics are dirty everywhere. Politics starts wars. Politics is a dishonest business no matter what society you live in. People that believe in the virtue of politians or their staffs are dangerously naive. It is about getting things done in ones interest. Google is buying the most effective and efficent way to do this. No different than any other business, NGO, non-profit, individual etc...does. I do it in my own business. Only with local officials. Lobby them, golf with them, remember big dates in their lives and boom, I get my permits, trade missions, etc...expedited. It is called getting things done. Google is doing this.
I realize I may be giving Google a giant benefit of the doubt, but here goes.
What if Google hired DCI and contractually bound them from taking on conflicting work but gave them nothing substantial to do? That would prevent the other side from hiring them, effectively taking them out of the equation.
I've heard of rich defendants hiring the 'big gun' prosecutor's firm for something piddly, thereby preventing the 'big gun' from being able to proscecute them due to conflict of interest.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
It isn't a matter of bringing balance to the Force, but real life is also not like Star Wars where once you start down the path of evil you can only ever do evil things. Even evil people can do some good now and then. It doesn't necessarily redeem them, but being evil doesn't mean an incapacity for doing good.
And in all practicality, if you're needing to counter dirty tricks, you need someone who knows them all.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
You imply that because the summary only gave evidence of Direct Connect's ties to Republican corrupton...that the author chose to not show evidence of Direct Connect's ties to Democratic corruption.
So, show me those ties. Show me how Democrats use evil companies like Direct Connect to further their goals.
Unless, of course, such ties don't exist and you're propping up a strawman...
Blar.
I don't know the particular people Google have hired to work for them. Most marketing firms do work they are paid to do -- it takes an awful lot of strength to go against that in a Capitalist world, especially when marketing is seen as the driving force behind sales and growth, and when continuous corporate growth is seen as so critical to success, e.g. by the stock market.
Live barefoot!
free engravings/woodcuts
Which was echoed by Sean Connery in the Untouchables.
One must strive when fighting monsters to ensure that he not become the monster himself.
I think that applies to if Google is going to hire astroturfing firms to try to influence congress. Appropriately enough I think a good reference to the old "ends justifying the means" argument can be made here as well.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Google is a multi-billion dollar tech-industry business, not a cute mom and pop shop. Get over it and don't put all your eggs in one basket.
And it should have been done LONG ago.
Lobbying, advertising and such are a WEAPON of political arena.
What do you do, when an agressor with evil intent attacks you, your family, your town, or your country ?
You DEFEND it.
With what ?
With WEAPONS goddammit.
Wheres the evil in that ?
Read radical news here
Would you still be critical if you find out they are working on getting net neturality law passed in congress? Or they are working to protect Google from government information request? I am all for the end justifies the mean, as long as end is a good end. In politics, you have to play dirty or you lose, so basically you have the option of furthering your (hopefully rightous) agenda by using some political tricks or let other people push their own agenda? All the rah rah hippie crap maybe have good intentions, but it takes some serious political hired gun to get anything done in this country.
The problem with the "don't be evil" motto is that it's too much like a "(no) vacancy" sign. All they have to do is drop the "don't" part.
If they'd made it "do good", that would have been harder to change. But now all they need is a little white out, maybe they were thinking ahead?
I just love how innovative companies like Google are forced to spend all this money on lobbyists just so Congress doesn't screw them over. Why isn't it all spent on making a better product? Because some people gave the government so much power beyond its strict Constitutional limits, which given enough time would mean lobbyists would be fighting over all that juicy government money and to shackle their competitors.
l ican-Contributor, the fact that Big, Giant Corporate Blood (and money) tastes the all the same to this Frankenstein, is, frankly, funny and ironic as hell.
The folks who gave Congress power to lean on Big, Gigantic Corporations like Google are the people who fear Big, Gigantic Corporations. According to my scorecard, that's usually been a Left-Wing plank. The folks who try to limit Congress's ability to make life miserable for Big, Gigantic Corporations like Google are usually depicted as Right-Wingers.
The inability of the Congress-Monster to discern between Democrat-leaning darling-of-the-latte-technorati-crowd Google and some EEEEEEvil-Big-Bellied-Energy-Oil-Mean-Nasty-Repub
Not as funny as that whole "Do No Evil" corporate motto, but still pretty funny.
I dig Google but Google is in transition. "Don't be evil" should probably be changed to "We do less evil than everyone else".
Why?
Google is a publicly traded company that's why and their only obligation is a return to their stockholders. If it means throwing money at both sides, they'll do it. If it means bowing to China, they'll do it. It's also why Apple should be using sweatshops to make their iPods.
And before you start screaming about that, there are places in the world where sweatshops would be welcome, like Niger.
Google and Apple are both cool(tm) but they aren't your buddy and they aren't your pal. They are publicly traded companies.
The Democrats don't outsource that, they do it in-house.
Why did the Democrat enter the cemetary?
To thank his voters.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
I'll have you know that I spend close to an hour writing the story submission, and pointedly looked for the most non-partisan links I could find. I specifically focused on their corporate activities (with the exception of the Tobin, who I included because of the criminal activity involved).
For the record, I am a Republican, and have been all my life. But I've been an American for even longer, so don't assume that that means I will blindly ignore this sort of thing either just because "Republicans" are doing it. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what color jersey you wear if you are acting to subvert our democracy.
For me, the issue here is simple: these people are good at only one thing, trying to manipulate our elected officials into thinking that they are doing our will when in fact they are not. I assume that their party affiliation is as flexible as their ethics, and don't put any more trust in it than it deserves.
--MarkusQ
Lift yourself up, lest ye be likened unto your enemies.
Blar.
Evil or not, these lobbyists are effective in making politicians do what they want. Traditionally, these pols have completely ignored nerds and computer enthusiasts, opting instead to pass stupid and impossible to enforce laws that limit everything from profanity on the Internet to streaming radio stations. So, I bet Google was sick of having no one on capital hill listen to its concerns about net neutrality. With DCI working for the good guys now, I bet congress starts listening.
This is akin to hiring thugs to stop the mob from busting up your shop. Sure, they're mindless thugs, but they know how the system works and can use it against the bad guys.
Don't Crease the Weasel!
With big competitors like Microsoft, Yahoo, and Ask, and little competitors all up and down the web, and telecomm companies threatening to charge them more because they have huge piles of cash, Google needs to fight as dirty as those who would do them in.
You don't bring a knife to a gun fight, and you don't hire "Up With People" to combat vampires.
My Heart Is A Flower
don't we as a society have better things to do than ferret out instances of hypocracy in every nook and cranny of public life? Is hypocracy really so awful? If a company strives to do good but sometimes fails at it, is that not better than to not strive at all?
Google has done a lot of good: free awesome search engine, all the tools, the advocacy of actual standards, etc. So their political efforts are dirty - hey, you know, welcome to politics.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Look, "don't be evil" or not, this is politics they're talking about. The game itself is evil and behaving ethically will only get you ripped apart. That's the game. Don't wanna be evil? Don't play politics and let an evil organization with bigger balls than you ruin your life. Binary choice.
Real saints don't exist. Life is shit, get over it.
Net Neutrality.
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
No. The ends do not justify the means. I happen to run linux on all my machines at the present (*sigh* my BSD box finally went the way netcraft always said it would), but none of my grandparents (all of whom are dead) ever did. If I found out that they were busy writing posthumous letters to our Senator, extolling the Tao of GNU, I'd be just as upset as if it was pro-Microsoft BS.
The people can and should speak for themselves. Letting paid shills shape our public policy is a recipe for disaster, even if we happen to agree with them on the issue of the moment.
--MarkusQ
What if Google is paying for not-lobbying?
Let's say you are trying to do good. But everytime you try to do good, some scumsucking lobbyists, who are very good at being scumsucking lobbyists, get in your way. How do you overcome that? Kill them? Can't do that, it's evil.
But, you could hire them and pay to send them on permanent vacation. Then the next time you try to do good, and Evil tries to hire scumsucking lobbyists, they can't, because they're in Tahiti. On Google-paid permanent vacation.
paintball
You can't possibly be a Republican.
The Republican party does not value someone like you. Virtually everytime a Candidate appears to be someone like you, the GOP pushes them to the side and or dumps them entirely from the party. Moral and ethical behavior is not a core value in the leadership of today's Republican Party. You can thank Tom "The Hammer" Delay and many similar 'leaders' in the GOP for that course change.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
1) I am not wacko. I consider politics, like religion, to be the playground of the small-minded and those who want wealth and power without the risk or merit.
2) I am agnostic and distrust religion and religion-like "think", like socialism and causes.
3) Hate monger? Where did I hate on that?
Look, both name-brand political parties have a history of corruption, but generally speaking, the most corrupt have been big-city Democrat machines: Chicago, Kansas City, DC, etc etc etc. That joke is an old, old joke about the original Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago, one that my dyed-in-the-union-made-wool straight-ticket-voting Democrat grandfather thought was funny as hell. Lighten up, Francis.
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
For me, the issue here is simple: these people are good at only one thing, trying to manipulate our elected officials into thinking that they are doing our will when in fact they are not.
You state in your posting above that there seems to be a sad assumption underlying this story (and reflected in many of the news reports about it) -- that the only way to gain influence with the Republicans at present is through corruption.
Apparantly you equate the legal practice of lobbying with the illegal one of corruption, such as kickbacks, hiring favors, passing legislation for campaign contributions, etc. Fine, I actually don't disagree with you - I think the whole practice is shameful - but we're talking about politicians here and our elected legislators do disagree with both of us - and the hiring of lobbyists and the lobbying of politicians is not considered corruption in our system of government - it's considered as the way things get done. I don't like it one damn bit either - but I don't accuse anyone who hires a lobbyist as subcontracting out their evil schema.
2) I am agnostic and distrust religion and religion-like "think", like socialism and causes.
You forgot to mention Libertarianism.
*Laugh* No, that would probably pay better. I actually work for a small software company that's having trouble making payroll this quarter, meaning there's no problem with my taking a little un-paid time to post stories to /. I just did it for the joy of seing my name up in pixels. Or my handle at least.
--MarkusQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8873hevAo4
Noone said that people can only do evil things once they start on a certain path, and I'm pretty sure that I had the example with Al Capone's soup kitchens in the message you answer to. So I'm not exactly sure where that came from, because it certainly didn't come from me.
The point is:
1. that Google's promise and motto is "do no evil". It's not "make up later if we do some evil stuff". I don't know if they'll do more good stuff later, maybe even make up for it, etc. It may even happen. But that's not the point. That's not what I was arguing. What they promised is to not do evil stuff in the first place. They better stick to that. I don't want them to make up for it later, I want them to not break it in the first place.
2. that simply paying to get some bad deed done doesn't absolve one of the moral responsibility for it.
If I were to go and get someone beat up, it doesn't matter if I do it personally or if I hire a pro to beat him up. If it's my decision, I fully bear the blame and the responsibility for it. At least from a moral perspective, I wouldn't be able to claim the moral high ground just because I paid someone to do it.
And the same applies to Google. "Do no evil" does include "don't pay others to do evil." You can't claim the moral high ground by just paying a pro to do your astroturfing.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Either you work for DCi or you have been completely blinded by your irrational love for Google. Either way, you are not particularly interesting or insightful.
IF I HAD MOD POINTS I WOULD MOD YOU A TROLL.
Thanks,
-Slashdot Community
No, but I hold DCI responsible for the illegal activities (forgery, electioneering, fraud, money laundering etc.) that they have done, as well as for the possibly legal but clearly unethical stuff (e.g. the penguin movie and the spam). I'd have little or no objection to them if all they did was lobby, straight up and honestly. But that's not what they do.
--MarkusQ
P.S. I also note that DCI has been tied up in some of the crimes you mention as well.
How is that even possible?
Having seen some of those commercials sponsored by the telecoms denouncing Net Neutrality, I'd say they're planning a counterattack. Who better to help Google respond to intelligence-insulting, logic-reversing mumbo-jumbo astroturf scare tactics than the people who perpetrate such filth?
I still can't believe how they're trying to spin an evil attempt by massive corporations to charge consumers more money for the same level of service... as an attempt to save consumers from an evil attempt by massive corporations to charge consumers more money for the same level of service. It makes me want to take a shower just thinking about it.
The question is, if they use their power for good, is it still evil? I think we'll just have to see what they do....
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
1) With the whole "net neutrality" issue having emerged, the survival of every large (and small) Internet-base corporations is in the hands of the US Congress.
2) The US Congress is in the hands of witless cowards.
3) Those witless cowards are in the hands of the professional lobbyists.
4) The most effective tool of professional lobbyists, is to either incite the masses to make a lot of noise, or at least cause the appearance that the masses are making a lot of noise, to scare the witess cowards into action.
Of course, it's not just DCI; the Democratic lobbyists have been doing this for years by hiring people to attend protests, etc. So the whole system is rediculous, but if Google wants to survive they have to play it. As for whether the whole "astroturfing" thing is evil... I guess the question is, is it evil to advertise pseudonomynously? I would say, of course not. There are a lot of good and valid reasons to publish a persuasive opinion under a pseudonym. For example, if you're Microsoft or Exxon, maybe you want people to consider the merits of your argument, and not prejudge it based on their preconception that you (Microsoft or Exxon) are intrinsically wrong and evil.
Excellent pun!
I can just picture some lobbyist showing up at Ted Kennedy's office with a plate of freshly baked cookies and a crayon drawn thank you card from the kids at the orphanage. My sides are splitting!
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Er, wait, DCI have gone from making dumb home movies to fraud?? Can you actually prove the company has been involved in money laundering, fraud and electioneering? Because if you can it seems to me you should be doing something about it rather than posting it to Slashdot ...
It wasn't always that way. I keep hoping that someday it will change back. Of course, the first step is for those of us who still remember what values look like (not the word "values" printed on a campaign button, but actual values) to become a million little hammers, pushing back on the slime buckets that hijacked our party, making it increasingly uncomfortable for them to stay. There are certainly enough of us, though you wouldn't know it from the antics of our party's leaders and their morally bankrupt cheerleading squads. (Who knows, maybe they'll get sick of us and go join the Green Party.)
--MarkusQ
I'm so glad I started reading "Atlas Shrugged" since the book is about this very topic. In the book, a nice benevolent guy runs a steel company that just wants to make better steel, and make a profit at the same time. But because his company didn't hire a "Washington man" the company starts becoming subject to stupid regulations and roadblocks since his competition spends more time lobbying than innovating.
:-)
I don't know how the book ends. So don't spoil it for me, but it seems like this story is true to real life. If Google doesn't hire a "Washington Man" then, they will get beaten. It doesn't matter if they improve the world, create jobs, do good, and make a profit at the same time. If they topple somebody else's stagnating empire, then they must be stopped. And in today's oligarchy this is the only way to do it. This whole thing sounds just like the RIAA.
I'm not sure if I would rather Google die honorably, or live with a poisoned heart. But I can guarantee you the stock holders have a definite opinion.
And yes, I realize that this post gets an automatic "-1, Ann Rand"
You can't possibly be a Member of the American Political System. The American Political System does not value someone like you. Virtually everytime a Candidate appears to be someone like you, the American Political System pushes them to the side and or dumps them entirely from the American Political System. Moral and ethical behavior is not a core value in the leadership of today's American Political System. You can thank Tom "The Hammer" Delay and many similar 'leaders' in the American Political System for staying the course that has been set for the last 150 years.
I fixed that for you.
I consider politics, like religion, to be the playground of the small-minded
When large-minded people ignore politics, politics - which affects life on many, many levels, from labor laws to healthcare to the quality of food we eat and what entertainment is open to us - is of necessity run by the small-minded. Open your mind just a little further and get out on the playground!
You want to tell me that poloticians are corrupt bastards? I'm right there next to you. When a party is singled out, that's just stupid...
... I don't think it matters wether it's (R) or (D), but maybe that's just me?
Search "political corruption" (Google) and you get "Results 1 - 10 of about 28,000,000"
He probably meant "adult" life. You know, as in voting age?
That's just silly. That Google has hired them doesn't preclude a competing interest from hiring them anyway.
What? You think astroturfing scum are above talking money from both sides?
Assuming you were conceived a Republican and given that American life is not sanctioned until born, then it stands to reason that you were a Republican longer than you were an American. Further, it would seem you lied to us in your post! Par for the course, good going REPUBLICAN! [j/k - a little]
If that's actually the case, what he wrote and what he meant are two entirely different things. I was a political moderate (fiscal conservative, but socially more left-leaning) long before I could vote, and remain so to this day, over a decade later. However, I wouldn't claim that I've been that way "all my life," because that's just silly.
Hiring a lobbying company to convince people of your position is only evil if your position is evil. If you hired this lobbying company to convince americans to give more aid to the third world it most certainly would not be evil.
Hell I don't even think outright lying in a good cause would be evil. If it was just too hard to explain network neutrality to the public and you had to tell a small lie in your PR to convince them it was bad I'm totally okay with it. Since we don't even have reason to believe google is having this company lie for them I see no reason to lambast them.
Ultimately hiring this firm is only evil if you are using it's powers for evil. So unless you ahve reason to believe that google is trying to take away our freedoms or other evil aims there is no reason to critisize them.
Also it is kinda absurd to critique a lobbying/PR firm for representing tobacco or other notorious clients. It's like calling a lawyer a bad person for defending a murderer. This is their job and it is important that everyone be able to get their side of the story out. Though for a long while big tobacco horribly misled and lied to us now the opposite is happening and it is being unfairly bashed in the media (for instance claims that it costs states tons of dollars. It doesn't it, and may actually reduce medical costs to the state by killing people early). Besides if you were going to hire a PR firm wouldn't you want the one who could shape people's opinions about the most notorious companies in the nation?
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Google: I cannot kill my friend. (turns to lobbyist) Kill my friend.
I kid, I kid. As somebody else said, if Google is hiring these guys to help win the fight for net neutrality, and to help make sure the government can't force them to "do evil", then I wouldn't call hiring them "doing evil".
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
just curious...
...fighting evil with evil? That wouldnt be so evil. Lets wait and see what their up to
For the record, I am a Republican, and have been all my life. But I've been an American for even longer, so don't assume that that means I will blindly ignore this sort of thing either just because "Republicans" are doing it. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter what color jersey you wear if you are acting to subvert our democracy.
If you're still a Republican at this point, then *you* by your support of these scum *are* acting to subvert our Democracy. Unless you're over 40, then given that you've been a Republican "all your life", you have always stood for exactly this sort of subversion of our Democracy.
Wake up and take some responsibility for your actions.
All that torture and murder based on lies and fear mongering? That's *your* fault.
Be a man, step up and have an ounce of personal responsibility.
Oh right, you're a Republican personal responsibility is like kryptonite to you.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
--Friedrich Nietzsche
Sorry, since when was some mundane decision GOOG took which was reported back in March News?
Sortof like when you buy a steak at the grocery store, you're contributing to the economics of killing a cow. Not that particular cow - it's already dead. But you just paid for some grain for the next cow.
What if you don't buy steak, but instead buy all of the cows?
paintball
Evil Clowns are cool.
Thank you for article. In spite of all those who love to use the "they all do it" line remember that Google gained much of it's popularity by saying the opposite and wanting to be somehow different and more culpable for it's actions. Live by the sword die by the sword. Instead of arguing minutia I prefer to say it is no secret that this group has done much to provide other than truth. For those who admire dirty tricks and public manipulation this is welcome news, a victory for their "better than you because we win" view of life. I prefer to do the right thing than win at all costs.
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude greater than
the animating contest for freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen."
-- Samuel Adams
"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
-- Samuel Adams
Thank you.
Hmm... First I hear about Google's new philanthropic venutre, Google.org and now I hear about them hiring DCI. I can't help but think they're connected, especially since Google.org is going to be a "for-profit" venture which gives them less restrictions in the lobbying arena.
Re: "I am a Republican, and have been all my life. But I've been an American for even longer" - now how does that work? Past life expereinces in which you were an American perhaps, of are you counting womb-time as part of the time you have been American? And how can someone be Ruplican all of their life -- implies that there was no decision and that the badge of Republican was accepted, blindly, at birth....?
Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
And again, society decided that it doesn't work that way. If they're your subordinates, you're responsible for them. It's your duty to stop them if they do something evil.
Let me introduce you to my little friend here...
His name is Moral Relativism
And he is alive and well and has been since the dawn of man.
So what is evil?
What me might consider ok or even good in our society might be the bane of all forbidden sins known to someone else's.
You know... Like cartoons of a particular religious figure or killing cows or even saying bad things about the founder of your nation.
However, not only does this digression happen between societies it also can happen interpersonal.
As in... You kill a man and your neighbor is angry because he was his nation's hero and was father of 3, but others applaud you because the man had caused your nation death and destruction.
The truth (if such a thing exists) is that there is no such thing as true evil or true good.
Of course you can be really nice to people or an extreme asshole, but one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
It just so happens that society changes its mind.
If we were living in the 1950's and happen to live in the deep south in the USA and you were born and raised there and held common view with your society then chances are you would agree with segration. Same with Slavery if you were born in the South in the 1840's.
Today we see these things as "evil" so I wouldn't be suprised if someone we see as evil today is not so evil in the future. And maybe we'll have some societal change where something we see as good today will be evil in the future.
Therin lies the problem with good and evil. There are no methods for true definition that do not change.
Sorry for the rant... I hope it wasn't evil of me.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
ha! right tool... I kill me. Cough sorry.
Anyway. IMHO I think all of the grief the Dick Bushwaker administration has given Google has come full circle. Google decided to yank the stick out of the republicans hands and are positioning to give some blows back. The originator couldn't have dropped a better trail of crumbs.
Next time please use whole grains. I'm getting tubby.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
I've heard of "die hard" Republicans, but that's stretching it too far.
While anybody is watching... oops, now they're watching...
If I were an evil corporation, would I admit it?
Would I shout from the rooftops: "behold, I am evil!"?
Or would I try as hard as I can to strengthen the perception of being non-evil?
Draw your own conclusions.
Who do you want to win, Google or the telcos? There is no room in this government for Do No Evil, money and lobbying carry the day. If Google is to survive and maintain the position they are in they need to use every tool in their arsenal that money can buy. You can bet the telcos and Goggle's competitors are. Right, wrong and long term technological progress mean nothing, money and lobbying is all.
Look around at the examples, Microsoft, RIAA, defense contracts, etc.
I say go for it Google, it's a dirty war and I wish you the best. I will be happy to gripe about some things Google does, but not this.
We're talking Swift Boat Vets, McCain 2000 push-polling smear, good friends with Rove and PFA.
Here's some links, you lazy bastard.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=DCI_Gr
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Sy
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408260008
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/001250.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCI_Group
Obi-Wan Slashnobi: You were the Chosen One! You were supposed to destroy the Evil, not join them! You were supposed to bring balance to the force, not leave it in darkness!
I8-D
*sigh* And after all the trouble I went to to provide links. This isn't some "gosh I think they may have done it" speculation. Tobin, for example, is presumably telecommuting from prison at this very moment, since he started his ten month sentence in May. And the other charges are likewise documented in the links I provided. At this point there's no reason for me to tell the authorities anything because they already know.
--MarkusQ
They're both corrupt. Both parties look out for their own interest above the common interest. Just because you agree more with a certain ideology does not mean that you should believe that the political party claiming to also hold that ideology has any moral advantage over the other. To believe that is stupid and blind. Agree more with one party, fine, but don't fool yourself into believing that they are any less corrupt than the other.
Slashdot: You will never find a more wretched hive of spam and zealotry. We must be cautious.
Maybe they are buying up all of their time so that they don't do any work for anyone else?
If they did this long enough, their talents would become stale and thus ineffective, OR if they did this during crucial times (like a month before a national election) they could stem the tide of misinformation?
I'm not defending DCI Group. The question here is not whether DCI Group is evil (which they are), but whether Google is manifestly planning to do evil through a third party by hiring DCI Group.
Entirely separate questions.
As to the Force, it was an advance alluding to my comparison to Star Wars. You analogized to D&D, I wanted to call up a different analogy. (And I always thought since Episode One that the talk of Anakin bringing "balance to the Force" pretty much was saying, with post-Episode 4 hindsight, "We've got it too good; we need someone evil to fight against.")
You shouldn't think that every response must derive solely from the points made in its antecedent posts or their posters. No one person gets to predetermine how each thread branches.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
...performed a true service for the American voters, showing Kerry to be something much less than the unalloyed war hero he was presenting himself as. If you run for President as "Mr. Viet Nam" you'd better have the service record to back it up.
Google reports 1150m at the top.
Vivisimo reports 588
and http://www.nashville.gov/finance/cafr99/a18_21.ht
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Not meeting the enemy's challenge would result in loss of all what are revered.
Read radical news here
Who's society is this guy in?
Based on the description of DCI, I'm not sure Chuckles would appreciate the association.
Truth, Justice. Or the American Way.
Sounds like you are one of the few remaining real Republicans. And I mean this as a compiment, as a former Democrat, who is now furious at all the bs that is going on. It's 3rd party now. I know my history, and the equivilant of the Bull Moose Party is desperately needed today. I have had it!
Your rebuttal chock full of internal inconsistencies; for example, when the subject is the officers who awarded Kerry his medals we're to assume that they "simply signed a document placed in front of them" but for the modified affidavits that the vets signed thirty years later, we're to assume that they carefully read them and agreed with any changes since "there is no legal requirement that one write the statement that one signs - only that one make an attempt to understand and agree before signing."
Or when the issue is DCI's involvement, on the one hand we are supposed to focus on the vets and not the company they hired (because it's the client that matters) but on the other hand, when the subject is who paid for the ads, we're supposed to ignore who paid for it because...it doesn't matter who the client was?
But the key problem here is that you are pointedly inverting the sequence of events. The vets didn't hire DCI, and then go looking for republican donors to pay for their ads. The republican donors hired DCI who (as part of the astroturfing campaign they were hired to perform) paid private investigators to search for vets who would be willing to participate in a smear job on Kerry's record. Then, based on what they were able to come up with, they put together the ads and started a program to create a "controversy" (which the Democrats stupidly went along with) so that they ads could get the maximum amount of free coverage. It was a very professionally put together PR campaign, and the vets were nothing more than props, added to make it look like it was coming from the grass roots.
That's the whole point of astroturfing in the first place.
--MarkusQ
Second, Being a republican does nothing to subvert democracy. Simple association with an organization doesn't mean you are automaticly supporting the finge or worst things someone in that organization has done.
Given that the criminal immoral actions are coming from the top, describing them as "fringe" is totally dishonest and/or insane.
Further, it's not "simple association" I'm talking about. Republican voters chose to put those people in power. Their support is all that is keeping them out of prison or away from execution for their crimes.
That's not "simple association", it's active collusion, it's cowardice, and it's treason.
Seeing that you are a liberal, probably vote democrate, I can see your frustration, Your party has lost some big races in the past few years
Typical of the inherently deeply dishonest approach spearheaded by your ilk.
"Durrrrrrrrr... if you disagree with torturing and murdering innocent people you must be a Democrat".
I deeply dislike the Democrats as well. That doesn't change the fact that the current Republicans are treasonous murdering torturing scum. All it takes is integrity to notice that, not a Democratic voter card.
But I wouldn 't call you a pedifile because NAMBLA purports to be a democaratic supporter and tends to contribute to democrate campains. Or because thier news letters often have interviews with democratic legislators about pending laws that effect sexual offenders (mark leno is a recent one) and how they opose the evil republicans.
But if I actively worked to give massive power to pedophiles and then ignorantly defended their pedophilic actions against all sense and decency as well as paying them to rape children, then that's a different issue. In fact it's the same core issue we're discussing minus the particulars of the crimes, so try to keep on topic and leave the red herrings and straw men at home.
What torture and murder?
You're an idiot. Bush has even admitted to the torture camps. Your new talking point is "torture is good it keeps the evil terrorists at bay". Seriously, keep up. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
It definatly isn't my fault and I voted republican last election. I did so because the democrates and one green party official that ran were worse then the republicans I had to choose from.
Yes, it absolutely is your fault. You voted for a known criminal traitor thereby allowing his crimes to continue and accelerate. It's called personal responsibility. Look into it.
The idea that any of the candidated would have been worse than Bush could only be held by a fool at this point.
The simple fact that the president and the congress are from the same party proves that one absolutely regardless of the people involved.
Look at Bush's unbroken record of incompetence proves it as well.
Wake up Sparky.
How could any of the other candidates possibly have been worse?
Hell, you knew full well how bad Bush was after the first term, so even crazy ignorance isn't an excuse.
Picking the lessor of twp evils seems to be the norm in elections nowadays.
And you're a miserable failure at even that.
This reminds me of clinton's term in office.
Delusional frothing Republican hate campaigns? Sure, just because they're in power doesn't mean they'll give up that tactic.
"If you want to be a dictator, the people have to like you." Ever read the Prince by Machiavelli? He argues that a dictator should actually prefer being feared than loved.
How dare you. Do you suppose that just because I don't blindly support my party and every crook that decides to cloak his perfidy under its mantel I must be lying? That the very fact that I care more about principles than I do about party affiliation means I'm not really a Republican? For your information, it galls me a hundred times more when Republicans lie, cheat and steal because they are dragging my honour in the gutter when they do it. But gauging from the tone of your post such concepts probably don't mean that much to you.
Odds are, I was voting for the Grand Old Party before you were out of diapers. And it's the sort of smear anyone you disagree with, win at all costs attitudes, from Nixon on down to people like you that have made the party what it is today. You do realize that the two main points of your post "He refuses to turn a blind to curruption, so he must not be a Republican" and "Voter shouldn't feel responsible for the people they put in office, or try to hold them accountable" are anathema to what used to be considered core Republican values--or even American values--for most of our nations history, don't you?
Where exactly do you think this new age "Morals are for suckers, tee hee!" form of civic pride is going to get you, anyway?
--MarkusQ
n/t
No answers, just more perjoratives. Figures.
Why did the Republican enter the cemetary?
He didn't. He couldn't face the people he sent there, even in death, because he was a coward.
I am comfortably over forty, thank you. And I vote for the best candidate, regardless of their party.
Why in the heck do you think I'm sitting here at my keyboard, trying to educate my fellow Americans, when it is a beautiful day out and I own a hammock? Why do you suppose I took the time to dig up all the links, submit the story in the first place, and then reply to as many of the comments as I could?
Ah, so all the Democrats stood with Murtha? Backed Finegold? Filibustered every stupid move that this administration made, sacrificing their careers for the good of the country?
I guess I missed that.
See above.
Grow up. There are millions of good and honest Republicans in this country. And there are millions of good and honest Democrats. Ignoring the dog catchers and such, we can count ourselves lucky if more than a few hundred of them are holding public office at the moment. The higher you go, the worse it gets.
And you will never fix this by punching the guy who happens to be next to you, just because he has a different color jersey than you do.
I'm assuming you're a Democrat, right? So rather than taking cheap shots at me, why don't you go rout out the bad apples in your party. Demand that the cowards step up to the plate instead of letting slide every time the forget and leave their spine at home. Vote in the primaries, for gods sake. For my part, I'll keep hammering on my own side, and maybe some day we can get back to having a real debate about who we want up there solving our problems instead of who we want up there causing them. I'll bet there are some good, hard working, honest Democrats out there, who are getting the tar beat out of them by the DLC and their corporate pals, or who have grown so gun shy that they start apologizing before the Republican noise machine has even warmed up. Why don't you go give them a hand instead of making snide remarks at people who, so far as I can tell, want the roughly same things you do?
It's just a thought.
--MarkusQ
dammit! all the super top secret information i have sent through their servers!
What I'm assuming is that if a company offer _only_ various kinds of astroturfing services, then that says something about the interntions of whoever hires them. I don't know, and frankly don't care, if they'll do something good in the future. What they do here and now, the _only_ thing they offer, the _only_ thing that they ever proved, is highly unethical stuff. And that kinda gives a hint into the intentions of whoever hired them.
You can assume that if I hire an highly expensive assassin, maybe I really want a gardener, or maybe I just want a bodyguard. Because that's what all the "maybe Google hired them for something good" arguments boil down to. But that's not how the RL tends to work. If I need a good gardener, I hire someone whose credentials say just that: gardening. If I need a good bodyguard, I go to someone or to an agency specializing in that. If, of all possible people and credentials, I chose to hire someone whose only credentials are being a hitman expert, that should at least make you wonder. There's a damn good probability there that that's what I'm actually looking for.
And the same applies to Google. Sure, we can speculate that maybe they only wanted a honest to God PR campaign (as if such thing even exists), or maybe they wanted a marketting expert, or maybe they just wanted legal counsel, or whatever. In a purely theoretical world, that may even be possible, but in the real world that's not how it tends to work. In the real world, if you want a normal PR campaign, you go to some agency whose credentials and portfolio say they're PR experts. If you want honest marketting, you go to an agency which already proved its skill in honest marketting. If you want legal advice, you go to a lawyer company with a good reputation in that field. Etc. You don't go to someone whose _only_ credentials are astroturfing, and hope that they, incidentally, are secretly even better in an unrelated domain.
And if someone hires someone whose only credentials say "expert astroturfer", I don't know, it should make you at least wonder. Because regardless of theoretical possibilities, in the real world there's a damn good probability that that's exactly what they're looking for.
The argument that it's just for defense doesn't hold much water either. Defense, how?
By recognizing an astroturfing campaign? That's pretty easy to spot on your own, if you're the leading search engine and suddenly a lot of supposedly normal people start swearing loudly that MSN is the best and only.
By fighting astroturfing with astroturfing? As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye will just make everyone blind." Fighting evil with evil does not a moral high ground make. Fighting terrorists by indiscriminate terror just makes one a terrorist too. Fighting a gangster with gangster tactics (intimidating civilians, extortion, cement shoe executions, etc) just makes one another gangster too. Fighting a liar by saturating everyone with one's own lies, just makes one a liar too. And fighting astroturfing by doing one's own astroturfing only makes one just another astroturfer.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It seems that Google has gotten more attention for doing rather minor things just because they have the motto "Don't be evil". Google really does a good job of not being evil. Look at it this way. Google's summer of code has tremendously helped both new programers and FOSS alike. They helped several linux projects (famously for doing so with Ubuntu) along. They ported Google earth to linux. They ported picasa and helped Wine out a lot. They support the open Jabber protocol. They help Gaim. They have several webified apps. They support Firefox and ported their toolbar to Linux. They have encouraged the use of nonobnoxious text ads. They clearly disclose privacy information. They even fought with the government over disclosing this information (for those of you who are obsesivly parinoid, I though I would mention that). They have been a famous example of the power of Linux in buisness. Even their deals with China aren't evil. What do you think China would have done if Google refused to compromise. Would they have been like "OMG we much change to suit Google" or could they possibly have just said, "Hell, screw Google, just block em"? At least they get some information throught Google and MSN and Yahoo sure as hell did it too. WHat "evil" have they done? They hired a questionable company? So what? Guess what they are probably doing with this lobbying firm? They are probably fighting for net neutrality with this firm.
The Gospel according to lolcat
We don't have a democracy, we have a Constitutional-Republic with a democratically represented government.
Libertas in infinitum
That's right... big business LIKES big government. Why?
Because big government can legislate and regulate IN FAVOR of big business! If the government were small and limited, they wouldn't have the ability to make laws in or against anyone's favor.
I am a Constitutional Conservative, but I am also a libertarian. The government that governs least, governs best!
Libertas in infinitum
Grow your own @ePluribUs Media.
Please note that the troll I was replying to above appears to have been removed/demoted.
The "you are full of shit" and the agravated tone of my post were aimed at the post I was responding to, not the post which now appears to be it's parent.
--MarkusQ
If most politicians are corrupt, and Republicans hold the majority in Congress, then it's safe to assume that the Republicans are more corrupt than the Democrats currently because there are more of them. It's logical. Once Dems get majority again, they'll be the more corrupt.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Do know evil.
Don't go to a brothel if you want to buy broth
Google turned into an evil company roughly three years ago. Now they're just evil and hypocritical, like most big companies. They still have a fairly good search engine, but the veneer has long since worn off.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I've read your other posts, so believe me when I say I'm not just trying to be a dick. It's just that I believe that choosing between "the lesser of two evils" is a very short sighted option. You should ask yourself two questions: Why are my options so limited? and what can be done to improve my options in the future?
I'd just like to say Thank you! for your efforts. :)
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
...would it be evil to hire Hitler to help the trains run on time?
I mean, did Hitler have two bank accounts, one for "profits from Evil" and the other for "profits from Good", and promise not to use the latter's pot to embiggen(tm) the former?
Did China's government promise not to use Google's technology to help repress its citizens? How many Benjamins of sold stock will you need to wipe your hands clean of human blood and suffering this year, Sergei? Or are you just following your motherland's example?
And what do you offer the world? Prior art, dishonestly marketed; the buying out of naive academics to work on trivial services, stagnating innovation; a get-rich-quick scheme for domain kiters and scrapers. Even your proto-cult of personality and reality distortion field are a pale imitation of Jobs', though they function adequately on an angst-ridden Godless male youth yearning for earthly heroes.
Google, welcome to your first step in the journey to figurehead of 21st century corporatism: like an epidemic, your astroturfers will identify sufficient susceptibles to promote the view that Google is another unelected body acting pro bono publico. Behold another Kingdom of Good Intentions, and its zealot-poodles.
Here is my space.
The only way to be completley non-evil in politics is to completley avoid politics. The name of the game is compromise, and that means sometime you have to piss off some of your friends.
A corporation the size of Google cannot completley avoid politics, because politians are drawn to money and fame like moths to a flame, so they have to play the game.
The least evil way to spend your money is to give it to people who support your causes and to ignore your detractors. You don't try to influence anyone, you simply try to keep those in power that agree with you and try to put in power people who oppose people who disagree with you. No quid-pro-quo, but it can accomplish the same thing over the long run. Leave actual influencing with the grassroots where it belongs.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
I can recall voting for quite a few Libertarians and Independents over the years, and at least one Green (I wasn't fond of his positions, but his opponent was a known crook--I'd rather an honest person I disagree with than a crook who tells me what I want to hear).
When Cobb and Badnark were arrested at the debates, I publicized the issue every chance I could, called and wrote letters to various officials, and gave to both of their campaigns.
I'm also a vocal advocate of alternative voting systems.
If you have any other ideas of what I should do, let me know.
--MarkusQ
First, i'm not aware of anything that has been done by by "all the people at the top" that is criminal. Imoral probably just as with past democratic leaders but nothing criminal. Now we did get a slanted rulling on the domestic wire taping of foreign terror suspects from a judge that even the oposition claims should have removed herself from the case before issueing a rulling that led even the oposition to question not only the motives but the rulling itself. Most people involved in the case think it would be overturned if ever apealed to a hirer court.
And republican voters chose to put them in office because everything you find evil abut them is still better then the democrate oponants they had to chose from. If you think it is bad now, just wait untill your wish comes true. This isn't active collusion, cowardice, or treason. It is picking the best candidate for the job and picking the lessor of two evils. If you don't like it, then run for office yourself and we will hold you as the shinning example of a good politician doing the work of the people.
I never said that at all, you did. I remeber asking about what torture happened and this moving the issue around is what i get. Good way to avoid answering the questions while attempting to make me apear in a group of ditto heads.
Well, i was guessing that he was a democrate. He definatly isn't a republican and never has been. I can tell that by the post he has made not only in this thread but others as well. It isn't that difficult to search for post by him and see that. More importantly, I havn't found any evidence of the claim "Republicans are treasonous murdering torturing scum" in your reply or his. I just get another slanderous clouding the issue responce with some 'obviously your not smart' or 'your one of them' replies. In none of this have you or MarkusQ shed any definitive light on your acusations. You just respout them as if that makes them true then attemp to discredit me. Lets talk about the issues here.
It is the same argument your gave about the "if your a republican, your just as guilty" Voting for a democrate doesn't automaticly align you with pedofiles just the same as voting for a republican doesn't automaticly make your at fault for any wrong doings a republican might have done. I don't understand why you chose to rebute the major portion of my original post and then re-assure my corectness with this argument. Oh that right because it would effect you and not me. I guess that makes it all right then.
See my p
You're from Chicago, aren't you?
What?
You can thank Tom "The Hammer" Delay and many similar 'leaders' in the GOP for that course change.
I didn't know he pre-dated Nixon.
What?