Slashdot Mirror


Democrats Appoint RIAA Shill For Convention

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."

27 of 698 comments (clear)

  1. Article is flamebait by cheebie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They used the words "shill", "left-wing" and "blogosphere". Then they mentioend the RIAA. That's as close as you can come to a Godwin violation without mentioning Historical German leaders.

  2. Wow by C_Kode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can you say, "I'M DUMB AS A STUMP" (Yes; in all caps)

    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...

    1. Re:Wow by lord_mike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the reality is that there are four branches of government... The Legislative, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Entertainment Industry. For all the complaining and hand-wringing about Hollywood, the Republicans have consistently rolled out the red carpet for their big corporate entertainment friends, and the Democrats are going to be no better. In fact, I'm sad to say, that the Democrats, in their zeal to "protect" artists probably will be worse in this regard. Although the entertainment industry rules both parties with an iron fist, people who work in the industry themselves tend to have more liberal sentimentalities, so they would be more likely to work for the DNC than the RNC as a personal preference. Both parties are equally awful in regards to entertainment and consumer rights.

      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

    2. Re:Wow by ArcherB · · 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.

      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!"

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  3. I'm getting jaded with gov't and politics... by Astro+Dr+Dave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unsurprising; both parties are in the pockets of corporate interests, anyway. I hope there is a backlash over this.

  4. Just Ask Howard Dean by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just ask Howard Dean how much influence the "left-wing blogosphere" wields in terms of getting their darling elected.

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  5. Re:I just entered a maddox-like rage... by Alioth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree. "Blogosphere" is one of those awful dot-bomb era buzzwords, bandied about by marketdroids and the press to make them look cool and informed about the Internet. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of times someone mentions "the blogosphere" and their understanding of how the internet actually works.

  6. Surprised? by cliveholloway · · Score: 4, Insightful

    money talks.

    "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

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  7. Wait... What? by Chmcginn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you know the Lib party is pretty sound once you get past the "smoke pot" platform.

    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.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  8. Re:not to late by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Read my journal. The reason why Libertarians are not more popular is that the don't effectively frame their message. They speak only in analytical terms and fail to differentiate their own moral values. They do have them, they just fail to speak in terms of them. Instead, the Republicans, who are masters of the art of framing, usurp the Libertarian watchwords for their own purposes which are contrary to libertarian morality. Thus, many Libertarians vote for Republicans against their own interests, and they don't realize it.

    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.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  9. Re:They suck, yeah. by Johnny5000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States.

    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.

    --
    The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
  10. Re:They suck, yeah. by fossa · · 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.

  11. I'll save you all a lot of time by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Politics is politics, dear friends. Partisanship and political discourse are theater whose purpose is to obtain votes. Either of the two parties will say and do anything, and I do mean anything to put their people in power. Ideology, "positions," speeches, platforms, and the like should not be construed as promises or guarantees of future behavior. They are meant for one and only one thing: to obtain votes.

    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.

  12. Riiiiiight by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wake up. The Democratic party want to regulate the hell out of everything just like the RIAA. Learn from history or repeat it. Time for a real 3rd party. No lawyers or career politicians allowed.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  13. like there's a difference by b17bmbr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    bnetween the two parties. unless it's the Iraq war (which many democrats voted for by the way), name one substantial difference between the two parties. they both favor unlimited immigration, destructive trade policies, won't push to expand more oil drilling and nuclear power, don't give a crap about the social security/medicare atom bombs, and in general are so beholden to large monied interests. the republicans screwed up the war on terror, the democrats won't even fight it. other than that, they are more concerned with consolidating political power.

    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!!

    --
    My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
  14. Re:What did you expect? by pallmall1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Birds of a feather...
    No doubt. And all we ever hear from the democrats is "Bush is syping ... Bush is eavesdropping .. Bush is monitoring financial transactions ..," ad nauseum. And now, when the democrats sell out to the RIAA -- who want the legal right to impersonate people to obtain personal information in order to extort money, the RIAA that spies on people and whose members condone the use of rootkits to bug personal computers, the RIAA that wants to control all means of distributing any audio content in any form -- what will we hear from the two-faced hypocrites that claim to be the defenders of free speech and personal privacy?

    Not a fucking thing.
    --
    3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
  15. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too bad the truth gets modded down. Senator Fritz Hollings, aka Senator Disney, is a Democrat.

    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)

  16. Re:They suck, yeah. by goldspider · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guess what? They won't ever have a chance of winning if nobody votes for them.

    Thanks for being part of the problem.

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
  17. Re:Wait... What? by Deagol · · 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.

    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".

  18. Re:They suck, yeah. by captainjaroslav · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The sad thing is that the Democrats, instead of actually listening to all the voters they've disenfranchised, seem to treat "What are you going to do, vote Republican?" as a policy platform.

    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.

    --
    I'm just sayin'.
  19. Re:What did you expect? by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > Birds of a feather...

    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.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
  20. Re:What did you expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Amen, friend. Anyone with a bit of patriotism and American sprit left in them should VOTE LIBERTARIAN!

  21. Party Politics by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am not against voting Libertarian.... but when people going to stop and think who they are voting for? Vote independently of party and look at the person.

    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.

  22. fuck em all. by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When are you people going to wake up? We aren't republican or democrats, we are Americans. Instead, we split ourselves along an arbitrary party line that single handedly fucks up EVERYTHING.

    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.

  23. Re:I just entered a maddox-like rage... by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FUCK. THE. BLOGOSPHERE.
    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 /.'ers who link to your blog in you sig mod me down, which you're going to do, clearly and deservedly. Think about it a second. You want people to read your stuff, right? thats all well and good, but is your own specialness worth elevating some inane documenting of some asshat's daily lives to the same level as decent writing, literature, or real journalism? I certainly the fuck dont think so.

    So there's my .02
    Now feel free to continue modding me down as flamebait or troll because i cussed at you, and because you're *really* that special.

    --
    Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
  24. Re:What did you expect? by malkir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To reiterate, the fact that the Democrats are way way better than Republicans doesn't excuse this kind of shit. "The fact" haha. I'm sure glad you're not a stereotypical elitist democrat.
  25. Re:So does this mean by gustaffo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Blame the Clinton and Gore all you want, but don't forget that the DMCA was passed by a republican controlled house and senate. To me, the RNC is EQUALLY as responsible as Clinton and Gore for this - they had the power to prevent such legislation from ever making it to Clinton's office to sign. What has Bush done to undo this injustice, anyways? How about Orin Hatch?