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."
I do not think that word means what the author of that blurb thinks it means.
They didn't hire a shill. They just hired someone who used to work for the RIAA. Big deal. The Pope used to work for Hitler too, but it's not relevant work experience.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
to vote libertarian.
you know the Lib party is pretty sound once you get past the "smoke pot" platform. and honestly I firmly believe that because they push that platform so hard is why nobody even thinks of jumping ship from republican or democrat to Libertarian.
I personally like their ideals and goals, and for the most part they do make sense in every aspect if you sit and listen to them.
too bad 90% of americans are baying sheep that are to cowardly to vote for a 3rd party.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Considering that McCain and Guilani are the front runners, how is electing a Republican the "worst-possible-outcome"? If the choices were a third Bush term, or Cheney, or Jeb, or Rice, you might have a point, but do you really feel that McCain or Guilani would be as bad as the current Republican admin?
Considering how McCain and Bush smashed each other going for the nomination in 2000, McCain can almost run as the challenger, instead of the incumbent party.
Wasn't it Clinton who signed the DMCA into law? And remember those awful things he tried to do to crypto? Key escrow and whatnot?
The democrats are just as much panderers to corporate interests and net stupidity as the republicans are. No more, no less. Both parties are drifting, and it's not right or left, it's just downhill.
Free speech is neither a right-wing nor a left-wing value. It's simply a value.
Specifically, I'm talking about the 'worst company in america' award that the RIAA supposedly won.
When I read the headline, it smelled fishy. So, I did a tiny bit of research and found:
- The contest was between exactly two companies - Hallibutron and the RIAA. Those were your choices if you participated in this survey. The RIAA won by 3.8%. Wal-mart or none of the above were not choices.
- The 'survey' was done by The Consumerist. Sounds impressive, eh? Like The Economist magazine, perhaps? No, not really. It's basically some shitty blog. Hint: their web page currently has ads for 'Replica Rolex Watches
Rolex, Cartier, Gucci, Brietling Only $189!!'
- So, this poll was a web poll. Hardly what we'd expect from a true 'Most hated company in America' type deal.
- See it for yourself here.
The RIAA may have their bad points, but there's nothing in this survey or elsewhere to suggest that they are the most hated 'company' in the USA, other than perhaps in the overimaginaive minds of a few people who need to spend a little less time glued to the monitor and a bit more time thinking about journalistic ethics.I suspect it means exactly what the author thinks it means, specifically
Shill-
2.a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
She was a hired PR flack. The word "shill" is exactly right in this context.
There was a lot more going on then that. The so called scream speech as you probably are aware was his being slightly above the noise level of the crowd which was filtered out while being replayed repeatedly. Also a week or so before that he had called out big media on how it was one of the biggest problems in the country and needed to be dismantled, there were various other factors involved as well.
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!"
OK, as a bleeding heart liberal, I'll say it. The Democratic party sucks their own big donkey balls.
I'll take McCain, even though I disagree with him on several issues, over Hillary any day.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
I guess that also means that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Hillary Clinton did not support the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 and it was never passed in the first place? It is what gives the RIAA and MPAA control over the consumer's rights and freedoms in the first place and basically takes away "fair use" and other clauses. That there was never any lobbyist money from the RIAA and the MPAA to the Clinton campaign and most of Congress to pass such a law?
I guess we US Citizens have short memories because we can tend to forget the injustices that the Democrats did against the US people? Their corruption does not count.
Now there are ties to the RIAA again, and all one has to do is cite Wikipedia allowing us to completely ignore or rewrite history in favor of the Democrats.
I'll bet people even forgot when Tipper Gore was censoring music lyrics and forced warning labels on CDs and video games, and doing so had the prices of them raised up to cover the cost of the rating system. Full support of the Democrats on that one as well.
Anyway I hope Barack Obama gets the nomination instead of Hillary Clinton, as I trust him a whole lot more than I trust her, because Obama hasn't stabbed the US in the back like Clinton has.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Perhaps this comment is completely offtopic, but since most comments on this story concern politics, I'll risk a few words.
It seems that democracy such as it is in America is a fundamentally flawed system. Consider these two citizens:
Citizen A works a good job, contributes over $10,000 to the general welfare through the IRS, takes interest in politics and tries to vote conscientiously having studied the issues and their possible ramifications on the life of his fellow citizens and the country at large. After some consideration - not much, mind you - he casts his vote for the candidate he seems best apt for the function.
Citizen B works, but barely clears enough to keep his apartment. Concerning taxes and contributions through the IRS, close to zero. Having no family, politics really don't interest him. He gets up in the morning of November 6 and votes, but more to get even with 'the man' than with any knowledge of what the candidate wants to accomplish.
Many would agree that Citizen A contributes more to the common good of the country - and yet the political system grants him no more power than that which Citizen B has. The reality is that their votes are equal, independently of whether they have even the intention of promoting the general welfare and even independently of their ability to contribute to it.
At face value such a system seems nonsensical - but it is the system in which we live. And worse, we can't even seem to count the votes that are cast, as the debacle of the elections of the year 2000 showed.
Perhaps it is un-American to pose such fundamental questions, but really the situation as it stands really should be thought through:
1/ is the system one man one vote really indicative of the actual political power of the average citizen?
2/ is the democratic system even capable of representing the people (as it claims) when only 45% of the populace even votes? Does it even have the mandate to rule when the majority don't even cast a vote?
3/ isn't it unjust to give Citizen B the same political power as Citizen A?
Ironically it seems that the average citizen had more political power under monarchical rule, for at least the ruler was a known entity whose person could be influenced. Yet now we are ruled by the candidate who sells himself to the lowest common denominator, or who simply has more TV time than the others.
Just some food for thought. Anyone here actually think that these candidates are even interested in the common good? But I guess we have the leaders whom we deserve....
JJ+