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."
That when I vote Republican, they'll sue my neighbor and her kids?
... at the mention of the term "blogosphere".
Birds of a feather...
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.
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...
Unsurprising; both parties are in the pockets of corporate interests, anyway. I hope there is a backlash over this.
...about rampant trading of dem speeches on p2p networks and the potential for remixes and mash-ups without compensation to the original artists like Lincoln and Roosevelt.
They plan on flooding p2p networks with podcasts that are just bogus loops during the convention.
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.
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
While she might have public sector skills the Democrats could certainly gain from having on their side, given her organization's (and no doubt her own) agenda, I would be very concerned about the back-channel influence she is going to have on the DNC, the candidates, and their supporters from the executvie and legislative branches. They will be 'rubbing shoulders
a lot in the preparation and at the event and one would have to be naive to think she won't be lobbying for the RIAA.
The Democrats rightly chastized Dick Cheney for his closed-door energy policy meetings with his energy industry cronies and then they turn around and act similarly by allowing a corporate special interest inside access to candiates--before they are even in office. Why don't they pick someone from a non-profit? Sure there will always be some agenda with any person they choose, but why choose someone frm an organization that is so blatant, so hated, and so mercenary?
Have they given leave of their sense?
It's not so much that they do no evil, rather than that they do less evil.
It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States.
My blog
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Way to stick it to the man.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
As the democrats are clearly in bed with the RIAA they're not getting my vote any more.
First off: a person who does communications for group 1 is probably going to do a reasonable job of doing communications for group 2. If you're hiring based on merit, how much does it matter if the person is one of satan's catchers?
Secondly: the RIAA is everyone in power's best friend. Republicans love the big companies, Democrats love the film and rock stars, and both parties just absolutely adore lobbyists. They're like groupies only they give money.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Democrats!=liberal. The sooner everybody realizes this, the sooner we can actually have a liberal party in the US.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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
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?
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.
It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States.
And until our voting system is completely overhauled, only two of them are electable. That's the reality of it. If you don't like it (and I don't), press your congresscritter for reform of our voting laws. Even then, why do they want to change the system that keeps them in power?
I'd say, "Let's have a Slashdot poll," but I'm afraid I'd wake up in 2009 to find Cowboy Neal laughing his ass off from behind the podium ...
How many butterflies would I have to stomp on to keep that from happening?
So only 2 parties are electable and neither will fix the problem. I submit to you that you must vote for an unelectable party in order to get things changed.
It'll make the trial lawyer and Hollywood/Music Industry contingents of the Democrats very happy. And those groups may be small, but they represent a lot of campaign donation dollars.
[Insert pithy quote here]
Maybe in the Federal elections, but State and Local elections are less popular (even though they're more important since they dictate the policy that affects you most where you actually live) and are thus more influential to third parties.
'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
Democrats need to be very very careful with DRM and associating with the **AAs. The last 7 years have made me hate the Republican party enough to never vote Red again in my life...and I used to be a Republican (in college when I was clueless about the real world, and didn't have the ability to forsee how the republican party has annihilated the middle class over the last 7 years).
Bottom line, if the Dems go hard with DRM I will go with the independents and libertarians...regardless of whether this gives the Republicans an edge...I will not support a DRM friendly party that puts the rights of corporations over individual human rights. For Christ's sake Democrats are suppost the represent us...the people...corporate interests should always come second to any true Democrat in office.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
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.
Yes - that's why scientists have been able to extract limitless energy from his sepulchral rotation since Richard Nixon became president.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
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.
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
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.
Even if you don't get the minor party official elected, if they get enough votes, either a Republican or Democrat could pick up the driving issue and pursue it to their own means. It may not ideal, certainly, but it can be effective to get us what we want. So when the major two parties notice, the vote is not wasted.
And exactly one of them has a chance in hell of actually being elected. Just because the Government party has a Jackass wing and an Elephant wing, doesn't mean they stand for anything fundamentally different. The Party knows all, sees all, and rules all.
Who would've thought that it would've been the Democrats that crack down on free speech (Imus) and then pick this assclown to work their convention? Are they shifting to the right, or are they just stupid?
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
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".
Method of processing duck feet
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'.
Jenni Engebretsen has proposed that DNC shall now stand for DO NOT COPY... She also will be instituting a new convention which will be named the Democratic Reform Meeting (DRM) which will be held monthly at a Regional Information Assembly Area (RIAA). She will also be engaging in a heavy handed campaign to support Military Personnel Aid and Assistance (MPAA).
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
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.Ah sorry - my mistake - I see now that it was a 'ncaa college basketball' style elimination tournament to see which was the worst company. Still, it was a web poll and the bulk of my other points are still valid. Mea culpa.
And you all thought the Dems were the party of personal freedom... /soapbox
I guess it makes sense, the RIAA and the Democrats have one thing in common, "give us more money so we can spend it for you."
Vote Libertarian.
You think democrats have ever respected the notion of truly free speech?
Fuck Tipper Gore and fuck the PMRC
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
For President, only two of those parties have a chance in hell of being elected. But there have been -- and are, to the best of my knowledge -- people neither D nor R elected to the House, the Senate, and as Governers. In other words, the only office that's pretty much unquestionably going to a D or R is the White House. So, for President, vote D or R if you don't want to "throw your vote away" (although that's a somewhat questionable assertion in and of itself) but below that there *are* viable options, and the more people that think about this, the more viable those options become.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
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.
A while back, I complained to my Senator, Diane Feinstein about how the Broadcast flag would cut into time-shifting and other fair use rights, and that it was basically corporate welfare to preserve a flagging industry in the face of a changing environment. Here's the response I got:
Diane Feinstein is what I call a DINO - Democrat in Name Only. She's pro-drug war, pro big media, anti-consumer rights, and is a socially conservative fiscal liberal. Her and Joe Lieberman give progressives a bad name.
Causation can cause correlation
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.
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.
Why must we have parties that are at extreme ends of the spectrum? Conservatism is good for some issues, but not all. Liberalism is good for some issues, but not all. Why must people think that US policy and government must all follow one prescribed liberal or conservative way of thinking?
The truth is, we haven't had a conservative government for decades. Conservatives want LESS government involvement, while the current neo-cons want to control every aspect of our lives. Democrats are often labeled as liberals, but they have corporations paying them off too; they're just not so blatently obvious about it. Remember, lobbyists don't really care who's in power, all they have to do is change who they right the checks to.
For both parties, its all about power. Mostly everyone in Washington is filthy rich from their private investments. The only thing to strive for after becoming that wealthy is power.
What we need is a nice middle-of-the-road party that actually thinks about what the people of the united states want when legislating. A party that is not motivated by the almighty dollar. Unfortunately, this is something that is probably never going to happen.
I got nothin'
Over time, this would enable viable third parties and independent candidates to 1) exist meaningfully and 2) eventually flourish. Why? Once voters are free to vote their view on all candidates, serious candidates can contemplate a non-Democrat, non-Republican affiliation without fear of being completely stonewalled at the voting booth.
Alone, rank-based voting may not be sufficient to increase political diversity in the US, but it's almost certainly necessary.
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.
Living With a Nerd
Still, it was a web poll and the bulk of my other points are still valid
The BULK? What bulk? Here are your points from your original post:
* The contest was between exactly two companies - Hallibutron and the RIAA. Those were your choices if you participated in this survey. The RIAA won by 3.8%. Wal-mart or none of the above were not choices.
* The 'survey' was done by The Consumerist. Sounds impressive, eh? Like The Economist magazine, perhaps? No, not really. It's basically some shitty blog. Hint: their web page currently has ads for 'Replica Rolex Watches Rolex, Cartier, Gucci, Brietling Only $189!!'
* So, this poll was a web poll. Hardly what we'd expect from a true 'Most hated company in America' type deal.
* See it for yourself here [consumerist.com].
So out of these four bullets, one simply states that this was a web poll, ok true, but not exactly insightful. The last point is not a point at all, just a link to your source. The first point you already admitted was wrong, leaving only your second point as anything that could fall under your term of "bulk" and I would hardly call a single valid point bulk by any stretch.
In addition the consumerist website is not some tiny fly-by-night blog, it's been around for a while and they are the slashdot of constomer service issues and are part of Gawker Media which handles other such blogs as Gizmodo, Jalopnik, Kotaku, and Lifehacker just to name a few. While these may be niche blogs in that they have a sharp focus, they are by no means somebody's part time basement run website. In March 2007 the Consumerist received over 5 million visitors, and they have consistently had over 500,000 visitors per month for the past 12 months, and over 1 million visitors/month for the last 6.
As for the SINGLE advertisement you chose to judge the quality of the page, (ignoring other advertisers such as the prominent T-Mobile ad) the replica watch company is not selling counterfit goods, it sells replicas, clearly marked in both their URL and product page, so it is not an ad from a scammer. Also considering the nature of the consumerist blog, I would certainly think that they vet companies before accepting ads from them.
So in short, you overreacted and shot down a completely legitmate site which ran a survey over a period of weeks that reached a very large audience. Is it a scientific poll? No, but it's also not some two-bit blogger ranting about poll results culled from a handful of readers. Kudos on you for posting a semi-retraction but your "bulk" of remaining points is essential naught.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
...keep voting that way, you'll keep "electing" one wing or the other of the cooperating criminal cartel that has hijacked government and runs it as a crony jobs program for multimillionaires and billionaires and transnational non patriotic corporations.
I've been hearing the same shit for 40 years now -"don't waste your vote-don't vote for an independent or third party!"-it was wrong then and is still wrong, but the brainwashed parrots keep convincing themselves and other people to do the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, somehow magically expecting a different result "this time". IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN.
Anyone "you" has one vote, wasting it on the lesser of two evils will ALWAYS result in evil getting elected.
John McCain? The same man who doesn't know condoms prevent STDs? Who wanted to send even more troops than Bush in his surge? The John McCain that walked around in a Iraqi market with a huge security force to "prove" that it's safer? The same guy whose plan for a solution to Iraq is to send 100,000 more troops there? Are we talking about the same person?
On a more serious note, Ron Paul seems to be a good match if one really cares for liberty.
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.
Trade, estate taxes, income taxes, workers rights, stem cell research, wiretapping, abortion, separation of church & state, corruption, the environment, getting a blowjob an impeachable offense for one but shredding large parts of the Constitution not for the other. And so on, and so on.
don't give a crap about the social security/medicare atom bombs
Hardly. And the reason we have budgetary bombs is because of reckless Republican tax cutting, most of which goes to those who don't need them.
the republicans screwed up the war on terror, the democrats won't even fight it.
Are you talking about Democrats fighting terrorism or fighting the Bush administrations boneheaded policies? Either way, you sir, are full of shit.
Ummm, it's a little different. The director of communications for the RIAA is the chief marketroid, nothing more. If she wielded real power I'd imagine her title would at least be vice president. Dick Cheney, on the other hand, was the freakin' CEO of Halliburton. He was the proverbial guy at the head of the table, handing out the cigars. God I hope you realize this.
Breakfast served all day!
Considering that McCain and Guilani are the front runners, how is electing a Republican the "worst-possible-outcome"?
Because both of those guys are worse than worthless pieces of shit?
Seriously, all of you put down the McCain crack pipe and take a look at who he actually is.
He lost the primary in 2000 mostly because the Bush campaign spread rumors about him having a black baby.
Apart from what that shows about the deep seated hatred of liberty endemic to the Republican base that that would matter even if it was true, look at how McCain dealt with that.
He became Bush's lapdog, campaigning for his criminal war even though everyone who was paying aany attention at all knew the whole thing was a scam since 2000 when the PNAC published their policy paper pushing for misusing an attack on America in order to invade Iraq.
So we have a war hero, ex POW, supposed "patriot" campaigning for a cowardly deserter who only beat him through a massive disinformation campaign.
Sorry, but if McCain is too weak and cowardly to actually stand up for his country against such a monster because his only loyalty is to his party, then fuck that bitch right in the ear.
Add in his sucking up to the religious extremists whose stated goal is the destruction of the constitution and you have a portrait of a man who is weak, who is a coward and who is a traitor.
McCain is pure scum through and through and has no moral fiber, integrity or honor at all. He pissed that all away years ago.
What does McCain stand for? Not a god damned thing. He's betrayed everything he claimed to stand for and is still being Bush's bitch pushing the troop escalation instead of standing up for the fucking soldiers who are dying for a piss poor tin pot political game which was never anything more than a transparent scam which only fools bought into.
So, yes. McCain would be every bit as bad as Bush. He's already that bad since he's working to further their crimes instead of being a man and standing up against them. Showing integrity would damage his political career, so you will never see any from that piece of shit.
I can't say that the results are quite what I hoped.
Me, I once ordered a pineapple and ham pizza and ended up raped by wild boars and left bleeding on a Pacific island to die.
I dunno, I guess yours was worse.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
No, you're kidding. The problem with the Democratic party is they continue to refuse to define themselves in distinct terms. Some genuine liberals would actually be a refreshing change. Having some Democrats that have "something to stand for" besides not being Republicans would be really nice.
If what you said was actually true we might actually have some distinctive candidates.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I can tell you that strategy worked for Republicans for about 8 years. The war on terror might've added a year or two though. That's about how long ago the Republicans stopped pushing a conservative agenda
Uh...No.
It's been going on 30 years that the Republicans tossed out their old platform. When they rejected Goldwater in favor of that death squad forming, crack dealing, biggest government supporting assclown Reagan.
The old Republican party died completely back in 1980 and it's done nothing but rot ever since.
Guess what? There is such a thing as self-sustaining processes that you need a critical mass to overcome and break out of. Thanks for oversimplifying.
Also, thanks for assuming that the trade-offs are worth it without any evidence. Even if I like the Prohibition Party (just to pick a rather unlikely candidate) more than the Democrats, that doesn't mean that it'd make sense for me to vote for them; it depends on exactly how much more I like them than the Democrats, how much more than the Republicans I like the Democrats, how much of a chance I estimate there is for them to actually start playing a political role (or, alternatively, how long I expect them to take to start doing so), and how much of a chance I estimate there is for the Democrats to defeat the Republicans in the election at hand.
It may WELL be that even though I like the Prohibition Party more than the Democrats (again, I don't actually) and that I STILL decide to vote for the Democrats rather than them, simply because I figure that it's more important to keep the Republicans out of office (and/or because I figure there is no chance the Prohibition Party candidate will win, anyway).
The real solution to the current mess is to reform the entire system and get rid of things like the electoral college etc. that are actually responsible for this pseudo-democratic 2-party system. Once THAT is done, you can start voting for other parties, too; until then, the idea that voting for them is going to change anything or that any of them will actually rise up from meaninglessness is just wishful thinking.
butter the donkey
Another poster down the page a bit has listed Dems that created and passed bad laws on behalf of the RIAA and MPAA. That's a good deal more than hiring someone near those organizations. Granted, Oryn Hatch and that other turd (I forget his name at the moment; but he's a Republican... Specter, I think) did the same sort of thing.
With the liberals we get slick liars, and with the Republicans (not conservatives) we get sincere hypocrites, to quote my history professor. The real issue is that from both sides we have professional politicians passing anti-consumer laws written by big business lobbyists. It seems to really be the only thing our legislative body can actually "get done."
So many people go on about "what the Bush Administration has done," but these kinds of things were all OK, or even admirable, when the Clinton Administration did them (echelon, Bosnia, Janet Reno firing every last Republican U.S. Attorney... just to list a few). And no, please don't explain to me how those were "all completely different..."
On another subject: have a good weekend.
That may be true about the other personal freedoms...
But, there are few issues where "the evidence" is so compelling. I would wager that most people, when they answer honestly, realize weed is no "worse" than alcohol. But yet, the subject is never seriously debated and the same ol' War continues on. Do you realize we spend almost $40bil/yr fighting the drug war? That's a lot of people's paycheck.
The reason its such a hot-button issue is because the War on Drugs has probably had the largest impact on freedom for the largest amount of people. Both sides are affected. The citizens are policed and the police forces depend on "anti-drug money" for their funding. You didn't think they got those machine guns and new SWAT cars because they were nice, did you? No, they go them as a direct result of the drug war. It has, in a way, transformed our police into tactical military units.
While there are definitely other topics to talk about, the WoD is the single largest rights-impeder out there and that's why the libs focus on it. Not only is it a HUGE source of corruption, but there are truly, some dastardly things that have been done during this war. Just go browse a civil liberties site and you can find countless stories of abuse with respect to the War on Drugs.
No other personal freedom issue has a track record like that one.
"And no, please don't explain to me how those were "all completely different...""
Well you won't find me defending any political party. But... Some of those things were different.
I agree with you that we the people are no longer represented in our government. It is the corporate money that allows politicians to win the elections and that's what they care about most.
Politics is a dirty and complex game. The more I look at it the more I want to resign from the human race. At least with Bosnia we were stopping a genocide. I'm sure there was more to it than that but I could stomach a military conflict because it felt like we were really intervening in something horrid.
I feel like the war we have now was started by despicable people for despicable reasons. Not for the reasons they fed us.
If you go out to democracy.org and watch the video of the interview with Ret. Gen. Clark he states that he was at the pentagon about ten days after 9/11 and was told by one of his former staff that the Bush administration had already decided to invade Iraq. He goes on to state that some time later he was told that they plan on invading seven countries.
I don't like any political party but this Administration is out of control.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
A bigger problem with the system (not quite sure how the electoral college is to blame) is the uneven playing field for third-party candidates. A candidate is not even eligible for federal election dollars unless their party received at least 5% of the vote in the last election cycle.
Now it's not likely that we can (soon) remove that requirement. We can, however, start voting for these parties so that they can at least qualify for those dollars and have a chance at some publicity in the next election.
It's easier to just throw up your hands in frustration and declare the system broken (even if it is) than to make a choice that, while maybe not immediately gratifying, will get things moving in the right direction.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
You right now are embodying one of the most destructive impulses of hardcore Democrates: Demonizing the opposition.
Look -- I'm fairly typical Democrat material. I'm not associated with any organized religion. I'm in favor of gay marriage. I'm maybe even starting to think about conceding that universal healthcare might be a good idea. That said, any time someone simply shuts down and goes into an "us vs. them" mentality, it means they aren't seriously thinking about their opposition's viewpoint and perspective, other than coloring it in overbroad lines.
And that's bad.
Sure, it's not like the Rove & co. didn't do most of the escalation lately -- but the response to venom and hatred isn't to shut down your brain, because that stops you from thinking about why Average Joe Republican is in fact voting Republican. And ya know what? Chances are, Joe is unhappy about a lot of the same things you are -- but when you go on the attack (or only speak from your perspective without taking Joe's worldview into account), you lose the opportunity to make that sale. You're even turning me off right now, and I'm probably pretty typical of your target audiance.
It should be pretty obvious by now that I'd like to see Obama as President. I grew up right-wing Christian conservative and still have a working model of that mindset handy even though it's not something I espouse -- and Obama speaks to the old me as powerfully as the new one. The last thing we need now is more division, and Obama stands for a return to saner, less polarized politics more effectively than anyone else I know of.
As for my support for Ron Paul, the man has principals and he follows them. I don't like his personal social positions -- but he keeps those out of his voting record, and the principals which do reflect themselves in his voting record are such as to enact an effective policy of "first, do no harm". That's the kind of person I want holding the power of veto, no matter what banner he rides under.
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+