Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post

The Recording Industry of America's favorite courtroom lawyer, Tom Perrelli, who has sued individual file swappers in multiple federal courts, is President-elect Barack Obama's choice for the third in line at the Justice Department. CNet's Declan McCullagh explores the background of the man who won the RIAA's lucrative business for his DC law firm: "An article on his law firm's Web site says that Perrelli represented SoundExchange before the Copyright Royalty Board — and obtained a 250 percent increase in the royalty rate for music played over the Internet by companies like AOL and Yahoo," not to mention Pandora and Radio Paradise. NewYorkCountryLawyer adds, "Certainly this does not bode well for CowboyNeal's being appointed Copyright Czar."

Comments

How everyone feels about this appointment.

[Applepuppy]

Why that @#$%^ #$%^&*^&*() &*()_+ @#$%@@@!!!!! son of a #$%^&*^ ^&&^*()( ^& ^&* () *&!!!

Re:How everyone feels about this appointment.

[MaskedSlacker]

Are you sure that isn't a perl program that generates the lawyer's name?

Is this really a surprise?

[Reverend528]

He picked their favorite senator as a running mate.

Re:Is this really a surprise?

[HardCase]

Don't worry, it's change we can live with. Change dammit. And hope. Yeah, hope. And stuff.

Oh, and regarding the title of the story, isn't the AG the top DoJ post?

Re:Is this really a surprise?

[4D6963]

Yeah, that's why Obama picked him. Because Obama really cares about all that RIAA stuff. Not foreign policy, not economy, not education, the music industry, that's the big issue these days.

Re:Is this really a surprise?

[kalirion]

Just wait until you hear of his pick for the next available Supreme Court Justice spot (hint: it rhymes with Back Rompson).

Figures

[Bios_Hakr]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

But... But... But.. Change, dammit! Change!

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

LOVE the Who!

Re:Figures

[multisync]

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Let us know when you receive that DMCA takedown notice.

Re:Figures

[Zorque]

Yeah, the guy who started a war on highly suspect grounds and ran the economy into the toilet is the exact same as the guy who hires a lawyer who is most likely highly qualified (otherwise, why would the RIAA be using him?).

Re:Figures

[Zorque]

I should also add that I'm not exactly happy with this decision, but come on. This is nowhere near a Bush-class error.

Re:Figures

[ravenshrike]

He hasn't even done anything yet. Give him a year.

Re:Figures

[blueg3]

You do realize that the President isn't really responsible for the regulation of banks or the federal reserve, and certainly doesn't have any influence beyond government regulation on how banks operate.

Re:Figures

[Zorque]

The very occurrence of 9/11 was pretty much directly responsible for Bush's first economic recession, and there is substantial evidence showing that he personally ignored all advice on the attacks and in essence allowed them to happen. The current fiasco isn't necessarily his fault, but it's the President's responsibility to lead the nation and spearhead efforts to recuperate. He seems to be trying now (and it's one of the few things I respect him for), but it's far too little and too late to really make any difference.

Re:Figures

[mcvos]

Besides, ast least Obama also has a few good guys in his cabinet. They're not all crooks this time, so that at least is change.

Re:Figures

[rolfwind]

Change - coming with one Washington insider at a time. /s

Re:Figures

[geminidomino]

I always wonder, did The Who coin that phrase, or was it around before "Won't get fooled again?"

Re:Figures

[geminidomino]

I should also add that I'm not exactly happy with this decision, but come on. This is nowhere near a Bush-class error.

Considering that his presidency is still at T-13 days, I'd say he's right on track.

Dammit, now I have to come up with a fitting epithet as good as "Redneck Nero."

Re:Figures

[crypticedge]

Don't tell them that, they don't logically understand the purpose of the president, after all they are democrats. To them, the president controls what food is on the table and how much gas costs, and the fact the neighborhood strip club raised its drink prices by $3/shot, and etc.

To those that think the president is the end all be all, read the constitution.
His mandate is over the military and approving or denying congressional bills. NOT infringing on the rights of state governments as people seem to imply was his duty for katrina, the fact that louisiana's gov was incompitent was not the presidential responsiblity, but the responsibility of the state and population of the state to pick a capable leadership. They failed.

This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility. Learn the purpose of the government department that is at hand, and what powers they actually have before you assume.

Re:Figures

[HardCase]

I'm no fan of Bush, but even I know that the president isn't the only player in the economy. Not by a long shot. For that matter, the government isn't the only player. You should have paid more attention in your civics class. Assuming that they even teach it anymore.

Re:Figures

[Copid]

This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility. Learn the purpose of the government department that is at hand, and what powers they actually have before you assume.

You do realize that, per the constitution, the President has a great deal of say in what laws and regulations get passed, and that per tradition, the President has a lot of political power to push an agenda, yes? Not to mention the appointments to regulatory posts...

Re:Figures

[blhack]

per tradition, the President has a lot of political power to push an agenda, yes?

Explain this, please.

If by "a lot of political power to push an agenda" you mean "works with the lawmakers and talks to them" then yes, absolutely.

But here is a magical, wonderful secret about the United States Government: YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN IT! You can actually talk to the senators too! Just like the President!
The senators and Congressman represent you. They work for you. The collective will of the people in their precinct are their boss.

Re:Figures

[CTachyon]

... but citizens can't veto bills, so Congress doesn't listen to citizens. They do listen to the President. His veto power is precisely why he sets the agenda.

Re:Figures

[crypticedge]

Sure he can veto, but congress can override that veto as well if they meet about the issue again within 14 days. And the SCJ's can override passing the bill. This is called checks and ballances. This doesn't change the very simple fact that laws are not witten by nor sponsored by the President, but by congress. The president can suggest and reccomend all he wants, congress can still tell him to piss off.

Again, look at who was actually supporting these laws in congress(Warrentless wiretapping, DCMA, etc)

Bush signed, sure. But that doesnt mean he supported them. There is a political move where you KNOW they will pass it anyway if you veto, and sign it after holding it for a few days as a protest.

Appointments to regulatory posts MUST be approved by SCOTUS, appointments to SCOTUS must be approved by congress, see a pattern here?

One of us is not as evil as all of us.

We chose the assholes in charge, and rather than blame the bunch, democrats blame the red herring we chose to be a fall guy. The presidential role in modern society has become just that, the fall guy to those that don't understand the true governmental meathods.

Also, all this withstanding, congress can't infringe on the inherent rights granted to the state. This is defined in the constitution.

Re:Figures

[poached]

FEMA failed. And that's a federal agency.

Re:Figures

[Copid]

Sure he can veto, but congress can override that veto as well if they meet about the issue again within 14 days. And the SCJ's can override passing the bill. This is called checks and ballances.

And "checks and balances" is not the same thing as "someone else's responsibility." That's the part I take issue with. If a President pushes for stupid legislation and then signs the legislation when it's passed, that's not "somone else's responsibility." That's the President and Congress screwing up.

Bush signed, sure. But that doesnt mean he supported them. There is a political move where you KNOW they will pass it anyway if you veto, and sign it after holding it for a few days as a protest.

So you're suggesting that, say, the PATRIOT Act, which was essentially written by Bush officials and submitted to Congress for their amendments and passage, and then signed into law by President Bush, is the responsibility of Congress because they passed it, and there's no way of knowing if Bush actually supported it?

Appointments to regulatory posts MUST be approved by SCOTUS, appointments to SCOTUS must be approved by congress, see a pattern here?

Those appointments are typically apporved by Congress. And Congress screwed up by approving a bunch of them.

We chose the assholes in charge, and rather than blame the bunch, democrats blame the red herring we chose to be a fall guy. The presidential role in modern society has become just that, the fall guy to those that don't understand the true governmental meathods.

There's another reason the President is the fall guy. First, he signs the legislation. That gives him an equal share of the blame unless it's passed overwhelmingly. Often, he proposes the legislation. Finally it's usually his job to implement it and appoint people to implement it. Example: I thought that going into Iraq was a bad decision. Even if it wasn't a bad decision, its implementation was a complete clusterfuck. Congress gets a share of the blame for the decision. The executive gets all the blame for the implementation. "Someone else's responsibility" doesn't enter into it.

Re:Figures

[Copid]

Explain this, please.

If by "a lot of political power to push an agenda" you mean "works with the lawmakers and talks to them" then yes, absolutely.

But here is a magical, wonderful secret about the United States Government: YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN IT! You can actually talk to the senators too! Just like the President!

Thought experiment:

1) I stand up and publicly say, "I think that legislation X is a good idea and should be passed." I'm a citizen and it's my right to do it.
2) A popular President says, "I am a popular President, and I strongly support legislation X."

My Congressman may listen to me because I'm a constitution. Other members of Congress may listen to me because my ideas make sense. Everybody in Congress has to seriously consider listening to the popular President because he has serious public support behind him and standing in opposition to him is done at some political peril. He may have no more legal authority than I do, but he wields political capital and public opinion power that the average voter cannot hope to approach.

I'm not suggesting that his power is insurmountable. I'm saying that historically, the President's practical power to push a legislative agenda goes beyond just his constitutional power to veto legislation. It's just a fact.

Re:Figures

[crypticedge]

And "checks and balances" is not the same thing as "someone else's responsibility." That's the part I take issue with. If a President pushes for stupid legislation and then signs the legislation when it's passed, that's not "somone else's responsibility." That's the President and Congress screwing up.

The president can push all he wants, congress has a DUTY to shoot it down if they disagree. If you disagree that they had done their duty or not, then you shouldn't later elect one of those that failed to be the next president. Nor should you reelect them to the same spot where they may later fail you again.

So you're suggesting that, say, the PATRIOT Act, which was essentially written by Bush officials and submitted to Congress for their amendments and passage, and then signed into law by President Bush, is the responsibility of Congress because they passed it, and there's no way of knowing if Bush actually supported it?

Again, Congress in your eyes failed its duty to shoot down someones agenda. That means they either agreed with this agenda or failed to do their duty and must be replaced, NOT elected to a higher office

Those appointments are typically apporved by Congress. And Congress screwed up by approving a bunch of them.

See a patern here?

There's another reason the President is the fall guy. First, he signs the legislation. That gives him an equal share of the blame unless it's passed overwhelmingly. Often, he proposes the legislation. Finally it's usually his job to implement it and appoint people to implement it. Example: I thought that going into Iraq was a bad decision. Even if it wasn't a bad decision, its implementation was a complete clusterfuck. Congress gets a share of the blame for the decision. The executive gets all the blame for the implementation. "Someone else's responsibility" doesn't enter into it.

Going into Iraq is the only thing that people complain about that he was truly 100% responsible for. This was his duty. The rest of peoples gripes and complaints, guess what? Failures of congress, as it takes CONGRESS to propose a bill, Congress must have so many supporters before a vote can take place for this bill, Congress then still has to have a majority vote to have it pass, then the President can veto or pass it.

After all this, SCOTUS can then declare it uncostitutional.

If you want to end "more of the same" and have real change, you have to replace the whole lot. Not place all the blame of the 488 people who saw this same piece of paper before the president and had a majority say "sure, this seems like a good idea" as his fault.

Re:Figures

[crypticedge]

The President is not FEMA. On top of that, the President attempted to send them in when shit was about to hit the fan, did you know the Louisiana gov. told him to piss off? Because if you were watching the news you didn't, as that would actually place the blame where it belonged, rather than on our countries professional red herring, rather than this "OMG BUSH CREATED KATRINA! ITS HIS FAULT NOONE LEFT"
Mississippi listened to the suggestions of the presidency a WEEK before and evacuated.

Lousiana didn't. This is not FEMA's fault. New Orleans Mayor was saying NOT to leave, that they would be fine. He failed his city.

Also, the DEA is a government agency, why are there still drugs in the country?

The FCC is a federal agency, why is there porn on tv?

Again, please focus on the correct source of the problem

Re:Figures

[Copid]

The president can push all he wants, congress has a DUTY to shoot it down if they disagree. If you disagree that they had done their duty or not, then you shouldn't later elect one of those that failed to be the next president. Nor should you reelect them to the same spot where they may later fail you again.

I'm not saying that Congress is not at fault for bad legislation. I'm taking issue with what seemed like a bizarre attempt to hold the President blameless for legislation that he pushed for and then signed into law.

Again, Congress in your eyes failed its duty to shoot down someones agenda. That means they either agreed with this agenda or failed to do their duty and must be replaced, NOT elected to a higher office

You didn't answer my point. The President's staff essentially wrote the PATRIOT Act. Yes, Congress should never have passed it, but the idea that the Bush Administration was some sort of unwilling victim of congressional power run wild doesn't reflect reality.

Going into Iraq is the only thing that people complain about that he was truly 100% responsible for. This was his duty. The rest of peoples gripes and complaints, guess what? Failures of congress, as it takes CONGRESS to propose a bill, Congress must have so many supporters before a vote can take place for this bill, Congress then still has to have a majority vote to have it pass, then the President can veto or pass it.

Failues of Congress and . Or should that blank be left entirely blank? I would fill that blank with the name of the person who signs the legislation and appoints and oversees the people who execute it. "Someone else's responsibility" doesn't cut it. More importantly, it's worth noting that a lot of legislation that would be a good idea if implemented properly is misadministered into failure. We know which branch is responsible for that.

After all this, SCOTUS can then declare it uncostitutional.

Not unless somebody brings suit. And they don't have the power to declare a law "stupid" and invalidate it.

If you want to end "more of the same" and have real change, you have to replace the whole lot. Not place all the blame of the 488 people who saw this same piece of paper before the president and had a majority say "sure, this seems like a good idea" as his fault.

Here's the reality: I vote for 3 out of the 535 members of Congress. I also vote for the head of the executive branch who represents a roughly equal check on Congress. That means I have a lot more power to affect one branch than the other. This is true for every voter. That's one reason why voters focus strongly on what the President does and not as strongly on what Congress as a whole does.

This is the same as people saying, "Well Congress has a lower approval rating than the President does!" Yes, but basically every individual member of Congress has a higher approval rating than the President does. "My guy is fine, but the body as a whole is dumb" rules the day. You'll never throw them all out. It's hard enough to replace a handful. Vote for the guy who represents your interests and recognize that the executive branch is the source of the major policy swings.

Re:Figures

[crypticedge]

Anyone can bring a suit to invalidate a law as unconstitutional, so that is a failure of the people of this country if they chose not to object to being subjected to this law.

Also, its funny you bring up the patriot act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
As only ONE Congressional member voted against it. ONE. 488 members of congress in the house and senate and only ONE man ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold ) expresses his duty to vote against something he disagrees with. One man expressed concerns that it was wrong, but voted for it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Leahy ), the rest either abstained or voted for it. It won by a landslide, with overwhelming support from both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner was the one who introduced it. Not the Bush administration, but a congressman. The president CANNOT introduce bills, he can have his staff write them all he wants, doesn't make anyone introduce them. Guess what? You can write them too. Again, noone has to introduce them.

One person has a 10^-9 chance to make a difference on the presidential election
One man has a 10^-6 chance in congress.

So who do we blame? The man we have the least chance of actually having made a difference on picking, and the man last in line to sign his name to something all the shit that 488 other people saw and said "sounds good to me" went and handed him.

Then we have 12 others that say "Meh, lets not bother even taking a review of it" in SCOTUS. 501 people failed if the government failed. Not 1 man last in line to approve. 501.
Blame the proper people.

Re:Figures

[crypticedge]

Sorry, math was missing a part of it

3.29137229 x 10^-9 and 1.60618968 x 10^-6 respectivly.

I'm out for the day though, so I will not be continuing to debate untill possibly tomorrow.

Re:Figures

[Zorque]

I know the role of the President, and I know that Congress wields the real power in the Government, but I also know that Bush abused signing statements and executive orders to increase his influence in vast swathes. I also know that the President wields a lot more power as a figurehead than a lot of people give them credit for, and one who is good with people can have undue influence over individuals.

Besides all that, I fail to see how "democrats are dumb and don't know how the government works" is worth 5 points of insight.

Re:Figures

[emerald_glitter]

... before you assume.

Buddy, I think you made some pretty big assumptions there yourself. I see almost everyone - not just democrats - misunderstanding what the different branches of the government are for.

But keep rooting for your team there, ok? One of you (democrats or republicans) are surely going to win someday!

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't tell them that, they don't logically understand the purpose of the president, after all they are democrats.

Well, don't put it all on the democrats. The republicans think that "commander in chief" means he can send troops anywhere he wishes for however long he wishes, forgetting that only congress has the right to declare war.

Although, I blame Congress for this more than I do the president. He could try sending troops to Iraq all he wants, but if Congress didn't approve the ever-increasing funds, the soldiers would have been home a month after the conflict started.

Both republicans and democrats are mostly ignorant of the constitution. There are some who know better. You're not one of them, though:

NOT infringing on the rights of state governments as people seem to imply was his duty for katrina...

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution: "he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices." You know, executives offices like FEMA.

Why can the President require this status reports from the head of the executive departments? Because, from the same article and section, the President shall appoint "all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law." Basically, he gets to appoint the director of FEMA, and the fact the Michael Brown was incompetent was most certainly Bush's fault. Bush appointed him.

Now, you may try to claim that FEMA has no right to exist, because it was not created by the legislative, but instead by Presidential Order, which is not a recognized power in the constitution. The flaw in that reasoning is that Presidential Orders have no teeth without funding. Carter could have signed whatever Presidential Order he wanted to try to create FEMA, but if congress didn't appropriate any money in the budget for its creation any administration, it wouldn't exist. So blame Congress for FEMA's continuing existence, and blame Bush for appointing the incompetent brown as its Director.

Re:Figures

[ivan256]

Well he hired a good portion of the Clinton administration, who also started wars on highly suspect grounds, so who knows.... At the very least he's not off to a good start.

Re:Figures

[falconwolf]

Anyone can bring a suit to invalidate a law as unconstitutional, so that is a failure of the people of this country if they chose not to object to being subjected to this law.

You can only bring a lawsuit if you can afford it. Most people don't have the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to bring a lawsuit.

As only ONE Congressional member voted against it.

Two, not one, congressman voted against the PATRIOT Act. Ron Paul opposes and voted against the act.

Falcon

Re:Figures

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooh, an "Overrated" mod. Sounds like some right-wing loon doesn't agree.

To the Obama Koolaid drinkers

[Whatsmynickname]

Between that and this pick, will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers

[ScrewMaster]

Between that and this pick, will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!

He is pro-technology. After all, DRM is tech.

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers

[morgan_greywolf]

He is pro-crapology. After all, DRM is crap.

There. Fixed it for you.

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers

[ScrewMaster]

He is pro-crapology. After all, DRM is crap.

There. Fixed it for you.

I was trying to add a small degree of subtlety to the proceedings.

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers

[calmofthestorm]

Sweet, now I can get a job writing better DRM!

*slits wrists*

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers

[Anonymous Coward]

...says Mister ScrewMaster.

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers

[AK Marc]

There. Fixed it for you.

And again, I wish I could change my visibility so that I never see posts with "citation needed" or "fixed that|it|this for you" in them.

Re:To the Obama Koolaid drinkers

[ScrewMaster]

...says Mister ScrewMaster.

That's Master ScrewMaster to you, buddy.

Trojan Horse

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said all along that the preZ elect is a Trojan horse. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Oh boy this should be fun

[Doghouse Riley]

I'm popping a big bowl of Orville's best right now.

If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on /.

But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.

Re:Oh boy this should be fun

[Missing_dc]

I know the parent post is rather trollish, but it got a LOL out of me!

Re:Oh boy this should be fun

[dangitman]

If Chimpy McBushitler had done this, it'd be business as usual on /. But now that his O'ness has done it, I'm looking forward to a really entertaining read.

Yeah, the old slashdot standby:

"Waaah! If X had have done Y, slashdot would be up in arms about it, but not if Z had done Y!"

Meanwhile, back in reality, slashdot has a pretty consistent response to Y, regardless of whether X or Z did it. Get over your martyr complex.

Re:Oh boy this should be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm popping a big bowl of Orville's best right now.

I read that as, "I'm pooping a big bowl of Orville's best right now." I was going to suggest that you should cut back on your popcorn consumption.

Re:Oh boy this should be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Start with reading how you apparently voted for the man who has put more "gangsters" into high level federal positions than any other president since the beginning of time. I can't wait to see all my legal rights get stripped away. Next he'll appoint Dr. kevorkian as the head of Medical, forget the posting name itself.

Re:Oh boy this should be fun

[HardCase]

Oh, the response may be negative, but there's a difference in shrillness. Sort of like the difference between a firecracker and a ton of TNT.

Re:Oh boy this should be fun

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason they elected a black president is to divert attention from all the crap the government has been doing. A woman wouldn't have been a big enough distraction. Besides, think of all the ghetto-dwellers that finally went out and voted, just because the candidate was black.

Change? Change my ass. Same shit, different presidency.

And so it begins

[QuantumG]

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.

Re:And so it begins

[morgan_greywolf]

Agreed. Clue-stick for the clueless -- no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is on Capitol Hill, change happens in Washington very, very slowly. The government is a big bureaucracy, run by bureaucrats. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Oh, and as a result -- the changes are usually for the worse, not the better.

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Re:And so it begins

[Wild_dog!]

I agree totally, the US and indeed the world are heading closer to the Orwellian world that many anti-utopians have predicted as the world becomes more complicated and more connected. There isn't really a solution as far as I can see. It seems the powers of the dark side are indeed more formidible. As for Obama, he may achieve some great historic things in his time as President, but there will be many dastardly things to credit him with as well. He is a master of Machiavellian politics. Indeed I cannot recollect anyone better at it than he is currently. I just wish there was a champion for the rights of the people and the preservation of the constitution. I'm not sure where such a leader might come from.

Re:And so it begins

[larry bagina]

First chink? Only if you don't count FISA immunity, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. Hell, Eric Holder (you know, AG nominee) is arguably worse, having signed off on some dubious pardons.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

first chink in the army

I think the word you were looking for is "armor", not "army".

HTH. HAND.

Re:And so it begins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless.

Am I missing a reference or something? Is this some sort of racist pun?

Re:And so it begins

[Arthur Grumbine]

Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.

Racial comments about the military aside (I left that part of your post out), I am so confused. Is Obama so oblivious that he can't recognize if someone whom he hand-picked to be knowledgeable on a given subject "doesn't know any better"?! Or maybe he picks advisors who he wants to deceive him on the issues they were picked to advise him on?!!? Maybe his advisors don't know what lobbyists are, or how they work? If so, and if Obama does know how lobbyists work, why would he choose people so ignorant of the very forces they are supposed to buffer him from?!?!!

Re:And so it begins

[earlymon]

Sorry to be a metaphor Nazi, but I think you meant first chink in the armor.

Re:And so it begins

[phorm]

I believe it was a typo/mistype. Substitute "armour" for "army"

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you actually haven't ever heard the expression before, OP meant "chink in the armor" as in a crack that lets attacks get through. Politically, it means that it'll be an opportunity for his supporters to turn on him.

Re:And so it begins

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

first chink in the army

I think the word you were looking for is "armor", not "army".

Either that, or he thought Perrelli was Chinese...

Re:And so it begins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I know what a "chink in the armor" is. But since I don't see how one can easily mistype "armor" as "army" I was wondering if this was a joke (possibly from some inane comedy) where a character misspeaks. "Chink in the armor" implies a crack, but "chink in the army" implies the derogatory racial term for chinese, since having a crack in your army is nonsensical... hence my question.

Re:And so it begins

[Shakrai]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Things will have to get pretty fucking bad before the average American bothers to turn off American idol and vote -- let alone come up with the wherewithal to alter or abolish the Government.

Re:And so it begins

[Rycross]

Its hard to mis-type armor as army, but if you're typing quickly without thinking thoroughly about what you're typing, its pretty easy to swap two words that seem similar and share some sort of conceptual similarity (an army may use armor). I'd say its safer to chalk it up to a mistake rather than make this into some sort of witch hunt.

Re:And so it begins

[R2.0]

First chink in the army? There are plenty of chinese in the US Army, and about a million in the Chinese army.

Ohhh, you meant "first chink in the [i]armor[/i]. That makes more sense.

Carry on.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Things will have to get pretty fucking bad before the average American bothers to turn off American idol and vote -- let alone come up with the wherewithal to alter or abolish the Government.

they did vote...for more government and less freedom.

Re:And so it begins

[Whatsmynickname]

First chink?

Holy f**k, Obama is considering ex Time Warner CEO as sec. of commerce!!!!!

If that happens, Mr. Fox, here's the keys to the Internet chicken coop!!! Buh Buy to net neutrality!

Re:And so it begins

[DynamiteNeon]

If the change we're expecting is compared to a Bush presidency or even a predicted McCain presidency, then I would argue that it's still like night and day.

I don't agree with this choice, but it's not like I'm expecting Obama to fart rainbows all the time.

Re:And so it begins

[EbeneezerSquid]

no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is on Capitol Hill, change happens in Washington very, very slowly.

This point is what gives me hope for the next four years. Change is slow, So "the One" shouldn't be able to do Too Much damage. I hope.

As for Revolution, As much as I dislike the sleazy bastard, I will gladly stand between you and he, for he was the duly elected President of the United States, which I have sworn to protect and Defend, in full accordance with the Constitution of the United States, which I have also sworn to protect and defend.

You may want to read the thing sometime.

Re:And so it begins

[sydneyfong]

Please don't use the R word.

I don't think you know what it means.

Re:And so it begins

[McGiraf]

flamebait? wow, they should make people pass a reading test before giving them mod points. Ouch.

Re:And so it begins

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'd say its safer to chalk it up to a mistake rather than make this into some sort of witch hunt.

Witch hunt? I just asked if it was some bad joke. It sounds a lot like the lame jokes you hear in bad comedies starring Jack Black or Adam Sandler. I was just curious if it was a joke in pop culture, a mistake by the writer, or some sort of racist joke by the writer. I didn't think asking would get people so upset, with the multiple flamebait mods and the like. Luckily I have karma to burn, so I don't really care how I'm modded. Like you I'm leaning towards thinking this is a mistake, probably the writer parroting a cliche he didn't ever think about and did not remember correctly or really understand.

Re:And so it begins

[Rycross]

Well he'd been accused of racism in more than one comment, and I mixed up your comment with the others. Sorry about that.

Re:And so it begins

[GaryOlson]

Revolution can come from inside the system as well as outside. Run for office and show us how willing you are to really work for the solution. I'll vote for you. You don't seem any more competent than the current group; and you have the right attitude.

Re:And so it begins

[bendodge]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

I don't agree. Anyone who expect a generation educated by the state to be independent of the state deserves what they get. State-run education needs to stop. That's the real cancer thats been eating our core heritage.

But I'll still hang onto my guns, just in case. ;)

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey you damn kids, Get Offa My Lawn [getoffamylawn.com]!"

Um, why does your sig link to a site that requires unattainable authentication to even view the home page? That's pretty frickin' lame, brah.

Re:And so it begins

[aussie_a]

FYI: I constantly mistype stuff that makes absolutely no sense.

Re:And so it begins

[dangitman]

they did vote...for more government and less freedom.

Come now, there's no need to bring the 2004 election into this, leave it in the past where it belongs.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to confess that I do enjoy the sore losers from the other side this time after the eight years of gloating and self-satisfaction. I shouldn't, but I do, and I can only hope for a two-term Democratic administration to deliver the fully equivalent experience for them.

Privation is good for the soul, they say.

Re:And so it begins

[citizenr]

Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades.

Obama _IS_ same asshole as those that have been driving this country into the ground for decades.

Re:And so it begins

[ravenshrike]

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is surrounding himself with the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.

Fixed that for you.

Re:And so it begins

[Lars512]

I don't agree. Anyone who expect a generation educated by the state to be independent of the state deserves what they get. State-run education needs to stop. That's the real cancer thats been eating our core heritage.

Before the government ran public schools, wasn't it only the church(es)? I prefer the secular version please.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe that's the joke?

Re:And so it begins

[RanCossack]

Roll back expectations? Screw that. I expect the economy to skyrocket, a full switch to a green economy, and mars colonies at the stroke of noon this January 20th.

*My* expectations are going to crash all at once in a blaze of glorious stupidity.

Re:And so it begins

[gigamonkey]

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless. Obama is being surrounded by the same assholes that have been driving this country into the ground for decades. No matter how good his intentions may be, he'll believe his trusted advisers and they will believe the lobbyists, cause they just don't know any better.

Why are you so convinced his intentions are good? He hasn't even started the engine yet.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were worthy of viewing it you would know the login/password already.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

You must mean "kink in the armor", as "chink" is a horrible racial slur.

Re:And so it begins

[jez9999]

Hey, you don't have to turn off American Idol to vote. You can pick up the phone whilst watching!

Re:And so it begins

[TheRaven64]

First? Obama has surrounded himself with this kind of person since he started building his team. Some are arguing that he wants to be surrounded by people he disagrees with, so he doesn't develop the same echo chamber problem as the previous administration. Some are claiming that he sold out. Which is true won't be obvious for at least another six months.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Well at least it isn't a chink in the armor.

Re:And so it begins

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Agreed. Clue-stick for the clueless -- no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is on Capitol Hill, change happens in Washington very, very slowly.

Exactly.

The government is a big bureaucracy, run by bureaucrats.

Absolutely.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Err... I guess you could put it like that.

Oh, and as a result -- the changes are usually for the worse, not the better.

Wait... what? Just because we're experiencing a swing away from libertarianism?

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Dude, you're a nutjob.

Re:And so it begins

[Clovis42]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

The democracy part isn't broken though. Regardless of how horrible you think our officials are, they are our elected officials. When you say "revolution", you are talking about overthrowing the leaders that the people voted for. What kind of government are you planning to replace the current one with? Your revolution will require the governments overthrow by force, so a military dictatorship? Or do you believe you can lead some kind of enlightened aristocracy? There is no need for "revolution" until it the ability (not the willingness) of the people to vote is suppressed. As someone said already, you are just a nutjob.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean "surrounded by the same assholes" ???

Why doesn't the obvious occur to you -- Obama himself is one of the same assholes.

Re:And so it begins

[Kjella]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

I guess you haven't been paying much attention to revolutions. Violent revolutions haven't exactly got a shining track record - more often than not it proof some fruitcake got enough control of the military to take over. Even when there's broad popular support it tends to put a lot of very power-hungry people into positions of power, while the population is left with grand promises of a new future. Like the russians, they wanted to get rid of the Tsar and ended up with Lenin, not exactly a great swap. As far as "good" revolutions go, if you can't bring about change by exposing the government chances are really slim guns will do any better.

Re:And so it begins

[DarkOx]

No there are people in this nation who are interested and participatory in politics; that also have a strong enough moral compass and will to stand by their ideals to make a difference from the office of President. The trouble is the system has been cooped to make certain non of these people can ever get into that office.

Obama is a first class looser all he ever does; ever has done in stick a moistened finger into the air to see which way the wind is blowing. He has given us so far no reason to think that isn't all he ever will do. I guess you can say that it is an improvement over the criminals we have had in the past but I think that is pretty sad in itself. Personally I will be SHOCKED if Obama turns out to be a better leader then Bush Jr, has been. Bush has been wrong on a whole lot of things but he really meant well. I don't think Obama does; I think he does whats good for Obama which may prove to work better then Bushes bumbling, maybe but don't hold your breath.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhhh! He is one of the same assholes that have been running the country

Re:And so it begins

[morgan_greywolf]

*sigh*

Did I ever say that revolution would require attacking the duly elected President of the United States? Did I ever say that revolution would even require violence?

Revolution can take many forms. The 1960s in the United States were a form of revolution that resulted in a complete overhaul of our civil rights laws. My only fear is that it if too many people are pushed too far, the bloody form is the one that will rear its ugly head.

Re:And so it begins

[sskinnider]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Now that Obama is in office the world thinks that the revolution has been won.

Re:And so it begins

[geminidomino]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

While I agree with your prognosis, I feel it necessary to point out that there is really little point to a revolution right now. Not because it's not needed, but because we don't have anything to replace the current clusterfuck.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

> Obama is a first class looser all he ever does

How is that glass house working out for you?

Bush is a sack of shit. Your attempts to sugar-coat him don't make his 'presidency' easier to swallow.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting anonymous for obvious reasons)

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

You make a valid point. In the same way that our forefathers revolted over taxation without representation, I foresee a similar revolt over government driven by corporate interest. I would be proud to participate in such a revolution; yet I fear that the American people have become far too complacent for a revolution to be successful. Maybe the current economic downturn will cause enough inconvenience to shake people out of their apathy.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

That's a possible answer to the situations we're facing, however people will have to be generally at rock bottom with nowhere else to turn before they will agree to take such drastic measures.

Right now people are considering rock bottom as they struggle to find / hold jobs but they're not there yet for the most part.

Re:And so it begins

[Stu Charlton]

Only one thing will destroy and probably replace it with something worse our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Fixed.

Re:And so it begins

[Raenex]

Bush has been wrong on a whole lot of things but he really meant well.

Boy you are naive. Bush, the rich and privileged son with all the ties to the oil industry, means well, and isn't interested in power or looking out for his rich friends? He didn't use the Christian-right to get elected? Please. Obama and Bush are both politicians, they say shit to get elected, and they both have their own agendas. They "mean well" in their own way.

Re:And so it begins

[BarryJacobsen]

first chink in the army

I think you mean chink in the armor. First chink the army would be a rather racist expression :P

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless.

The phrase is "chink in the armor."

Re:And so it begins

[Icegryphon]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Sounds like it's teaparty time.

Re:And so it begins

[lymond01]

Clue-stick for the clueless -- no matter who is in the White House, no matter who is on Capitol Hill, change happens in Washington very, very slowly.

Up until Bush's administration, most would have agreed. But he drove America into the ground in less than 8 years -- I don't think that qualifies as "slowly".

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

The wave of optimism that swept across the country on the lead up and election of Barak Obama is a type of revolution. Breaking down doors and brother against brother is a thing of the uncivilized past. Today, we vote. If it gets very bad, we impeach.

Re:And so it begins

[joranbelar]

Newsflash, that's the whole point. We just experienced a record voter turnout, so the whole "apathetic voter" meme can probably go away.

What people are suddenly realizing is that voting doesn't _matter_. It's the unelected political appointees that are the "real" government. And they're pretty much all scum-suckers.

Re:And so it begins

[joranbelar]

the first chink in the army

Is that some kind of racist asian joke? ;-)

I believe you're looking for "chink in the armor". Although that is the funniest eggcorn I've seen in a while.

Re:And so it begins

[randyest]

It's chink in the armor not army. You know, like the Fox TV series.

Re:And so it begins

[Spykk]

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army

Ah, good ol' unintentional racism.

Re:And so it begins

[4D6963]

Yeah, we tried this in France, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, China and Russia, it helped us a great deal. And I'm not trolling about France, it's not even what got us rid of kings, and it got us the Reign of Terror. Truly, getting rid of everything good and bad is a wiser solution than slowly trying to filter the lobbyists out of power and reforming.

Re:And so it begins

[bendodge]

Nope. That's a misconception perpetrated by public education. Before the current education system, local towns would hire their own teachers and build their own schoolhouse. It produced people who wrote works like the Federalist Papers and the Constitution. Go read the Federalist Papers, which were designed to convince the New England farmer to accept the brand-new Constitution. I don't think most college students could read them aloud without stumbling, let alone understand them.

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
[truncated]

-FEDERALIST. No. 1

General Introduction
For the Independent Journal.
Alexander Hamilton

Re:And so it begins

[coopaq]

Never underestimate a good strategy.

Possibility:
In one or two years time, when this mess that is being handed to Obama needs cleaning up, he will have many people to blame it on and can fire them.

It could be politically convenient for him if nothing else.

Re:And so it begins

[StikyPad]

There was a question in there?

Re:And so it begins

[Kawolski]

I know what a "chink in the armor" is. But since I don't see how one can easily mistype "armor" as "army"

Maybe he thought the correct word in the phrase was "army." It's like when people use the phrase "mute point" instead of "moot point."

Re:And so it begins

[mrdarreng]

What's really sad is even with a Depression no one cares enough to do that.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

...before the average American bothers to turn off American idol and vote...

There's the REAL insidious problem. They ARE VOTING on American Idol. Doing their civic television duty, yeah!

Re:And so it begins

[rawtatoor]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Retarded and wrong. The only thing that can fix our country is education. For instance, a good start might be educating everyone about why democracy is evil, and not something that we want more of. I'll give you a hint why democracy sucks; people are stupid fucks, for instance crying for democracy which would be the rule of said dumbfucks.

Re:And so it begins

[rawtatoor]

Yeah, or the Patriot act. Gotta love peoples' capacity to put their heads up their asses. All the simpletons who support Obama like he actually is good for the US make me cry.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Well wasn't it Abraham Lincoln that had appointed people to his cabinet that he strongly disagreed with on most issues? So that he could hear the counter-arguments and make the best "educated" decision? Rather than a cabinet full of yes-people that will just agree with whatever Mr. President has to say, so that they can keep their cushy jobs and negotiate whatever favors they can while the country goes to hell in a handbasket.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason it's broken is because everyone is convinced it's a democracy(majority rule), when it's supposed to be a republic(limited government constrained by law). This is mob rule, democracy at it's finest, let's go back to a republic as this country was intended.

Re:And so it begins

[sac13]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Things will have to get pretty fucking bad before the average American bothers to turn off American idol and vote -- let alone come up with the wherewithal to alter or abolish the Government.

The funny thing is, voting is all that needs to be done to have a revolution. The ENTIRE House of Representatives is up for election every 2 years. ALL budget bills must originate from the House. Control the money, control it all.

The problem is that everybody thinks that all congressmen are corrupt and should be removed from office... except theirs. And so, the same idiots get sent back to Washington. And, the dumb masses think a different body in the White House will bring "change".

Re:And so it begins

[DrgnDancer]

It also produced 40-50% illiteracy. People who lived in cities and decent sized towns got great educations (or in some areas they could, if they were of the proper social class), but rural areas were often tremendously under-served. Also the majority of the founding fathers were educated by private tutors. They were, in the main, wealthy land holders. Public education has its downsides, but is has the advantage of educating EVERYBODY. Maybe not to the extent that we would like in some cases, but everyone has the opportunity to learn the basics at least. At any rate, schools are typically run at the city or county level anyway, which isn't to far above "town" level.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's all going to "change" right?

Re:And so it begins

[amRadioHed]

If it gets very bad, we impeach.

Either your idea of very bad is different than mine, or the specter of impeachment is a thing of the past as well.

Re:And so it begins

[sootman]

You know, there's more to life than how many songs you can share and is it OK to get sued for pira^H^H^H^Hcopyright infringement and what if you did break the law but the other side is REALLY being an asshole about it etc etc etc. If he can end the fucking war (the ACTUAL one, with bullets and dead bodies on both sides and whatnot) I'll be happy. If we manage not to slip into a depression I'll be fucking ECSTATIC. THOSE are the reasons I voted for Obama.

I like the NRA, too, but not enough to listen to them when they said I should vote for McCain. I believe America's copyright laws are royally fucked and have ben corrupted to serve the exact OPPOSITE function the framers intended but come on, first things first.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

The American Revolution was started by a few guys that didn't want to pay taxes. Most people living in the colonies were more then happy to have good'ol England in charge. History revisionists like to make it sound that all Americans grabbed grandpas riffle and take on the Red Coats.

Re:And so it begins

[Elektroschock]

Maybe the US election system needs fundamental reform but this is a poor outsider advice and difficult to get.

The Us election system creates a more or less stable government structure, better than most other systems worldwide. It would be great if the rest of the world would abide at least to these standards and have a president as professional as Obama.

The more constuctive criticism of a political system the higher the likelihood for reform. "Revolutions" are violent and disruptive changes, most of the times for the worse. No sane person can aim for that unless he wants to see things blow up.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

lol - he thinks his vote counts!

You would think that more slashdot readers and net-saavy individuals interested in headlines like the one above would appreciate the technical dynamics and social ramifications of proprietary voting machine software and comment accordingly; Let's say, perhaps, in a way that might inspire the kind of righteous indignation in others necessary to abolish the tyrannical implementation of this practice...

I just can't endure any more condescension about how little hope there is to inspire Americans to care enough to protect and preserve their Constitutional freedoms from people who assert that voting for the "right" candidate (red vs. blue - they're all crooks defending the aristocracy!) will force a revolutionary change
WHEN THEY AREN'T EVEN SKEPTICAL ENOUGH TO EXERCISE APPRECIATION FOR THE UBIQUITOUS THREATS TO DEMOCRACY, failing to investigate whether these machines are actually counting votes accurately!!!

-same goes for partisan bickering amongst this same group of people.

Why bother to have an opinion if you are prevented - by the very same government institution you are trying to revolutionize - from viewing the source code of the software and firmware that would confirm that your vote matters??? (on the grounds of "Trade Secrets"!!!)

It truly IS an information war, and the innocent victims perpetuating all the suffering in the world are the ones who supply the rationalization for it; They will smirk at my use of "information war" - an antiquated cliche from the technological revolution, no doubt.

Re:And so it begins

[cyphercell]

The problem with impeaching bush, was that we would have been left with cheney. I firmly believe that bush would have been drug out of office otherwise.

Re:And so it begins

[svnt]

as the first chink in the army

Ooh. You should take more care to get that metaphor right. When "armor" is replaced by a word that encompasses "group of people," chink assumes a definition I'm sure you didn't intend.

Re:And so it begins

[svnt]

I am sorry to have added to your overdone rebuke. I will now fix my viewing threshold.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened to CHANGE AND HOPE?

  All that was yesterday, today politics as usual?

  Fuck this shit -- same crap every 4 years, and all of you gullible kool-aid sucking dumbasses always fall for it. Vote 3 party -- not because they are better, but they ARE change from the STATUS QUO.

 

Re:And so it begins

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but the fact is no-one is flawless.
Oh I don't know if you were going for a +6 super ironic moderation with this statement put the proper phrase would be "chink in the armor" which comes from old english cine "crack". Your phrase sounds like a chiniese american(perjorative) has joined the armed forces. Somehow it's at +5 insightful

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

Really? People no longer have the right to vote? They no longer have the right to become fully informed about candidates and select their elected officials via a ballot box? When did I miss that?

Or, are you confusing people's refusal to become informed and vote with their ability?

What good is a revolution when the root of the problem is that the people you want to revolt are so lazy and myopic that they'd elect a bar of margarine if someone put a catchy enough slogan on it with a sticky note?

When the whole problem is that you have a country full of lazy, uninformed, dim-witted, partisan idiots who only care about party labels and arbitrary placements on a political inclination slider, what good does it do you to have a revolt?

We don't need a revolt, we need an enlightenment.

Re:And so it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you wanna count this as the first chink in the army but ...

What kind of twisted expression is that? It sounds offensive. Wouldn't we want to allow people of all races in our military? Are you thinking they would be spies, or just bad soldiers?

Re:And so it begins

[red46]

That's funny. I thought Obama was supposed to be the great savior. How can he possibly make a mistake?

Re:And so it begins

[lymond01]

Well, you know, we weren't burning fences for heat or being rounded up and segregated by police squads for no proper reason (not en masse anyway).

We were headed in that direction, but happily we had an election and the entire planet Earth is crossing its fingers in the hope that Barack Obama steers us differently.

Re:And so it begins

[falconwolf]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

I don't agree. Anyone who expect a generation educated by the state to be independent of the state deserves what they get.

Going through public education doesn't preclude you from being independent.

State-run education needs to stop. That's the real cancer thats been eating our core heritage.

No, what needs to stop is lack of choice, for the poor as well as for the wealthy.

Falcon

Re:And so it begins

[Explodicle]

This is mob rule, democracy at it's finest, let's go back to a republic as this country was intended.

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Thank you for expressing your interest in this important issue! I appreciate all the letters and comments I receive from you and other subjects of our jurisdiction. As you may know, the topic of direct versus representative democracy is one that concerns me greatly, and my staff has been working hard to address the problem. You can rest assured that I will make a decision on your behalf that will result in the best possible outcome for me. Thanks again for your support, and remember to vote for Explodicle at the next election!

Sincerely,
Explodicle

Re:Quick!

[schon]

It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.

Then why do you engage in it?

Your first post presupposes *way* too much to be anything other than partisan.

Not Surprising

[Rycross]

The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.

My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy. It could be that the lawyer in question is indifferent to the RIAA's ideology and was simply representing them in a professional manner. It definitely doesn't make Obama's pick any less questionable and the lawyer any less scummy, but it would at least assuage my fears that the appointee would be pushing the RIAA's agenda from a position of power.

Re:Not Surprising

[Missing_dc]

Anyone care to cite references to support the view that the prime pick is stalwart?

Re:Not Surprising

[Rycross]

Make no mistake, I am not trying to support Obama's decision. Especially considering that his second pick was Ogden who, according to TFA, "...was responsible for organizing the defense of the Child Online Protection Act..." and "...successfully defended the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act before the U.S. Supreme Court."

I did a bit of research using Google and Wikipedia. Wikipedia has some light information on Tom Perrelli. It seems he is most well-known for his copyright litigation, but did do work for the United States Department of Justice, including tobacco industry litigation. Also he was "... defending the constitutionality of federal statutes, defending federal agency action and regulations, representing the diplomatic and national security interests of the United States in courts of law, and conducting significant Title VII, personnel and social security litigation." That's a pretty sanitized summary, and its hard to find out if he was doing good work or bad, but the bit about defending federal agency actions, regulations, and statues against constitutional question leaves me with a bad feeling in my gut. There's a lot of unjust and unconstitutional laws out there, so I'd place my bets on him defending bad laws rather than good ones.

I couldn't find much on David Ogden, other than his firm's bio page, and fluff pieces. Apparently he was already involved with Obama's transition team and worked for Clinton's administration. He also has experience at the federal level. There's a lot of juicy stuff in the firm's bio page, but he seems to be pretty cozy with media and big corporations. Without a lot of detail, a casual reading suggests that he tends to represent the big corps over the little guys. The only two bright spots seem to be "Obtaining summary judgment and affirmance ... rejecting the claims of a major tobacco company seeking to shut down the .. nationwide counter-marketing campaign to discourage young people from smoking", and "Representing a US media company with respect to the detention and threatened prosecution by US Forces and the Iraq government of the company's Iraqi employee."

Overall, not much to be happy about. It looks like he picked two big-business, media-friendly lawyers. They have a lot of federal-level experience, but not the kind I would have wanted.

Re:Not Surprising

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Obtaining summary judgment and affirmance ... rejecting the claims of a major tobacco company seeking to shut down the .. nationwide counter-marketing campaign to discourage young people from smoking"

Not a plus in my opinion. The tobacco witch hunt was nothing short of ridiculous. I read novels written in the 50s referring to cigarettes as "cancel sticks" and "coffin nails", and yet and expected to believe that people were magically convinced they were healthy because of tobacco PR and marketing? Give me a break. People smoked because they wanted to (this is coming from an ex-smoker), and because when we're young we can't believe that we're mortal.

Re:Not Surprising

[the eric conspiracy]

Not even close. Slashdot as usual fixed on one fact and didn't bother to do any further investigation before publishing a derogatory story. Slashdot should be totally embarrassed by this stupid one sided story.

Perrelli has prior public service in the Clinton Justice Department, and has been named one of the top 40 young lawyers in the US. This includes leading the DoJ tobacco litigation team against major cigarette manufacturers, as well as acting as an advocate for important privacy regulation including HIPAA.

Like Mr. Obama he is also a former managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.

Perrelli is likely to have a tough time in confirmation hearings because he was one of the lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo in the infamous Terry Schiavo case - in my opinion one of the most odious efforts by the Federal Government to intrude on a person's right to life their life in privacy in the history of this nation.

Re:Not Surprising

[dangitman]

in the infamous Terry Schiavo case - in my opinion one of the most odious efforts by the Federal Government to intrude on a person's right to life their life in privacy in the history of this nation.

Methinks this might not be the most appropriate wording for this case.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, picking big-business lawyers usually means you're picking smart, successful ones. Firms like Wilmer run around to the top law schools and offer obscene amounts of money to work for them. And that prices "little-guy" litigants who can't afford the outsized hourly billable rates charged by these major firms out of their services.

Fault the lawyers? Fine. Certainly there are noble do-gooders out there who eschew corporate practice and decide to pursue the meaningful route, and the law schools that can afford it are trying to make this possible by excusing do-gooders from the mountains of debt a JD incurs. But they are rare-ish, and as a result of having fewer client who can afford to push a case through to trial (and potentially appellate review) tend also to be less experienced.

Of course, one big counterexample would be an ACLU first-amendment lawyer, or a similar cause activist who has some sort of foundation money to burn on expensive litigation, but these would tend to be massive political liabilities. No, all told, you'd better expect a "big-guy" lawyer for any significant post, and the reasons can be as driven by the structure of the contemporary legal profession as by apparent friendliness to corporate interests.

Re:Not Surprising

[Just Some Guy]

This includes leading the DoJ tobacco litigation team against major cigarette manufacturers,

RIAA frontman? Strike one.

Tobacco lawsuits? Strike two.

as well as acting as an advocate for important privacy regulation including HIPAA.

He's one of the jackasses responsible for that disaster? Strike three.

I don't know anyone in the medical industry who thinks HIPAA is a good idea. At one time, the HIPAA compliance officer for the hospital my wife affiliates with was briefing doctors on new policies. One particularly egregious example was that clinics were to install those "take a number" machines and address patients only by number until they were in a treatment room. This is in a town of about 25,000, where there's about a 50% chance that any two people in a waiting room know each other's names anyway.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

lawyer any less scummy

+1 Repetitive

Re:Not Surprising

[the eric conspiracy]

I don't know anyone in the medical industry who thinks HIPAA is a good idea

HIPAA was put into place to protect PATIENTS. Tough if the health care industry doesn't like it. The heath care industry in this country is a pack of crooks greatly in need of massive reform anyway. 17% of GNP? You have got to be kidding.

He's one of the jackasses responsible for that disaster?

No. He was one of those responsible for defending the family against the intrusions of the Right To Life wingnuts.

Tobacco lawsuits?

So you are saying the Federal Government should not have sued the tobacco companies? That's a new one.

RIAA frontman?

Yes, however that is the the ONLY valid objection that I have been able to find. Otherwise he has a record that I find pretty good.

Of course the heard mentality of slashdot punishes anyone who tries to think for themselves.

Re:Not Surprising

[the eric conspiracy]

yes, I missed on the editing of that post.

Re:Not Surprising

[Just Some Guy]

Of course the heard mentality of slashdot punishes anyone who tries to think for themselves.

With that I agree. A lot of people think that dumb things like the tobacco lawsuits and HIPAA are a natural and good purpose of government and get bent at people who disagree.

Re:Not Surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

WRT the Schiavo case, it was a disaster indeed, but I think Perrelli backed the right legal side (the husband is the healthcare proxy instead of parents or inlaws), although Michael Schiavo came off as a money-grubbing douche in the process.

Re:Not Surprising

[paazin]

Hate to say it but this pretty much tells it how it is.

Pity so many people have their head in the clouds

Re:Not Surprising

[falconwolf]

Perrelli has prior public service in the Clinton Justice Department, and has been named one of the top 40 young lawyers in the US. This includes leading the DoJ tobacco litigation team against major cigarette manufacturers,

And as everyone knows, and has known for a long tyme, smoking is hazardous to your health yet they still smoke. I smoke and I've known for the more than 30 years I've smoked that it's bad. You make his going after tobacco companies as being good, but I look it as being bad. Nobody made me smoke and I hate it when people try to get laws passed to make me stop smoking, or to sue tobacco companies out of business.

Perrelli is likely to have a tough time in confirmation hearings because he was one of the lawyers who represented Michael Schiavo in the infamous Terry Schiavo case

On second thought, maybe he isn't so bad after all. What politicians did to keep Terry Schiavo a living dead was stupid.

Falcon

Re:Not Surprising

[falconwolf]

So you are saying the Federal Government should not have sued the tobacco companies?

As a smoker, yes the government should not be telling me how to live. I getta admit that this was one thing I think he did right.

Of course the heard mentality of slashdot punishes anyone who tries to think for themselves.

Like those like and want to smoke? Or like those who want to dictate to others and tell them they can't smoke?

Falcon

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is always fun to see flamebaits (ie. messages only flaming others but with no real content or arguments in themselves) to be moderated +4 insightful in a few seconds.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why not get rid of the parties?

Re:Quick!

[larry bagina]

Obama wants to change the system. But in order to do that, he needs insiders, clinton retreads, lobbyists, and big corporate stooges that know how to get shit done. Once he's surrounded by them, he'll be able to change the system.

Well....

[xzvf]

It could be, that like most lawyers, he doesn't actually believe in the RIAA cause and just wants their money. Murderers and rapists need lawyers that just have to be advocates in court and not true believers in their client's innocence. That being said, when you set your expectations higher than the gutter (especially in politics) there is a chance you'll be disappointed.

Re:Well....

[Missing_dc]

I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.

Re:Well....

[db32]

That isn't far from what I was thinking. I mean really...how many lawyers have YOU met that had a code of ethics beyond getting paid? I suppose there is Jack Thompson...but then you kinda get into the realm of lawyers with codes of ethics aren't very good lawyers. (Yes...Jack Thompson had "ethics", he believed in his little crusade against the immorality of blah blah blah...that doesn't mean his ethics are anywhere near rational)

Now...to be fair...criminal defense lawyers that defend murderers and rapists should not allow their personal beliefs to get in the way. There have been so many mock trials in this country where the defense lawyer basically refused to put up a fight for an innocent man because he had already decided himself that he was guilty (typically based on things like skin color and the like). They should do their best job regardless of what they think. Of course...RIAA lawyers have a little more freedom in their choice of clients...but hey, if the paycheck is big enough...

Re:Well....

[Rycross]

Unfortunate, but the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty. We have to make sure we do our best not to lock up the innocent. Despite the outcome, I'd have to applaud the lawyer for defending a client to the best of his ability, even if he thought the client was guilty. I don't think I'd have the stomach for that, but its a job that needs to be done for our legal system to even resembling something close to justice.

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was murder, please send a note to Dexter.

Re:Well....

[Rary]

I have a friend that I truly believe was guilty of a crime who was acquitted. After having witnessed his lawyer's representation, I think the lawyer believed the same. He did his job to the fullest regardless of his own beliefs.

For the most part, criminal defense attorneys are a different breed than corporate attack attorneys. Criminal defense attorneys often need to believe in their clients, while corporate attack attorneys simply need to believe in the pay cheque.

Re:Well....

[johnsonav]

Unfortunate, but the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty.

Common misconception. The guilty deserve nothing but the punishment the law requires. Only the innocent deserve a vigorous and thorough defense. The problem is deciding which is which, before the trial.

Re:Well....

[Rary]

I just realized that I misread your post. I thought you were saying that the lawyer believed your client was innocent, but in fact you said the opposite. My bad.

Feel free to ignore my comments, although I still say they're very different kinds of attorneys (and people).

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Was this supposed to be a joke?

Re:Well....

[Dhalka226]

As he should. The government shouldn't get a free pass, even on people who actually are guilty. They need to prove their case and do it within the constructs of the laws and protections we've established through the centuries. Likewise, so far as the jury is concerned, it's better for them to err on the side of caution if they have any doubts about the person's guilt.

It's sad that guilty people sometimes go free, but it's much more sad when innocent people are put in jail. Guilty and innocent alike deserve the same protections and representations. If I were a defense attorney, I would not ask any questions that even came close to asking a client if he was actually guilty; I wouldn't want to know.

The most important thing is the process, not the outcome.

Re:Well....

[MaskedSlacker]

You deserve to be modded vigorously upwards for being clever enough to spot the subtle distinction. Sadly, most slashdotters will not be so clever and misunderstand you. I've got karma to burn anyway, so here's to you!

Those who commit murder deserve punishment, regardless of whether they are proven guilty. The innocent deserve to be acquitted because they are not guilty, regardless of whether they have been proven guilty.

Whether a person deserves punishment is not a function of what 12 people on a jury think. Whether the government should inflict punishment is.

Re:Well....

[atraintocry]

No, my inquisitive AC friend, he was pointing out the difference between criminals and those charged with crimes. But I don't blame you...Nancy Grace tends to leave that bit out on her show.

Re:Well....

[MaskedSlacker]

You didn't think people were paying attention before, did you?

THIS IS SLASHDOT!!!

We don't do that here.

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

I just realized that I misread your post.

And yet, your "erroneous" comment is currently 3, Interesting.

That fact alone is 256, Informative.

Re:Well....

[ari_j]

A criminal defense attorney defends the Constitution and our system of justice much more so than he defends rapists or murderers. The Constitution guarantees you a fair trial. If your attorney doesn't do his best within the bounds of the rules of ethics, just because he thinks (or knows for a fact) that you're guilty, then your trial wasn't fair. I don't care how guilty a person is: If he is locked up by a drumhead tribunal he was denied a right that all of us has.

Worse, if you let a defendant's lawyer be the one who decides whether he looks guilty enough to be locked up without the right to a fair trial, what's to stop you from just letting the judge make that decision instead of a jury? Next up, the prosecuting attorney will make the call. Soon enough, the police officer will make the final decision of your guilt.

Google for "why I defend guilty clients" for hundreds of stories of lawyers explaining what really goes through their minds when they defend the guilty. What I was looking for, though, is an article that doesn't seem to be available for free. Long story short, everyone, including the defense attorney, believed this guy to be guilty of vehicular homicide because police reports showed that he was removed from the left side of the vehicle that had crashed, leaving the passenger dead, so obviously he was the driver. He didn't remember what had happened, and even he believed that he must have been driving while so intoxicated that he couldn't even remember doing it, and he felt all the guilt of having killed someone through his wrongful acts.

It was only late in the process that a surprise fact came to light: The car was upside-down when the client was removed from its left side - in other words, he was removed from the passenger side, and had been in fact a victim of the deceased driver's recklessness. Without zealous advocacy by his attorney, nobody would have realized that fact and the man would have served time in prison for a death he played no role in. And that's why lawyers defend guilty clients.

As to this appointment, the only real fear a person should have about it is that the guy is too indoctrinated by the RIAA's mindset. This could certainly be the case, especially if he has had sanctions awarded against him in RIAA cases. Find some insurance defense lawyers and some personal injury plaintiffs' lawyers and get them talking about politics or about the insurance and health care industries sometime if you want some fun with indoctrinated views. But it's just as possible that he's nothing but a hired gun who will bring the same fierce representation to his new client, the US government, as he did to the RIAA when they were his client.

Re:Well....

[mysticgoat]

It could be, that like most lawyers, he doesn't actually believe in the RIAA cause and just wants their money.

Finally an intelligent post about the subject.

A lawyer is a hired gun, and has a duty to fight for his client, whatever his personal opinion. I've got no idea what his opinion of the RIAA is or what his opinion of copyright law is. I know he has been charging the RIAA incredible amounts, the kinds of fees some people charge for work they would really rather not do. I also know this: if I faced an RIAA lawsuit and his services were available and affordable to me, I'd be confident that he would give me a great defence.

Whatever his views of the RIAA and copyright issues, he does know where a lot of the bones are buried. Could be something good will come out of this.

Not saying this is good. Just saying that I don't see enough information here to make a judgment yet.

Re:Well....

[MrHanky]

So if you're caught, say, guilty of breaking and entry, theft, etc., you should be punished to the full extent of the law, despite having broken in to take a fire extinguisher, without which the house would likely have burned down?

There's more to life than simple binary oppositions. For some reason, this seems to escape a lot of Slashdotters. Autism?

Re:Well....

[Carewolf]

No deciding that before the trial is very very easy. Everybody is innocent until convicted otherwise.

Re:Well....

[RepelHistory]

The guilty deserve nothing but the punishment the law requires. Only the innocent deserve a vigorous and thorough defense.

Very wrong. Under our system, evidence obtained by illegal means is inadmissible in court, even if said evidence could otherwise be used to convict. This rule is referred to as the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The idea of this metaphor is that no bad tree can bear good fruit, so if a system is unable to give equal protection to every defendant (even if guilt is a foregone conclusion from the beginning), then no conviction under that system can be valid.

The bottom line is that our system is not just about determining guilt and innocence - it is also about demonstrating and preserving the legitimacy of the system itself. This means giving everyone the equal chance to defend him/herself, both in practice and in theory.

Re:Well....

[mlwmohawk]

the guilty deserve a good defense, even if they are guilty.

The actual issue is the assumption of guilt. No one who goes to trial is guilty. They are innocent until proven guilty.

So the Lawyer's job, in this case, is to defend an innocent person of the accusations, regardless of whether or not the lawyer thinks their client is guilty.

Re:Well....

[Aaron5367]

What ever happened to all are innocent until proven guilty?

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally and morally the guilty and innocent alike deserve, and are in fact entitled to, a fair trial. A fair trial requires adequate legal representation for the defendant.

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Innocent until proven guilty.

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminal defense attorneys often need to believe in their clients

I'm not sure why you say that, and don't think it's true.

There may be a few lawyers that operate on a moral level, but I think the majority think it's good enough to uphold the letter of the law. i.e. they may believe their client is most likley (perhaps all but certainly) guilty, but still deserves the protection of the law which requires him to be guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. They can therefore assuage their guilt at putting a murderer back on the streets by saying that they were just being a good lawyer and protecting his rights.

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a mod for sarcastic. Instead, you probably got modded informative once, then everyone else figured you were serious and followed suit.

Moderation by the mob. lol

Re:Well....

[gravyface]

Are you kidding me? You should hear some of my defense lawyer clients talking about their clients: they're pros -- like any trial lawyers -- at courtroom drama, because it's what they do for a living, like any other professional services.

Do you really think that Salesperson from AT&T flirting with you on the phone really wants to hook up with you?

Re:Well....

[Anonymous Coward]

Common misconception. The guilty deserve nothing but the punishment the law requires. Only the innocent deserve a vigorous and thorough defense.

Even the guilty deserve a vigorous and thorough defense. The point is to make the state do it's job and prove that a person is guilty. If they don't have enough evidence or legal standing to prove a person guilty in the face of such a defense, then they're not doing their jobs.

Re:Well....

[Repossessed]

Politicians do *NOT* appoint political enemies to office. Even if all they ever did for the other side was fetch coffee.

Re:Well....

[geekoid]

You are only guilty is a court rules you guilty.
Wether or not you committed the crime is irrelevant.

It must be that way to protect us all.

Re:Well....

[geekoid]

Easy.
before the trial they are innocent, everyone. You are always innocent up until the moment a court declares you guilty.

Re:Well....

[geekoid]

Those found guilty of committing murder deserve punishment.

What people here can't grasp is that guilt is a legal definition of what a court decides, not whether or not you committed a crime.
Ideally people who violated the law would all be punished, but alas, it is not so.

Re:Well....

[mcgrew]

The guilty deserve nothing but the punishment the law requires. Only the innocent deserve a vigorous and thorough defense. The problem is deciding which is which, before the trial.

Before the trial EVERONE is innocent. If you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" and you live in the US, please get the hell out of my country. The US was founded on the principle (which originated in Britain IINM) that it is better to let ten murderers go free than to hang one innocent man.

Please leave. Now.

Re:Well....

[johnsonav]

before the trial they are innocent, everyone.

No, no, no. Just because we treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty, does not mean that those who committed the crime are truly innocent. And if an innocent man is wrongly convicted, it does not make him guilty. This is the point of my original post: in the justice system, we use the words "guilty" or "innocent", when we should be using the, more accurate, terms "winner" or "loser". We confuse, perhaps deliberately, actual guilt with the finding of guilt by the court. A lost trial can never make an innocent man guilty.

Yes, all defendants should get a fair trial and a vigorous defense (though I stand by my statement that only the truly innocent ones deserve this). But, my point was that a trial has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, only winning and losing.

Re:Well....

[johnsonav]

Before the trial EVERONE is innocent.

No. Before the trial, we treat everyone as innocent. The guilty though, are still guilty. If there's a crime, you either did it or didn't, regardless of our ability to prove it. That was my point. I said in response to the post above this: a not-guilty verdict does not make a guilty man innocent, any more than a guilty verdict makes an innocent man guilty.

If you don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" and you live in the US, please get the hell out of my country.

I believe that's a prudent way for society to deal with people who are accused of a crime. Its all we can do, given the imperfect nature of our knowledge of the events in question. But, no matter how we treat the accused, no court of law can ever change the actual facts (however unknowable to the court they may be) which make a guilty man guilty.

The guilt or innocence of a man is not determined by a trial, but only by the nature of his actions. The trial is only our societal decision-making process which determines how we will treat him.

Plus ça change...

[Anonymous Coward]

...plus c'est pareil...

One character makes all the difference

[MWoody]

Slashdot headline:
Obama Picks RIAA's Favorite Lawyer For Top DoJ Post

Original headline:
Obama picks RIAA's favorite lawyer for a top Justice post

Quibbling over a single letter might seem pedantic - and /.'s headline is misleading rather than incorrect - but in this case, that's one very important letter. *sigh* The news lately is like a game of blogger's telephone.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[Devil's BSD]

Don't worry, this is slashdot, everyone RTFA's.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

hah.

bloggophone.

Thanks for introducing a new and terrible buzzword.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[Daengbo]

It's a headline. It has its own particular grammar. There are no articles in headlines so the "a" is dropped. Other peculiarities of headline grammar include using the infinitive to indicate future, the general lack of a be verb, simple present to indicate past, past to indicate passive voice, and present progressive to indicate change.

In short, no headline would be written the way you want it to, and no one who regularly reads headlines would interpret the way you did. The four people who modded you up were wrong.

I could have modded you back down, but I chose to correct you, instead.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with everything you said, and in addition, I would have modded him down for going:

*sigh*

Re:One character makes all the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

In short, no headline would be written the way you want it to

Except for, you know, the original headline.

Dipshit.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[rk]

No, I blame you. You're the one who put it together as one word, and now in my head all I hear is "ring ring ring ring ring ring ring bloggophone"

It will be days before I get over that brain virus. I hope you're happy.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[dangitman]

There are no articles in headlines so the "a" is dropped.

Say what? I've seen plenty of headlines with articles in them. Also, slashdot is not a print newspaper, so there's no need to abbreviate for space/size reasons.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[atraintocry]

I took it the same way as the parent. The summary set me straight, and obviously in any case it's not the end of the world. I think in these cases, like the "prostitutes appeal to pope" gag, it's probably better to play it safe than conserve a letter and a space.

But you are of course correct.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

What's a RTFA? ;-)

Re:One character makes all the difference

[calmofthestorm]

Fox 2 News Headline:

TERRORISTS might strike next at our WATER supplies

Fixed that for you.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[4D6963]

Quibbling over a single letter might seem pedantic

That's one small pedantic quibble for (a) man, one giant misleading headline for Slashdot.

Re:One character makes all the difference

[pcgabe]

That's allowed now?

Re:One character makes all the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

i do it, i "Read The Friendly Article(s)"

Re:Quick!

[Toonol]

Maybe you could think of his post as stating a hypothesis, and we are about to see whether it is proven correct in practice? After all, if it does end up being correct, perhaps something may be learned.

Re:Quick!

[marc.andrysco]

I think that we're probably going to see people defending Obama himself rather than his decision. I personally voted for him and generally support him (at least more than McCain), but I abhor this appointment. I hope that Obama will appoint other, anti-RIAA people to help balance things out. I don't follow politics enough to know all the ins and outs, so I can't provide any real insight in this decision. Hopefully some fellow /.ers will give some useful insight other than the typically "Politics as usual", "Democrats suck", "Both parties are the same", etc that goes on every time something political comes up. Maybe something new and useful, like an analysis of his other advisors and appointments to see if there are other pro-RIAA as well as anti-RIAA people.

Re:Quick!

[Majik Sheff]

Wow, that was some of the driest humor I've EVER read on Slashdot. Impressive.

Reagan Republicans That Call Themselves Democrats,

[occamboy]

and today Sanjay "I just make crap up about Michael Moore" Gupta, and the RIAA golden boy. Obama is surrounding himself with some pretty interesting characters. Not good.

Re:Quick!

[ITEric]

Well, perhaps with the RIAA's star lawyer poached away, the rest of us will get a break~

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if he's a lawyer, he's not making policy for the client, he's executing it. What matters is how effective he is at running with it, etc.

Although a sleazy lawyer is probably an unfortunate choice, if the policy the sleazy lawyer is working for is okay, and he does his job for the clien, it may yet turn out okay.

Not that I believe it ...

lawrence lessig? where are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't Lawrence Lessig have Obama's ear? Larry? Now's when ya gotta step up and say something.

And while you're at it, please get the dmca repealed. Thanks.

A nation turns its lonely eye to you...

Re:I guess

[Missing_dc]

Dig, they were not all "lifers", some of them were fooled by the NLP talk used in the elections.

(NLP= Neuro Linguistic Programming-- look at my sig for an example)

Re:Quick!

[Ifni]

Before modding the parent down, please understand that he neglected to put in a sarcasm warning.

I know that politicians lie through their teeth to get elected, but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.

Fittingly enough, the Slashdot fortune cookie for me today is "Sic transit gloria mundi. [So passes away the glory of this world.] -- Thomas `a Kempis"

There is a Silver Lining

[mrfett]

Let's face it, we weren't going to get slam dunks on every appointment. There are so many ex-Clinton people everywhere that it was foolish to think Hiilary Rosen and her crew weren't going to get into the new Executive. But the silver lining is this: RIAA types are allowed into the discussion, but they don't CONTROL the debate or its terms. Allowing all sides at the table is a very different thing from deciding policy and ideology from on high and mandating that ideology all down the chain of command. The new Administration seems willing to include both progressives and moderates at the table. That means that we aren't going to get purely progressive solutions, but it does bode well for getting solutions. Obama seems intent on stopping the gridlock, and if that means allowing in points of view I vehemently disagree with, that 's fine as long as solid, scientifically-backed reasons and evidence are necessary criteria for policy decisions, not blind adherence to dogma.

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[R2.0]

Okay, assuming arguendo you are correct, who has Obama appointed that would counterbalance this particular appointment?

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[Shakrai]

RIAA types are allowed into the discussion, but they don't CONTROL the debate or its terms.

His picks for the Justice Department are pretty fucking scary. He picks a pro-gun control/pro-war on drugs person to lead it and a former RIAA lawyer for #3? Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[Rycross]

Number two is David Ogden, according to the article. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, he could've placed an anonymous coward at the top. Now, given the implications of doing something of that nature, I'd say we're all better off.

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[bm_luethke]

Worse? Well, he could appoint Darl McBride as the Secretary of Commerce. Or how about the Rev Wright to the Secretary of Education and Blagojevich to head any Ethics commissions. One can almost always get worse and you do not even have to look hard into his past to find them (nor are the latter two listed even close to the worst in his contact list). Oooh, or how about Dick Cheney as head of the NSA?

Any one who really and truly bought the idea of Change and Hope from a junior Senator who flew the ranks of Chicago Politics (and in one of the more corrupt areas to boot) is crazy. Welcome to the world of being bamboozled by a charismatic speaker - you aren't the first, nor will you be the last, and all thought those on the other side were idiots who couldn't see what you did (well, true to some extent - just we were bigger cynics and the magic didn't work on us).

I will say that, so far, Obama has far exceeded my expectations so I can't say I'm unhappy either. But then when your expectations are "fire, brimstone, and ruination" it isn't really that hard to exceed them either. Of course there is still time for all three of those, and MORE than plenty for just two of them. I'll take a person with no real beliefs that uses associates to gain popular support from those he represents over a hard line extremist any day (though that's sort like saying I would loose a foot over both arms and legs any day - neither one is a good choice yet one is clearly better).

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[kisak]

I never thought I would have anything positive to say about John Ashcroft, but this story changed my view: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051500864.html

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[Anonymous Coward]

> Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.

Ashcroft actually told Bush no on warrantless wiretapping, while sick no less, for which he was later replaced.

Not to say that he was great, but he at least had ONE moment where he didn't suck. Gonzalez, on the other hand...

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[Anonymous Coward]

easy, the berkeley professor who came up with a legal argument in favor of the US torturing people.

john yoo. he'd be fucking scary.

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[Jeff Carr]

Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.

He could bring in Robert Mugabe for Secretary of Agriculture...

http://www.mnftiu.cc/category/gywo/war17/

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know who I blame for all this? The media.

All they did was paint a rosy picture about how Obama was going to bring about change for everybody. It didn't help that pretty much the entire entertainment industry was in the tank for him and few were bashful about being vocal in their support for him.

But it wasn't just that, I never felt like Obama's comments and promises were scrutinized like they should have been, like the other candidates' were.

Remember when the media couldn't get enough about McCain not recalling what property he owned? Or Palin spending all that money on clothing? Like Obama was some sort of pauper who bought his suits at K-mart.

It's no wonder people are now having buyer's remorse. When it comes down to it they're all the same. I remember trying to argue this with coworkers shortly before the elections and it was futile. I tried arguing voting for a third party and they argued it was a wasted vote.

It wouldn't be a waste if everyone stopped voting for democrats and republicans, we ended campaign contributions and instead went with mandatory air time for all legitimate candidates.

Re:There is a Silver Lining

[falconwolf]

Unless John Ashcroft is #2 I don't really see how this could be any worse.

He could bring in Robert Mugabe for Secretary of Agriculture...

Oh god, I almost had a heart attack. Mugabe Secretary of Agriculture? I enjoy eating to much to see that. He destroyed Zimbabwe.

Falcon

Re:Quick!

[OhPlz]

I'm sure he doesn't want to burn through all his change in his first term. He's probably starting slowly, pacing himself. I'm sure that's it.

Honestly, I lost all hope when he won the election. Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign. Here it comes geniuses, are you ready for it?

Hehehe. It's going to be a spectacular four years. I have no faith left at all, so it's all for entertainment value now.

Re:Quick!

[Capsaicin]

I think that we're probably going to see people defending Obama himself rather than his decision. I personally voted for him and generally support him (at least more than McCain), but I abhor this appointment.

On what basis do you abhor this appointment? You're not judging counsel by the client they represent. No, of course you're not, that would be silly, wouldn't it?

Re:Quick!

[cthulu_mt]

Congratulations on electing a politician. Please enjoy the next 8 years of corporate whoring.

PARENT IS NOT A TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is not a troll.
He's right on the mark.

Not to worry...

[R2.0]

Like the tax collectors in the New Testament, one touch by the Messiah and he will repent his evil ways and thereon lead a life of righteousness.

(Yes, it's flamebait. Burn, Baby, BURN!)

Doing Wonders

[Nom du Keyboard]

I'm sure this will do wonders for Obama's standing with his college age voters.
[/sarcasm]

Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[John3]

Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[Colonel Korn]

Some noble attorneys take lower paying positions as public defenders, or take on cases pro bono to help a political cause. However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.

Most of what the RIAA has done in the courtroom has shown a total lack of ethics and has been judged by many (including many judges) to be illegal. That's the Bush way of running the executive, and it sickens me to see someone like this appointed by Obama.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[Rycross]

Agreed. I could stomach a person that defended cases that I disagreed with based on the case that everyone deserves fair representation in court, and carries out that representation ethically. The RIAA cases, however, have been pretty unethical from top to bottom, disregarding whether you agree or disagree with their position.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[ImOnlySleeping]

So you've established that he's greedy above compassionate. Just what America needs.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[dragonturtle69]

... he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.

Which is the point of concern for some, that the same tactics used by the RIAA's lawyers will now be employed by the DoJ.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[rolfwind]

And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.

Don't you mean his new client, the American people? The DoJ would be just like a law firm.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[Anonymous Coward]

These weren't criminal cases where attorneys have a moral obligation to take the case. He volunteered to represent RIAA in civil proceedings in exchange for money, so how balanced is he going to be to support any opposing view.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but the whole RIAA scheme was/is based on defrauding the courts (read NewYorkCountryLawyer's posts) and pushing the laws past the breaking points. Sort of like the current president's approach. Didn't that Obama guy promise change?

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[John3]

No, I've established that he will do what it takes to accomplish the goals of his clients. I don't want my DoJ lawyers to be compassionate, I want them to pursue criminals with no mercy. Let the judge dish out leniency.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[Just Some Guy]

However, many (most?) take cases based on the financial benefits to be gained. Mr. Perrelli is paid by the RIAA to represent them, he doesn't represent them because he hates file sharers or technology. And he's done a pretty good job for his clients, so hopefully he will do a good job for his new client, the DoJ.

When it's in a courtroom, it's OK. When it's in a motel, it's called prostitution and they put the client's face on a billboard. Really, what's the difference? He suspended any pretense of morality and took cases he may or may not have supported for purely financial reasons. I'm not sure why you'd expect him to suddenly grow a set of ethics afterward.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[nb_002]

I wish there was a way to mod you even higher.

It's easy to condemn a lawyer for the clients he or she represents. I recall not long ago when Deval Patrick ran for Governor of Massachusetts, his opponents advertised how Patrick (as a defense attorney) represented several murderers. The ABA responded by noting John Adams provided representation for the British Soldiers involved in the "Boston Massacre" when no one else would. Our legal system is far from perfect... but one of its ideals is that all parties should receive representation so that the law is the ultimate arbiter.

This is not to say the RIAA is an underprivileged party, but I imagine when a big, powerful client came to Mr. Perrelli's firm, the partners assigned their best lawyers to the case. That speaks well of the candidate.

It's easy to judge a lawyer by the clients they represent, but one gets a far more accurate picture of an attorney by their zealous advocacy and the causes which they devote themselves to pro bono. I'd like to hear more about that, if anyone has more information.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[John3]

From Wikipedia (YMMV):

"Perrelli also supervised the Justice Department's Tobacco Litigation Team in its litigation against the major cigarette manufacturers."

So he's worked both sides of the fence in terms of "moral" issues.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[Repossessed]

Agreed, they were just doing their job. Much like the logging industry lobbyists Bush appointed to the EPA were just doing their jobs.

The man betrayed you. You need to turn on him like a pack of hungry rats. That's how it goddamned works. People elect a politician. Politician fucks the people, has a great time. People consume politician in an orgy of blood and shit flinging. New politicians run for office.

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[falconwolf]

"Perrelli also supervised the Justice Department's Tobacco Litigation Team in its litigation against the major cigarette manufacturers."

So he's worked both sides of the fence in terms of "moral" issues.

Both sides? Both sides of what? As far as I'm concerned his working to sue tobacco companies is just as bad as his working for the RIAA.

On second thought he did work to let Terry Schiavo die.

Falcon

Re:Lawyers are paid to represent clients

[John3]

The fence between corporate and public. RIAA is pursuing the public, while the public is pursuing tobacco companies. At least that's one way to look at it. My point was really that he's worked on a variety of cases and seems quite good at what he does. It's like being a good professional assassin. We may not like what he does, but we can admire his skills and when forced to choose pick the best assassin for the job even if we don't like the fact that he killed someone we liked for a previous "hit". :)

#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[Penguinisto]

The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.

I do wonder how this one is gonna get spun, though...

/P

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair though, it cuts both ways. For example, a few weeks after Obama won, a "Conservative" buddy of mine has suddenly figured out that the 2001 PATRIOT Act and the 2007 FISA/Torture act might apparently have some slight problems with them.

Back on topic, remember all the troll mods for the guys pointing out the Obama Telecom immunity vote in July?

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[dangitman]

The sad part is, I think you struck a nerve. If Bush had done it, oh hell yes we'd hear all about how that eeevil Booosh is taking one more step towards total world domination.

Well, so far, most of the comments have been about how evil Obama is for doing this, so what's the difference?

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[calmofthestorm]

Simple. Obama represents a larger set of AMERICA than /. Some of those people are rich and make large campaign donations.

When I voted for him I knew I was compromising. I knew he'd do all kinds of things I wouldn't like. But I also knew that the alternative was going to fuck up everything at least as badly, if not far worse. Even this included, and with the AG appt, I like Obama more now than I did before the election. He'd have to appoint Jack Valenti* to the Supreme Court or AG or Copyright Czar or something for me to dislike him too much, and what would it take for him to suck as much as McCain or, god forbid, Dubya?

Sure. Politicians sell out. They support bridges to nowhere (Obama did vote for it, after all. Riders suck). They make compromises and cut deals to get things done. Some of those deals suck for some people.

* It's funnier if I wait for someone to point out he's dead first, but I'm going away after I post this. http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/eler-highlights-2008

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[geminidomino]

Well, so far, most of the comments have been about how evil Obama is for doing this, so what's the difference?

Cognitive Dissonance. If you listen, you can actually hear the brains breaking.

I must say, from where I sit, that the schadenfreude is exquisite.

InterWebz Translation: Epic Lulz.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[Doghouse Riley]

I'm a conservative who opposed the Patriot Act from day one.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[Just Some Guy]

When I voted for him I knew I was compromising.

Then you suck. I voted for Bob Barr because he most represented my beliefs, even though I know he didn't stand a chance in hell of winning. On the other hand, you told the Big Two that they can keep on with what they're doing and you'll keep voting for one of them.

Now, if you actually supported Obama, then more power to you for voting your conscience. However, it sounds like you just flipped a coin and decided that (D) was less bad than (R).

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[N1AK]

Because Bob Barr on that cold day in hell where he actually won would never do anything you disagreed with? He was saying he knew Obama would do some things he wouldn't like, not that he didn't like him.

Besides you missing his point, your view itself is also very niave. Who says there was another candidate that he liked more than Obama? Maybe Obama was the one he agreed with most of all, in which case are you suggesting he not vote as a method of change?

The US political system is nearly as broken as is ours in the UK, and the odd individual voting for minority candidates wont fix it. Until a large enough proportion of Americans realise they have other options, or the system is changed to make a 3+ party system viable, you are best using your energy fighting to change the system, and using your vote to best effect given the system in use.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[Sheafification]

Oh come on now. Unless you've just arrived at /. you know how this discussion is going to go. A few apologists will offer one reason or another why this isn't so bad, a few other people will express how disappointed they are in Obama, but the vast majority of comments will be about how /. groupthink is going to spin this news probably by making a comparison to Bush (bonus points for "I'm going to get modded down for this but...").

This happens every time somebody like Apple, Google or a Linux-related company does something bad/stupid. Only in these cases the standard bad-guy to compare against is Microsoft/Windows.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[AmaDaden]

Bingo. Additionally Obama is out to get the voices of everyone represented. The dumb asses who think DRM and the like are good ideas are still technically considered 'people' so they need to be in there too. Personally I am waiting to see who his tech pick is. THAT is the one I'll be pissed about if it's not very good.

P.S. DRM is not cool any more anyway. According to the Apple keynote yesterday iTunes is going DRM free. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090106-apple-mwsf-announcements-new-macbook-pro.html

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[CTachyon]

Sadly, it's not a matter of realization, it's a matter of mathematics. Duverger's Law states that plurality voting systems lead to two-party domination as a steady state, and it's borne out both in game theory and in reality.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[Draek]

The fact that most of us didn't expect this, so when we say that Obama is an evil, incompetent fucktard we're not only saying it with anger (as it'd be with Bush), but also with a degree of sadness and dissapointment.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[amRadioHed]

Explain how it is cognitive dissonance? I don't think that word means what you think it means. There is nothing at all unusual about disapproving of any one particular action of a President while still approving of the President as a whole.

It works both ways actually, I even approved of a few things Bush has done over the past 8 years. No cognitive dissonance, compartmentalization, or other rationalization techniques were needed. All that is required actually is the ability to think clearly without using personal biases as a crutch.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[hkmwbz]

You should stop using big terms like "Cognitive Dissonance" until you actually know what they mean :)

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[geminidomino]

Explain how it is cognitive dissonance? I don't think that word means what you think it means. There is nothing at all unusual about disapproving of any one particular action of a President while still approving of the President as a whole.

>

That is because YOU are (at least in this case, I have no baseline to determine elsewise) looking at the situation rationally. Obama is a man, and a politician.

You are not the masses who made this guy the human equivalent of Spore. To them, this is akin to finding out that Jesus Christ liked to eat babies.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[Penguinisto]

Well, so far, most of the comments have been about how evil Obama is for doing this, so what's the difference?

The relative lack of insulting nicknames thrown at Obama, for starters... not that I condone it, but it is an interesting thing to notice.

/P

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[geminidomino]

Feel free to explain how it is impossible that holding the conflicting thoughts of "We're getting screwed by a politician again." and "This politician is the third coming[0]!" could not cause brain-breaking pain in the eyes of the Twuely Faithful, and thus "cognitive dissonance" was misused.

[0] The second coming came and went with little notice, in the form of an Exxon gas station attendant in Topeka, Kansas. Two days before beginning the campaign to kick off the Rapture, a van carrying 8 government agents careened into a telephone pole, which then fell on our hapless almost-hero, sending that particular soul back into the recycling pile via "big wooden stick" a second time.

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[hkmwbz]

Feel free to explain how it is impossible that holding the conflicting thoughts of "We're getting screwed by a politician again." and "This politician is the third coming[0]!" could not cause brain-breaking pain in the eyes of the Twuely Faithful, and thus "cognitive dissonance" was misused.

You can vote for someone without agreeing with him on everything, dear child. An alien thought to a young and naive mind, I know, but such is life...

Re:#ifndef MOD_FUNNY

[falconwolf]

When I voted for him I knew I was compromising.

Then you suck. I voted for Bob Barr because he most represented my beliefs, even though I know he didn't stand a chance in hell of winning.

I felt like you, I wanted to vote for Bob Barr too. But after reading an article in "Reason" magazine on why voting for and Obama winning would be better than McCain winning I decided to select Obama on the ballot.

Now, if you actually supported Obama, then more power to you for voting your conscience. However, it sounds like you just flipped a coin and decided that (D) was less bad than (R).

First I supported Obama as the Democrat candidate for president, and Ron Paul as the Republican candidate. The "Reason" article went through the pros and cons of McCain and Obama then came out in favor of Obama as the least bad.

Falcon

Re:Quick!

[Kingrames]

Why?

In case you haven't noticed, Slashdot is predominantly Libertarian, and very strongly anti-RIAA.

Re:Quick!

[schon]

On what basis do you abhor this appointment?

I can't speak for marc.andrysco, but personally I abhor it because this particular counsel has shown that they are not above outright lying to the court.

A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.

Yay!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Change!

Re:Yay!

[EbeneezerSquid]

Change!

Is not synonymous with improvement.

Re:Yay!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Doesn't rhyme, either. :-)

Re:CHANGE

[Anonymous Coward]

A vote for Obama is a vot for change.

Vot? Vot ist dat you vere sayink?

And so it begins

[Broken scope]

I can't wait to watch all the hardcore supporters roll back expectations, deny all the claims they made about change, and finally blame the system itself for any failures on the chosen ones part.

And the rest of us who maybe had a little hope for change are just going to be disappointed with more "new boss".

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.

I don't. The bait and switch was telegraphed months before the election. If you voted for him anyway you don't really have anyone to blame but yourself.

I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.

Not Suprised

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm laughing to myself, because anyone who thought there was going to be serious change in DC was only deluding themselves. Now the truth is becoming apparent, Obama is no different then any other politician except he has a greater personal charisma.

Re:Not Suprised

[Atario]

anyone who thought there was going to be serious change in DC was only deluding themselves

O RLY?

Despite the economic hard times, money keeps pouring in for President-elect Barack Obama's inaugural festivities.

The inaugural committee is releasing the names of those who give $200 or more. It is refusing money from labor unions, corporations, political action committees, foreigners and Washington lobbyists.

Doesn't matter how good he is, one thing wrong and it's "HE'S JUST LIKE ALL THE REST, BLARRRHGGGHH!". Give the man a chance to actually be president, for corn's sake.

Re:Not Suprised

[meringuoid]

Now the truth is becoming apparent, Obama is no different then any other politician except he has a greater personal charisma.

Two words: Tony Blair.

The whole Obama election had such a strong 1997 feel to it. So much hope. So much belief. So much potential for horrible, crushing disappointment a few years down the line. And because the victory was so completely devastating, there will be no meaningful opposition, because the other party is too busy fighting over the leadership in the conviction that they'll be back in power soon, they only lost because they weren't right-wing enough...

To be fair though, there's reason to hope for better here. Blair fell out of favour chiefly because he got the country embroiled in somebody else's war on the basis of the worst pack of lies ever seen. But I don't think Obama will be taking orders from anybody in quite the same way that Blair had to kowtow to Bush. He won't have to lurch drastically to the right in order to maintain good relations with any foreign feudal overlord, should an election overseas go the wrong way.

Re:Not Suprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Buu-buuu-buuu Barry is the Messiah! He can do no wrong.

He's a high-tech hipster who works his blackberry like Bill Clinton with an intern! He's just like us Slashdoters!

hahahahahahahahahahaa!

You all ignored the political sewer in which Barry came to be "the one". Racists (albeit "reverse"), Terrorists (what else do you call a bomber?), Socialists, Corrpution (Blago), personal Enrichment (Rezko/Obama's house)-- and you thought this guy was different?

Barry knows where his bread is buttered, and you morons with your $200 "anonymous" internet donations are not it.

It will be interesting to see if he can figure out if he can sign bills as "present" as President.

With big government comes big corruption, nepatism, and cronyism. The only way you can avoid it is to: 1) Have small[er] Government, 2) Enforce term limits at every level.

Since no politician is going to vote himself off the gravy train, smaller government is your only option. Unfortunately, more and more voters are living off of government-- and the path to power is via promises to life's takers.

Re:Quick!

[R2.0]

Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep.

And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?

Re:Quick!

[BenJCarter]

LOL

Dear Mr. President:

[Anonymous Coward]

It deeply saddens me that you have chosen to appoint Tom Perrelli to be the third in command at the Justice Department.

This is a man who has represented an organization that has hunted down and victimized children and college students using the legal system as a weapon. He has knowingly and willingly attacked America's supply of future skilled labor, and potential doctors, lawyers, scientists, teachers, and more have all been forced to go into debt to pay off what they have been blackmailed out of.

And all of this was not done in the name of profit, but of control. Proof has been shown that the RIAA has done nothing but lose money by attacking their customer base, calling them pirates and thieves, violating their rights, and leveraging out of court settlements out of families who do not believe that they have what it takes to fight this injustice in court.

The man you have chosen for this position is the wrong choice. Please revert this decision. I and others are deeply afraid of what it means to see you appointing him.

Re:Dear Mr. President:

[Thelasko]

Bravo! I suggest everyone that agrees with the parent post this letter here.

Re:Dear Mr. President:

[4D6963]

:-O you mean, the President reads Slashdot!? Oh sh.. Mr. President, ahem.. as it happens I sent my taxes a bit late, is there anything you could do about it? There's also a couple of tickets I have.. if you don't mind of course. Thank you in advance.

Re:Dear Mr. President:

[geekoid]

That's a very myopic view of the position, and the person.

Re:Dear Mr. President:

[Anonymous Coward]

You are 14 days early. I think you meant Dear Mr. President-Elect.

Re:Dear Mr. President:

[Anonymous Coward]

I missed you while you were "away" the past month, JockTroll!

The first thing I do every morning is go to http://slashdot.org/~JockTroll/comments to see if you have written anything new. And, if you have, I get very excited!

Thank you =(

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign

I think it had less to do with his PR campaign and more to do with Republican incompetence. Independents in this country have historically broke Republican in Presidential elections -- Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.

Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood

[smchris]

Years ago, I wrote Saint Wellstone that I thought it was ridiculous that I could buy a DVD and be a felon for playing it on a linux machine. The reply I got from Saint Wellstone's office said the DMCA was a great thing and he would vote for it again if he had the chance. Just look at where the money comes from.

Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

he was famous in northfield for
smoking weed. he used to order from
bill's pizza all the time. stoner
had the munchies!

Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood

[Solandri]

Yeah, I don't understand why people are surprised by this. The Democratic party has always been pro-Hollywood, just like the Republican party has always been pro-business. People spend way too much energy badmouthing the opposing party, and not enough towards cleaning up the party they support. The vast majority of people I meet seem to equate criticizing their party with supporting the opposition, which is just silly. Your duty as a citizen does not stop at supporting the party of your choice; it extends to making sure your voice is heard so that they change to better represent your views.

Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood

[greg_barton]

I don't know, man. I'm not happy with this development, but the title of your post makes things pretty easy to decide: pander to industry that's slowly destroying the planet (oil) or pander to an industry that makes obscene amounts of money from entertainment. (Hollywood)

In that case I welcome our DRM loving overlords.

Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood

[yoshi_mon]

People spend way too much energy badmouthing the opposing party, and not enough towards cleaning up the party they support.

As trite as it may be I'm afraid this falls into the 'pick your battles' category. It's hard to be a part of a party and be in a position to enact any real change if your not a part of that party.

Or to put it another way, to be a part of any large party/group you are going to have to accept that there will be some imperfections within it. Any large party is not going to exactly keep members around who are looking to 'clean up' things all the time.

That is not to say that groups should not police themselves. They damn well should and imo the Dems have done a fair job doing that. But I am saying that the practical reality of existing with, and working with, large groups is accepting that they are imperfect.

Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood

[steelfood]

You have to get your campaign contributions from somewhere...

Re:Republicans=oil, Democrats=Hollywood

[mcgrew]

Hollywood IS business. Both republicans and Democrats are pro-business, they only disagree on which businesses they take their bribes and marching orders from.

So, where do we bitch?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, where's the best place to express our collective disappointment?

Does the guy need a senate confirmation for that job or does that only apply to the US AG?

WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?

Re:So, where do we bitch?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, where's the best place to express our collective disappointment?

The polls.
Unfortunately they're closed for another 2 years.

Re:Quick!

[thrillseeker]

constant media misdirection away from Louisiana government's gross incompetence about Katrina was probably the point at which the GOP lost them.

There - fixed that for you.

Re:Quick!

[bsDaemon]

Hey, this is change I can believe in... I'd be shocked if he picked the head EFF attorney instead.

Re:lawrence lessig? where are you?

[Anonymous Coward]

A nation turns its lonely eye to you...

Woo woo woo...

Hey, Libertarians!

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? Our government is itself a product of the market system. Cities like New York, London, and San Francisco are successful precisely *because* of their enormous governments--they compete for capital, talent, and prestige against cities with small, ineffectual governments that are unable to effectively lure and corral said capital, talent, and prestige. And as goes the city, so go city-states and nations: Somalia, being a libertarian paradise, is a rather unpleasant place to live for non-ideologues. Somalians, those who can, vote with their feet and leave.

Now go suckle Ayn Rand's rotten tits some more and leave the rest of us alone, you stupid fucking Paultards.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[jgtg32a]

Never mind the fact that they were major entry ports into this country

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[wellingj]

Yea! New York and California are shining examples of successful economies working without the need of government handouts!

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Ex-MislTech]

3% of the country pulled off the revolution at its founding.

Some ppl from Ohio have a message for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bew_9GeuGA4

I am not part of their movement or any movement, but I am
watching and waiting for the time to get out of the cities.

I am not fighting, I am hiding, and they will be looking
for ppl like you not me, so good luck to you with your
insults to the Paultards as you call them.

The hour is late and the bell tolls for thee.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[neomunk]

I'm not usually this pedantic, but pointing out for whom the "bell tolls" is rather moot. The poem points out that if the bell is tolling, it is tooling for YOU, due to the interconnectedness of humanity.

Stop trying to use it to sound like a bad-assed toughguy, it falls flat on people educated beyond Spike's Manswers or Metallica albums.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Ex-MislTech]

If you'd watch the video you'd know I meant it for all of the US.

Not just for him, and the only reason I say it "might" not be
me is I have already planned to run and hide.

If you read "all" of what I wrote you will see that I am
not a fighter but someone that plans to hide.

Yes, I will be well armed, but I know that no man is an island
and I do not plan on being apart of what is coming in ANY way.

If you have one shred of intelligence you will take all of my
sentences apart instead of just the ones that offend you.

And most of all watch the video and think about it.

You got a warning, its more than most will get.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[neomunk]

I think you and I may not believe as differently as you think we do (though most likely we do have some different opinions on how the badness is going to go down). I however, have been here since 1775, genealogically speaking, and will not leave at any cost, with the POSSIBLE exception of a proper American Indian uprising (fair IS fair).

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[geekoid]

Yeah, I'm really scared.

Please, what you going to get, a few thousand people to stand up at the same time? The military and police will destroy them. They would change nothing for the good, only cause a greater crack down on weapons.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[chosen_my_foot]

At the time of the revolution, the most destructive weapon reasonably available was a cannon or perhaps some dynamite. Would 3% of the country had been able to pull off the revolution if their rifles were matched against bomber jets with nuclear capabilities? Even assuming they were able to obtain illegal arms, do you think they could have pulled together enough to hold off the British Empire's air force? A militia isn't very valuable when it takes one button press to wipe out thousands.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Ex-MislTech]

I agree that we may think more alike on many things.

My ppl on my fathers side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pottawatomi

And on my mothers side:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw

I do not really know how long we have been here, probably
close to a few thousand years, but it doesn't matter now.

There is only little more than 20,000 Pottawatomi left.

The Indians that have money are doing quite well with the
casinos, but most of us are poor and the ones with any fight
left in them were killed a long time ago as far as I can see.

I am here in Oklahoma, the state that was the Indian Territories.

My handle is due to my service in the US Navy working on
guided missile radar during the 80's.

I would not expect an Indian uprising, I'd be worried about
why all the ammo is vanishing off the shelves faster than
they can restock it here and other southern states as well.

The vote before the supreme court to ban guns for citizens
was narrowly avoided, and the cause of the video I linked.

So they are trying a new approach and going after the ammo
and micro stamping the firing pins for all guns, and
banning any guns without that feature, ie. all current guns.

http://www.mountainhomenews.com/blogs/1128/entry/24100/

http://www.ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm

It flies in the face of the 2nd Amendment and it will not go well.

Me, I am staying out of it, but if and when it goes bonkers
I am bugging out to the middle of no where to ride out the storm.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Ex-MislTech]

I think the red coats had the same line of thinking.

But like I said, I want nothing to do with what is coming
and I am just saying all the ammo is near constantly out here
even at wal-mart.

My plan is to bug out.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Ex-MislTech]

A lot of the ppl in the military believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Some will just do what they are told.

The bloodiest war for the US was the civil war thou, and we
may be looking down the barrel of the 2nd one based on what
those militia types are saying.

I see you think the US government will nuke a city to wipe
out a 3% threat, then I dare say they might face more than
3% after that from the ppl in the non target area.

Also keep in mind 3% is about 9 times the size of the US military.

Also some of that 3% are in the US military, ie. lots of Southerners.

If this happens you can bet it will have a surprise start.

When it does I am bugging out away from the city, and do not
want to be around when they clear the corrupt crooks out.

I have done my time for the US military, and this old grey haired
Indian is headed for the distant hills.

I want no part of anyone's war for any reason, and just want to
let the liberals know their infringement on the rights of others
may have a higher price on it than they might want to pay.

Like I said, this is more warning than most ppl will get.

Make good use of it.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fighter jets and nuclear bombs will play no role in a new revolution. These things are great for bringing the infrastructure and defense systems of a hostile country to its knees, but they cannot be used to good effect against entrenched fighters--without killing lot of non-combatants, thereby losing the good will of the residents. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. The people we had on our side there quickly turned because our airstrikes were flattening orphanages and grandmas houses.

Unless you're willing to kill everyone, good luck. And that tactic didn't even work for the Soviets in Afghanistan, because the guerrilla fighters were given (by the US) the weapons needed to take down HINDs and jets. Given the US, I bet there's someone out there capable of manufacturing similar if not superior weaponry in their basements, at a low and unnoticeable volume.

The real threat of the 2A to an entrenched political power, when you get right down to it, is that a political coup is as close as a few dozen, well placed, rifle bullets which each cost under $1.00. If it were made so the top 100 most powerful families (including the family dog) couldn't poke their head out of a hole without getting it shot off, there would be no need to fight armies or fighter jets or so on. You wouldn't find anyone willing to be put in the position of their former colleagues.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Ex-MislTech]

You are likely right on the mark on all points, well said.

The Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck were very simple weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerschreck

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Anonymous Coward]

The Redcoats didn't have access to quite as sophisticated an armory as the standing US Army does today. Go back in time, drop off a couple tanks and a pile of machine guns on Cornwallis's doorstep and history very well might have played out differently.

Of course, none of this speaks to the fact that if you honestly believe there will be some violent mass-uprising in the US anytime soon, you're woefully deluding yourself.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Ex-MislTech]

Watch the youtube video in the parent post and you might
change your mind.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea! New York and California are shining examples of successful economies working without the need of government handouts!

Perhaps if the federal government didn't take our money and redistribute it to fly-over states, we wouldn't need to ask for some of it back.

Re:Hey, Libertarians!

[wellingj]

That is perfectly A-ok with me. But while we are at it, let's make it so anything not expressly written into the constitution is up to the state to decide as well. That way states like California can't use their weight to make national laws that only suit California.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

There - fixed that for you.

I'm sorry but that doesn't fly with me. I don't care how incompetent the state government was -- the fact remains that George W. Bush went to bed while Americans suffered and died. What the fuck happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?

It's exactly that kind of "See, it's not really my fault!" rationalization that cost the GOP the independent vote.

It's all the same

[Anonymous Coward]

One pair of arms is like another
I don't know why or who's to blame,
I'll go with you or with your brother
It's all the same, it's all the same.
This I have learned:
That when the light's out,
No man will burn with special flame,
You'll prove to me before the night's out,
You're all the same, you're all the same.

So do not talk to me of love,
I'm not a fool with starry eyes,
Just put your money in my hand,
And you will get what money buys!
One pair of arms is like another,
I don't know why or who's to blame,
I'll go with you or with your brother
It's all the same, it's all the same.

I voted for him, but I won't defend this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would I start defending this? I don't like it one bit. I don't want someone who will twist the law working for the DoJ, especially not someone using RIAA tactics.

I plan to complain via change.gov and see if Obama will change his mind. If enough of us do that, he might reverse course.

Re:I voted for him, but I won't defend this.

[EbeneezerSquid]

Good luck with that.

The instant you post your question, it will be modded down so far by his disciples, you may not be able to find it yourself.

Re:Quick!

[bsDaemon]

I helped campaign for him on the weekends with my sister... got on stage when he came to Newport News and was on the tv, and got to shake his hand and stuff...

But in VA, you don't need a permit to own a gun (actually, sales records are destroyed 30 days after purchase), but I already had my concealed carry permit.

I spent most of the first 2 years out of college working in politics -- Palin was the only one of the candidates I haven't met. I voted for Obama anyway, while having an RNC card in my wallet, because I figured that he would list a little more to the right later one, average out, and would probably be quite alright. I wasn't about the hype, I just want someone sane and relatively moderate (slightly leftish is alright) after all the bullshit we've all had to deal with the last few years.

Re:CHANGE

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes! He mades a typo!?
Can I haz cheezburger?
What are you? A literate nigger?

Re:Quick!

[glitch23]

I actually took a week off work and campaigned for him during the primaries. Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise". My response to his victory was to apply for my pistol permit before Albany or Washington decides that I shouldn't be able to do so.

I know some people who work on the system which handles the background checks for firearms (handguns, long guns, etc.). Leading up to Christmas the background checks were coming in so fast (due to people buying guns and also getting permits I assume) that they were being overrun. Management personnel were having to take calls it was so bad. Now given, the fall/winter seasons are the busy season for firearm background checks but they were seeing at least a 20% increase in firearm purchases and therefore bg checks above the normal busy season numbers. I spoke with one of the supervisors of the system one day after work in November as we walked to our cars and his last comment to me was "it's not like Obama can take their guns away tomorrow". Don't be so paranoid.

Re:I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding!

Can we pay back the trial lawyers by hiring one of their biggest hacks who sued teenagers for sharing songs on their iPods? YES WE CAN!!!

Hey, all you Obamabots! How's your "Hope and Change You Can Believe In" looking now?

Your disillusionment has only just begun. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Ashes in the fall

[Meor]

If only it was productive to laugh when people realize their savior is similar to their enemy. I hate politicians.

So is Obama a Politian after all?

[SupremoMan]

I spent so many years thinking McCain was not a Politician. But he let his true colors show really early in the Presidential race, which resulted in me losing most respect for him. I still respect the guy for being a POW, no amount of partisanship can take that away from him.

But has Obama succeeded at hiding his true colors for this long? And if he has, then people will still give him the benefit of a doubt even as contrary evidence piles up. It will become the new winning strategy for decades to come. Winner is the guy(or gal) who can act like not a politician the longest.

Re:So is Obama a Politian after all?

[Rycross]

I wouldn't say that being a POW makes one worthy of respect. Sympathy, yes, because its a horrible situation, but they didn't have to do anything special or principled to be captured. What makes McCain worthy of respect is that he refused preferential release. Even if it was following the letter of the military code of conduct, its still a helluva thing to put up with that kind of torture when given a way out.

Re:So is Obama a Politian after all?

[mabu]

I still respect the guy for being a POW, no amount of partisanship can take that away from him.

McCain was a traitor and a coward more than he was a P.O.W. You should dive deeper into his personal story and then you find out:

  * He was a crappy soldier who didn't follow orders
  * He crashed 3 airplanes - anyone else would have been drummed out long before him
  * His family's power and influence kept him in the military
  * When he was shot down, he wasn't following the rules which led to his crash
  * The injuries he suffered that many claim was the result of "torture" was not torture but injuries from the crash
  * He lasted TWO DAYS.... TWO DAYS IN CAPTIVITY before he coughed up the fact that his father was the commander of the Pacific Naval Fleet
  * He then became a traitor to America and recorded VC propaganda messages that were broadcast to his own troops in Vietnam

He claims torture doesn't work, but then he claims he was tortured and "broken", then he claimed torture does work and supported Bush's torture of Guantanamo detanees. In addition to being a liar, by his own admission he committed treason. He's a traitor and calling him a "hero" is an insult to virtually every other Vietnam vet who served more honorably and didn't sell out their country.

Re:So is Obama a Politian after all?

[SupremoMan]

Yes that is more or less what I was referring too. I should have made it a bit more clear.

Re:So is Obama a Politian after all?

[Anonymous Coward]

citations please...Left-wing radical blog doesn't count....

Re:So is Obama a Politian after all?

[blhack]

can you provide citations for any of this?

Re:So is Obama a Politian after all?

[geekoid]

Her is a cite:
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1082577&cid=26353603

Change? Sure.. there is change...

[denzacar]

Here it is. Right there after the first refrain:

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, thats all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

See? Its there TWICE!
That is a whole lotta change, yes sir...

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

almost got caught by the lack of sarcasm tags.

He's unworthy

[HermMunster]

So far the only questionable selection that concerns me.

The RIAA have been misusing the DMCA for the longest period of time. The person that drafted the law even admits that the RIAA is abusing the law.

Now we have a lawyer, however intellectual, that has acted utterly un-smart, being appointed from "a lobbying organization"; which are supposed to be an antithesis to the Obama adminstration.

I mean, really, listen to those videos that made it to the net from those lawyers that were part of the RIAA; those that lobbied to convince law enforcement that copying music is contributory to money laundering. And now you have Obama appointing one of those crazies to an important position.

Re:He's unworthy

[jimicus]

So far the only questionable selection that concerns me.

The RIAA have been misusing the DMCA for the longest period of time. The person that drafted the law even admits that the RIAA is abusing the law.

Yet whenever people say "If you don't want a law to be abused, don't write it in such a way that it's wide open to abuse" the stock reply is not "that's too hard" but "I don't think that will happen".

Seriously, try it. Write to a politician about an upcoming law that hasn't been passed yet and is easily open to abuse.

Re:He's unworthy

[Elektroschock]

You just need to mainstream the assert that the RIAA is the new tobacco... ;-) One down, one to go.

Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that politicians lie through their teeth to get elected, but I feel exceptionally taken by Obama's bait and switch.

Then you got what you voted for: a politician. I don't know why you think Obama would be any different from any other politician.

Throwing politicians at the problem won't solve anything. The only way to reform the system is to obliterate it and start fresh.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

I helped campaign for him on the weekends with my sister... got on stage when he came to Newport News and was on the tv, and got to shake his hand and stuff...

I never got that close. I did get to shake Governor Sebelius' hand, for what that's worth. I don't actually have that many regrets about campaigning for him as I did have a blast doing it. The highlight of my trip was getting an elderly voter to the polls (in my own automobile, the one the campaign rented was somewhere else at the time) 30 seconds before they closed. She got to vote and I have to say that was a pretty good feeling.

I did stand on principle after the FISA reversal and wrote them a letter demanding a refund of my contributions. I actually got it too. Donated every single penny to the EFF.

But in VA, you don't need a permit to own a gun

In New York State you need a permit to own a handgun. In New York City you need a permit to own a long gun. As far as pistol permits go it's really up to the counties here. I'm lucky enough to live in an Upstate County where I can actually get a carry permit. In the Peoples Republic of New York City you can't even get a premise permit half the time, let alone a carry permit. Unless you are rich or well connected of course and then different rules apply.

actually, sales records are destroyed 30 days after purchase

In NYS they do ballistic fingerprinting of all handguns. It's been around for six or seven years ago and cost the state millions of dollars. Guess how many crimes it's solved? Zero.

while having an RNC card in my wallet

I've never been able to reconcile the GOP's embrace of the religious right with my own beliefs. That's probably the biggest reason I'm not a Republican. I'm still a registered Democrat. If I get disillusioned enough to leave the party (I'm close but not there yet) I'll just wind up registering without any party enrollment.

I just want someone sane and relatively moderate

I'll give you that much. At least Obama is going to be competent. I wish McCain had managed to defeat Bush back in 2000. I think things would have worked out quite differently if he had.

Re:CHANGE

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh noes! He mades a typo!?
Can I haz cheezburger?
What are you? A literate nigger?

Actually, the correct phrasing is "I can has cheezburger?"

Moron.

Mod me informative.

Could this be?

[WillRobinson]

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer, preferably on a leash.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Don't be so paranoid.

I'm more paranoid about Albany than I am about Washington. The State Senate just got taken over by the Democrats. The State Assembly regularly passes more gun control laws but they were always dead on arrival in the Republican State Senate. Now they will be rubber-stamped and the NYC'ers will seek to impose their gun control regime on the rest of the state.

The worst part is I actually like what Governor Paterson is trying to do to fix our budgetary woes. Problem is that he'll sign any gun control legislation that the Legislature passes and I suspect he's going to screw over Upstate and appoint Kennedy to Clinton's seat when she gets confirmed. I really hope that I'm wrong about the latter but I know I'm right about the former....

It does not work like that...

[denzacar]

WHat about that website Obama's been running? Does it have a way to mod this guy down?

It is very much different than here on Slashdot.

You get moderator points only once every 4 years.
Everyone gets moderator points at the same time.
You only get 1 moderator point.
It lasts only 1 day (half actually).
You get to moderate posts of only 2 posters.

Rest of those 4 years all your posts are automatically moderated as -1 Overrated+Troll, and nobody reads them.

But if you happen to have shitload of money - you can buy yourself golden undemoteable +5 Insightful+Informative posts.

Re:It does not work like that...

[StreetStealth]

Have you meta-moderated lately?

Re:It does not work like that...

[dangitman]

Have you meta-moderated lately?

Excuse me, that's something I prefer to do in the privacy of my own home.

Re:It does not work like that...

[blhack]

Have you meta-moderated lately?

Senate elections aren't for another 2 years.

Re:It does not work like that...

[Just Some Guy]

It is very much different than here on Slashdot. You get moderator points only once every 4 years.

Nope, that sounds about right.

Re:It does not work like that...

[joranbelar]

You actually get to "moderate" "posts" of several dozen people. In fact, the other posts are possibly the more important ones to moderate since they affect your daily life a lot more than the celebrities at the top of the ticket.

Unfortunately, most people ignore the posts that they should be paying attention to and instead get wrapped up in the national hype. But it's all the politician's fault, not the idiot voters who don't pay attention to local races.

Oops, I think my metaphor broke down there somewhere. Sorry.

Change

[amiga3D]

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Re:Quick!

[Rycross]

Well there was a Supreme Court case that upheld private gun rights, so I don't think we'll have to worry until new Supreme Court justices are appointed. If Obama gets to appoint new SC justices, then they might have a chance at ramming threw more onerous gun control laws.

Re:Quick!

[EbeneezerSquid]

Easy. When Bush requested the legally required permission for federal troops and assistance to cross into Louisiana from the Louisiana Governor, She said no. What was he supposed to do, Fly to Baton Rouge and bully her into making a decision that she felt was unnecessary? I would go to bed too, knowing that I may have to declare a national emergency tomorrow to pull some ignoramus' butt out of the fire because she felt she didn't need federal help. Get a good night's sleep, or try to, to better be able to deal with the shit-storm coming my way.

Re:Quick!

[Vancorps]

Out of curiosity who said Obama would solve all our problems? I keep hearing this drivel from sore republicans looking to blame Obama for the failures that Bush Jr already caused.

No one I know at least seriously thinks Obama can solve the majority of the problems that Bush has plagued us with, we all saw it coming as reckless spending always results in this outcome.

Most people I've talked to voted for Obama because they believe he will at least put the country on a path that the majority of us can agree is better for the majority of us. The recession will not end anytime soon, Obama taking office will result in a stock market spike because history puts a good economy at the helm of democrats traditionally at least over the last 60 years.

Like the ole saying goes, it's easier to destroy than it is to create, no one is expecting miracles because creating everything we lost will take some serious time and a lot of serious effort from people in both parties. One of Obama's biggest strengths was that he wasn't afraid to work with people that disagreed with him unlike Bush. We all like a reasoned debate and this country is in dire need of it.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up what a filibuster is.

I'm still incredulous...

[Anonymous Coward]

..that anyone paying the least bit of attention to national politics for the past x years would seriously think that a high roller product out of the chicago mob politics machine would be anything but bought and paid for, a tool in other words. The O is just another professional political actor, there to soothe some grassroots fanatics and spoon feed them want they want to hear, then when it gets down to business, do the same thing any other mob politician would do, sell out to the highest bidder (or kowtow to the strongest blackmailer).

Re:I'm still incredulous...

[QuantumG]

Dude, he's no actor. Actors can remember their lines. Politicians just read the teleprompter.

Re:Quick!

[cdrguru]

Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over. "Aw, heck - there's people suffering there and we can help!" No, that would not be a good way to run things. States' rights are there for a reason.

And every level of government in Lousiana failed the people.

Big corps love Dems

[DustoneGT]

Free markets favor small businesses because they aren't slow and big...they can actually get the job done. Big businesses benefit greatly from a market that makes it difficult to start a new business.

Re:Quick!

[Metasquares]

Or, more precisely, to build a better system and wait for the existing one to adapt to it. That probably entails a shift in the center of political power, however.

Re:Quick!

[Professr3]

Uh, I don't think Obama's appointments to the DOJ have anything to do with Bush's legacy... It's not Bush's fault we said "Wow, Obama's a technology literate candidate! Let's vote for change!" and then watched as he handed our collective asses to the RIAA.

A bit optimistic

[Almahtar]

As of my graduation not too long ago (and continued communication with friends from college), my experience is that 99% of college kids will never even hear of this. Most of them don't know what a DRM is and have never heard of the RIAA.

In a perfect world, this would have repercussions. I don't think most people will ever hear of the issues involved, much less this appointment and its relevance.

:-(

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how Bush "going to bed" didn't seem to affect the people in other places that were hit just as hard, like EVERY county in Mississippi.

The clear difference between Mississippi and Louisiana was that one place heeded the warnings and didn't wait for the government to hand-hold them out of town while the other still thinks government is the answer to everything.

I guess when one grows up depending on government handouts, it's hard to make choices on their own even when their lives depend on it.

Re:I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Dig, they were not all "lifers", some of them were fooled by the NLP talk used in the elections.

(NLP= Neuro Linguistic Programming-- look at my sig for an example)

And for people who would like more information on that, read this (PDF Warning).

Re:CHANGE

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone cares. Go back to /b/, nigra.

Re:Quick!

[EbeneezerSquid]

If Slashdot was predominantly Libertarian, why did it whole-heartedly support a politician who ran on a platform of the largest expansion of the federal government since FDR? As opposed to the first Fiscal Conservative the Republicans had nominated in living memory (An ancient, worn-out, stiff-necked, and lackluster fiscal conservative, but a fiscal conservative nevertheless). Or are you saying that /. ignored what the man was saying himself, in favor of what the media was spinning?

Re:Quick!

[Metasquares]

Yep, I too was an ardent supporter until he pulled that (conveniently right after winning the primary), upon which he promptly lost my vote. His present position does not surprise me.

I certainly don't like this...

[Anonymous Coward]

But did we really have a choice that was not going to advance the interests of the copyright lobby against the public?

Watching Congress, and particularly the Senate, there's not even a question there that RIAA and MPAA folks should be the ones to set policy in this country with regard to copyright. I don't recall any fuss on behalf of individuals or the public in the Senate about, for example, the DMCA or PRO-IP (the former signed by a Democrat, the latter signed by a Republican).

The problem is bipartisan, and anybody attempting to reduce it to partisan terms is, at best, simply not informed.

Re:Quick!

[Kingrames]

You talkin' bout Ron Paul?

not broken

[servognome]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

What makes you think it's broken? Just because the results aren't exactly what you like, doesn't mean that the system is horribly broken.

Re:not broken

[ThePenguinPriest]

Only one thing will fix our broken democracy at this point -- revolution.

What makes you think it's broken? Just because the results aren't exactly what you like, doesn't mean that the system is horribly broken.

Actually the system is broken because we, the people, let it get broken. (In truth, our parents/grandparents started letting it break around 50 years ago).

Who was it that said (I paraphrase) " a democracy is doomed as soon as the people discover that they can vote themselves stuff out of the public treasury".

The people with the money call the shots. They are our new aristocracy. We the voters are only needed to get them into and keep them in power. "Bread and circuses" works as well today as it has in the past.

The hope with Obama was the his campaign was primarily funded by individual donors and therefor he would be less indebted to this aristocracy. The real proof is in who he chooses to surround himself with.

There are really only 2 ways to salvage the system:

A- Revolution
or
B- Enough people taking personal and civic responsibility (aka casting off their laziness and desire to simply be entertained) to make meaningful changes starting at the local levels.

The problem really can't be fixed from the top, no matter how much people may think Obama can do it. He could make the change easier though by surrounding himself with people who themselves are not beholden to the money.

Re:not broken

[Anonymous Coward]

What planet are you from? If it doesn't meet my expectations, it's broken dammit!

Re:not broken

[Raenex]

Every government in the past has been broken in some respect. People tend to be myopic. Read some history and political commentaries taken from an era that you think wasn't broken. The question is are things so bad that you think you need a complete overhaul, and will things be better after the overhaul. I think in general American government works ok, though of course there's always room for improvement.

So this is where all the Republicans and Paulites

[californication]

So this is where all the Republicans and Paulites on Slashdot hang out!

Re:Quick!

[thorndt]

Mod parent up please. This is an interesting point, and little understood or reported.

Shortest presidential honeymoon ever.

[JonTurner]

>>I'm sure this will do wonders for Obama's standing with his college age voters.
Like he cares. The election is over. The voters have served their purpose and now may be safely ignored for at least 20 months.

for all intensive purposes, once we have

[Anonymous Coward]

a rouge leader, viola, dictatorship!

Change? Guess not...

[Nemyst]

This choice may be horrendous, but I'm still waiting for some sort of reaction somewhere. Posting angry comments on /. won't change a thing. If you're really THAT deceived, do something about it?

Was I American, I'd be very tempted to do so. Ugh, I was hoping this time the promises weren't empty...

Re:Change? Guess not...

[dontbgay]

It's funny that you'd hear all this bitching about his appointment rather than trying to do something. Nemyst had it right. Do something about it. I just went to Change.gov under the open for questions section and posted a question. You can moderate questions up or down and even submit questions.

Even though you have to register to vote on the site or submit questions, it's still an avenue to be heard. The guys who are too afraid to be recognized to be heard, bury your head in the sand. Anyone who gives a shit, be heard.

Re:Quick!

[Atario]

I don't know what you're suggesting, other than that you like to gripe.

Who should you have voted for instead? Hillary? She's a hardcore DLCer, working tirelessly to pull the Democratic Party to the right (not to mention her bog-standard low-road campaigning). McCain? Please.

No one ever said Obama was perfect or the Second Coming (except in Republican attack ads). I was a Kucinich man, till he dropped out, then for Edwards for the five minutes it took before he dropped out. Only then did I back Obama.

Obama was by no means my first choice, but, in the end, was by far the best choice.

Re:Quick!

[SanityInAnarchy]

That's already happened. We used to have a representative republic. Now we have a corporate oligarchy.

I disagree! He's an overachiever

[JonTurner]

You've gotta hand it to Obama -- the guy's really good! It normally takes a few years to achieve this much scandal but he's not even in office and he has corruption (Blogo's relationship to Chief-of-staff Emmanuael, Bill Richardson, David Rubin), controversial chairmanship appointments (such as this one) AND backpedaling on stated policy (withdraw from Iraq), etc.

That's at least one term's worth of scandal squeezed into a month.

Pass the popcorn, this is going to be entertaining in a can't-look-away-from-the-car-crash sort of way.

Re:I disagree! He's an overachiever

[PingXao]

This is perhaps the single most ridiculous thing I've ever read on slashdot.

Re:Quick!

[godless dave]

Hopefully some fellow /.ers will give some useful insight other than the typically "Politics as usual", "Democrats suck", "Both parties are the same", etc that goes on every time something political comes up

Those sentiments are no less true for being repeatedly stated. We won't see real political reform until more Americans abandon the ridiculous idea that politicians of either party are actually acting in the interests of the general public.

Re:Quick!

[bensafrickingenius]

Plus 4 Insightful?!?!? The dude came right out and said "I can't provide any real insight in this decision. "

(grumble grumble meth-head moderators grumble grumble)

Re:Quick!

[EbeneezerSquid]

You talkin' bout Ron Paul?

I said

(An ancient, worn-out, stiff-necked, and lackluster fiscal conservative, but a fiscal conservative nevertheless)

I didn't say

Looney toon

Political expedience

[gumpish]

Adding insult to injury was the fact that Hillary (whom I helped him defeat) had the spine to vote against the FISA "compromise".

I can guarantee you that the votes would have been reversed had Obama lost the primary contest and Hillary been the nominee.

The only reason Hillary voted against the FISA bill was because she could (politically).

Obama is a political pragmatist if nothing else. His campaign didn't want to be painted as soft on terra or hamstringing intelligence efforts by the Repubs in the general.

It's still to early to REALLY know what Obama will do as president. We'll just have to wait and see.

I agree that his vote was pretty repugnant, but I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong. HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! I have to believe that he felt this was a situation where the ends justify the means...

(But just you know know, I contributed probably a couple hundred dollars to the Obama campaign - until the FISA vote. That night I went to the ACLU's site and saw the headline "Senate passes telco immunity: ACLU sues", and I became a member. I voted Barr in the general. I want a president that respects the constitution with more than just flowery speeches...)

Re:Political expedience

[ari_j]

Professors of constitutional law are no more inherently likely to agree with any particular interpretation of the Constitution than other people are. One of the nation's greatest (at least, far more successful than Obama ever was at it) Constitutional Law professors holds adamantly that the Second Amendment is about an absolute, individual right to keep and bear arms. Another one was involved in advising Bush that all of his policies regarding detainees were constitutionally permissible. Other professors disagree vehemently with these professors.

The only things that being a Constitutional Law professor does reliably tell you about a person is that he knows the history of constitutional interpretation from Marbury v. Madison to Lawrence v. Texas and beyond and that he knows how to get any group of people to discuss, for instance, both sides of the issue of whether the Due Process Clause prevents a state from limiting the number of hours that bakers are allowed to work. It doesn't mean a lick about what he actually believes the document means.

Re:Political expedience

[chromatic]

HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW!

He was a professor of constitutional law but seems to believe that the chief executive should have a legislative agenda. (My mind boggles at what he thinks a senator should do.)

Re:Political expedience

[mlwmohawk]

The telco immunity issue is one I have mixed feelings about.

On one hand, the law is the law and they did commit a crime and should be punished.

On the other hand, the U.S. government is pretty powerful and it is more than likely that there were threats involved, coercion, etc. If the government is threatening you and insisting that you break the law or you'll be breaking the "new" "law," what do you do?

I think the telcos were caught in the middle and are mostly spineless. The real culprits are the DOJ, NSA, FBI, and the administration.
 

Re:Political expedience

[Shakrai]

I think the telcos were caught in the middle and are mostly spineless. he real culprits are the DOJ, NSA, FBI, and the administration.

I agree. But the whole point of opposing teleco immunity wasn't to punish the telcos -- it was to continue the lawsuits against them so we could use discovery to find out exactly what went on behind the scenes. Now that's not going to happen. And we can thank Mr. Obama for that.

Re:Political expedience

[Shakrai]

I can guarantee you that the votes would have been reversed had Obama lost the primary contest and Hillary been the nominee.

Probably. Like I said here, I wasn't upset about it because I thought Hillary was any better. It was just extra salt in the wound after Obama's reversal and my own efforts to assist his campaign during the primaries.

His campaign didn't want to be painted as soft on terra or hamstringing intelligence efforts by the Repubs in the general.

So you betray your supporters and reverse an explicit pledge you made because of political considerations? To quote Senator McCain, "That's not change we can believe in"

but I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong

Then why did he vote for it?

But just you know know, I contributed probably a couple hundred dollars to the Obama campaign - until the FISA vote.

I contributed around $500 and got every single penny of it back.

ACLU's site and saw the headline "Senate passes telco immunity: ACLU sues", and I became a member

I wanted to join the ACLU until I realized they are hypocrites. Civil liberties union my ass.

I voted Barr in the general

I couldn't forgive him for the witch burning episode back in the 90s. I did a write-in for Ron Paul.

Re:Political expedience

[Copid]

He was a professor of constitutional law but seems to believe that the chief executive should have a legislative agenda. (My mind boggles at what he thinks a senator should do.)

Yes, it's crazy for a head of state who wields roughly half of the power in deciding which laws get passed to have an opinion on which laws should be passed. I'm reeling from this sudden shift from a long tradition of Presidents sitting in the Oval Office and waiting for laws they know nothing about to be dropped on their desk for rubber stamping.

Re:Political expedience

[chromatic]

Yes, it's crazy for a head of state who wields roughly half of the power in deciding which laws get passed to have an opinion on which laws should be passed.

That part's fine. It's crazy for the head of the executive branch to submit bills to the legislative branch. If President-elect Obama wanted to submit bills, he should have done so while he was a Senator.

Re:Political expedience

[geekoid]

He ahs the knowledge and skills for the position. His previous clients are irrelevant.

Re:Political expedience

[larry bagina]

Jusding by his senate record, a senator's job is to run for president.

Re:Political expedience

[Copid]

That part's fine. It's crazy for the head of the executive branch to submit bills to the legislative branch. If President-elect Obama wanted to submit bills, he should have done so while he was a Senator.

Why? Congress can ignore them just as much as they ignore his suggestions that aren't written in the form of legislation. Crazy would be if he could propose legislation and force them to vote on it. Why is it OK for him to come up with the idea but crazy for him to suggest wording?

Re:Political expedience

[chromatic]

Why?

I have the impression that the President has enough work to do without trying to be a Senator as well.

Re:Political expedience

[Anonymous Coward]

"I have to believe that he KNOWS that immunity for the teclos is wrong. HE WAS A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW! "

  Then has has NO excuse. That makes it worst! Knowing it is WRONG, and STILL DOING IT! What then professor of constitutional law meant in the end? Nothing. Wow-- just wow.

I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Gandalf_Greyhame]

Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.

From the outside looking in, at least to myself, it appeared to be more a case of who could amass, and consequently spend, the greater amount of political donations.

I could be wrong here, and I am perfectly willing to accept that, but that is how it appeared to be to me.

Political donations, or more accurately "bribes," (because that is what they are, regardless of what your government tells you) are used during the campaign to pay for speech writers, spin doctors, and also to pay off the media so that they are cast in a favourable light.

Then once the vote has been carried out, and the winner decided, all of those people who have donated substantial amounts of money to the campaign, then start demanding their dues. After all it was they who ensured victory, therefore they should be rewarded for their assistance.

$712M (Banking on becoming President) dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen. So once again, the corporations have elected a president, and now they want something in return.

I know that democracy is "government for the people, by the people," and I believe that that is what the intention was. However in recent times it has wavered from that ideal, and we are all having our freedoms stripped by our governments on the behest of the corporations (lobbyists, etc) who financially support the campaigns of the political parties.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[kklein]

Yes, but most of Obama's money came from small donations from people like me ($50).

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[arghnoname]

Oh really? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/25/report-obamas-small-donor_n_146281.html No moreso than Bush.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[NotQuiteReal]

The road to hell is often paved with good intentions

I mean who'd do something knowing it was bad?

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[TheoMurpse]

That was an inflammatory article. The study set the dividing line between "small donors" and "big donors" at $200. I know plenty of regular people who donated more then $200.

If you change the cutoff to $999, you get a percentage for Obama of 53%, compared to Bush's 38%. At least, so one commenter alleges on your linked article.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[dargaud]

$712M [...] dollars was spent on the Obama campaign, and you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen.

Why, why, why are companies allowed to put money in the political process ?!? I can't see a single advantages or reason for that. Do all the employees agree on who should get the money ? No. Do all the customers agree ? No. Do all the shareholders agree ? No. So why is this form of bribery allowed ?

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen

The site you linked to said he received $656 million or 89% from individual contributions.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Obama, who turned down public financing after saying he would accept it., crippling the campaign of his competitor :(

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[apoc.famine]

You are mostly correct in your assessment looking in. Our ties between financing campaigns and favors afterwards are well known and fairly well documented. While politicians occasionally get charged with corruption, I'd hazard a guess that it's probably only the top 1-2% of offenders, at best.

The one area you're not quite correct is in where the money actually comes from. This page shows summarized contributions from corporations, their Political Action Comities, and their employees. As you can see, it's far smaller than the total amount of funding Obama received. If you look at the voting records, Obama received around 62 million votes. If 5% of those individuals tossed $100 his direction, that's around half of his total funding, and 25 times more than he received from corporate ties.

In most elections, that would seem pretty high, and fairly unlikely. However, this was a pretty special case for us. As a whole, the country HATES President Bush. When McCain ran against Bush in 2000, he ran as a rebel, an anti-republican republican. After being crushed there, with the Bush campaign managing to smear his time as a POW and drawing into question the legitimacy of his daughter, he turned into Bush's lapdog. Nobody can really figure out why, but McCain went from being against much of the republican machine to being a cog in it.

Which such a public dislike for Bush, and with McCain viewed as being just more of the same, a lot more people in this election felt it was worth a couple hundred bucks to ensure that we would be able to get out of Iraq and fix our economy.

(But this doesn't mean that your complaint about corporate rule is in any-way unjustified. It's why I tell everyone we need another party, and it's why I refuse to vote for either party any more. )

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Bobb Sledd]

No, it wasn't American citizens and it wasn't mostly corporations either. It was foreign contributions (which is illegal, but they were made in small amounts to fly under the radar). I would give you a link, but there are so many. Just do a google search for Obama, foreign, contributions, illegal.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet it only takes one citizen with $3.75 to remove a sitting President.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[joranbelar]

Not to burst your bubble, but the vast majority of the funds he received DID come from "your average citizen". It's one of the more remarkable things about the campaign.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[randyest]

It's "inflammatory" because it shows you're wrong? And you're citing an unsourced comment on a blog as "evidence?" Oh boy.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to Obama, who turned down public financing after saying he would accept it., crippling the campaign of his competitor.

too true.

I was looking forward to a campaign with a more level playing field, but it isn't surprising that Obama decided to renege on his promise when he saw an edge.

Likewise we shouldn't be surprised that he reneges on more promises now that he's entering office.

Welcome the new Boss, same as the old Boss.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[the eric conspiracy]

Companies are not allowed to contribute large amounts of money. What they do is set up PACs their employees contribute to.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[TheoMurpse]

The calculations may be repeated by anyone because the records are public. It's inflammatory because it sets a ridiculous definition of "small donor" at $200 in order to drive eyeballs looking for big stuff since the election is now over. There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign. The big-time guys donate the full amount.

And I'm only interested in stirring up discussion, not proving a point. If you don't believe me, that's fine. But I'm merely pointing out why I didn't go do the calculation myself. This should have been obvious from my clear citation to a random commenter. I could have left that part out and it's likely I wouldn't have had a response here asking for a source.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[randyest]

The calculations, which may be repeated by anyone who wishes to use the (mostly) publicly-available data, do indeed show that more than 75% of Obama's money came from people, corporations, and PACs donating more than $200. This apparently upsets you, but rather than question your own conflicting assumptions that make you feel good, you try to dispute the indisputable. Why?

Most importantly, let's not lose track of the fact that your reply: "That was an inflammatory article. The study set the dividing line between "small donors" and "big donors" at $200. I know plenty of regular people who donated more then $200" was a pretty silly effort to claim that your alleged anecdotal acquaintance with "plenty" of people who you arbitrarily classify as "regular" somehow negates the irrefutable fact that "regular" (as in, typical, normal, or average) people most certainly do not donate more than $200 to any political candidate, much less to Obama. So despite your efforts to the contrary, your anecdote does not constitute even a datum, much less data, and the actual data show that your claim is flat-out wrong.

Moreover, your reply was in reply to someone who had a pretty strong link to refute the original thread poster's claim that "Yes, but most of Obama's money came from small donations from people like me ($50)." If you put the line at $50 instead of $200, it's excludes 99%+ of Obama donors. What makes you think you can bump that line by 400% (4x), then ignore even those well-publicized statistical results, then use some wholly unsubstantiated and unverifiable claim that you "know plenty of 'regular' people who donated more than $200" as argument to support your claim that the thread starter was wrong?

You can't, and you shouldn't try. The sooner you start getting acquainted with the fact that Obama isn't the messiah, that he was financed and elected by the corporate and rich-people interests, and that he said things during his campaign that he has no intention of following through on, the better off you'll be.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[jejones]

Then there was my small donation of $5... or rather, Bertrand Russell's, because that's the name I put on it, along with saying he works for NotElementsOfThemselves.com as a philospher, and other such fanciful data.

The charge went through with no trouble, because the Obama campaign had explicitly turned off address checking on credit card donations on their web site. The companies that do credit card processing of that sort charge extra for turning it off, because of the increased fraud that results from doing so, and customers have to explicitly turn it off, so it had to have been done knowingly.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, I am not an American, so please forgive me for any mistakes that I am about to make here.

Ok, I'm British, but anyway I'll forgive you for this one:

you can rest assured that very very VERY little of that was given by your average citizen.

The site you link to itself says:

"Since the start of 2007, his campaign relied on bigger donors and smaller donors nearly equally"

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not an American

I don't believe you - you understand the American political system perfectly.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know plenty of regular people who donated more then $200."

I knew a bunch of folks too--they were the rich regular folks, mainly heads in big corporation (directors, vps, etc...), option holders, and affluent--unlike myself. Standard of living has risen higher than income the last 25 years--a millionaire maybe culturally 'nothing' and regular (i.e. rich but not wealthy) compared to the billionaires around here, BUT IT's STILL RICH.

In this economy, since 2006, and the rise of gas prices $200 is a lot of dough.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[doctorcisco]

Let's say "most of" the money is $450 million of the $712 million.

Let's say the average small gift was $50.

Do you realize it would take 90 million small donors to give that $450 millions? That's 20 million more people than VOTED for him!

Take off your rose-colored glasses. You voted for the candidate that took lots of donations from the wealthy and powerful, and used it to bury his opponent in ads. The guy who lost went the public funding route.

If you think the right guy won, cool for you. But you may wish to give up mathematically impossible naivete (sp?) about where all that cash came from.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Draek]

the irrefutable fact that "regular" (as in, typical, normal, or average) people most certainly do not donate more than $200 to any political candidate, much less to Obama.

*How* much do regular people donate to any political candidate, then? with proper data please, if possible.

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[randyest]

Define "regular." And I'll provide my data when you quantify and substantiate your affirmative claim that "There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign."

Re:I'd like to say that I'm surprised here, but...

[Draek]

Define "regular."

A logical definition would be "the mode of the sample data", I guess, but whatever definition you used in your statement I quoted would work as long as you state it beforehand.

And I'll provide my data when you quantify and substantiate your affirmative claim that "There are plenty of regular Joes who donated more than $200 to the Obama campaign."

I didn't, read the usernames.

Here we go again... *sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't think of any other president who has been so hounded with criticism before they even take office - including much-hated Bush.

Is it a new trend of accountability for our chief executive? Is it mere racism? I don't know.

But if we're going to be harsher on Obama than we ever were on Bush then it's a bit unfair to say that he's "no different than any other politician". He obviously inspires higher expectations than anyone else. No one batted an eye when Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, etc. appointed pro-industry people. But when Obama does it it's some kind of massive betrayal.

If you thought Obama was going to be a left-wing radical then you were watching too much Fox News. He's a left-leaning moderate who behaves like a left-leaning moderate. No surprise here.

I'm not defending his choice, but all you nutjobs who are saying "see, he's evil!" need to step back, take a deep breath, and realize that that only people calling Obama "The One" are Oprah (who didn't intend any messianic overtones) and right-wingers trying to cast him as a radical. The rest of us know that he's a politician who represents an incremental improvement over his predecessors but who in no way is going to lead a Bolshevik-style revolution and rewrite the fundamentals of this country.

Re:Here we go again... *sigh*

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I can't think of any other president who has been so hounded with criticism before they even take office - including much-hated Bush. Is it a new trend of accountability for our chief executive? Is it mere racism? I don't know.

I am not a racist and I supported Obama.

But this is a detestable and frightening appointment.

Re:Here we go again... *sigh*

[Stu Charlton]

Detestable? What evidence do you have that this man *set* RIAA policy, rather than carrying it out?

Last I checked, Copyright is still a cherished law of the land outside of Slashdot, and the RIAA had the right to sue people for infringement.

Now, it was a stubbornly stupid move (step 1, kill your customers, step 2, ???, step 3, profit!), but why would specific attorneys be painted with the brush for enacting the policy?

As an example, David Boies was lauded for defending Napster, representing the DOJ vs. Microsoft on Antitrust, yet was retained by the SCO group in recent years. Does that make him detestable?

Re:Here we go again... *sigh*

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Detestable? What evidence do you have that this man *set* RIAA policy, rather than carrying it out? Last I checked, Copyright is still a cherished law of the land outside of Slashdot, and the RIAA had the right to sue people for infringement. Now, it was a stubbornly stupid move (step 1, kill your customers, step 2, ???, step 3, profit!), but why would specific attorneys be painted with the brush for enacting the policy? As an example, David Boies [wikipedia.org] was lauded for defending Napster, representing the DOJ vs. Microsoft on Antitrust, yet was retained by the SCO group in recent years. Does that make him detestable?

You miss the whole point of my involvement in these cases. I have no problem with recording companies enforcing their sound recording copyright laws. It is the way in which their lawyers have gone about it that I find detestable:
-rushing to commence unnecessary litigations
-signing pleadings unsupported by insufficient evidence
-making false statements of fact
-making false representations about the law
-using financial might to crush innocent people
-attempting to conduct McCarthyistic witch hunts
-deliberately pursuing children and the disabled.

Any lawyer who signs on for this type of brutality is not a lawyer in my book.

Any lawyer who led this type of brutality is bad news... because he has no conscience.

Re:Here we go again... *sigh*

[geekoid]

"But this is a detestable and frightening appointment."

Why? What did his previous job do that would make him a bad selection for this position?

Re:Here we go again... *sigh*

[geekoid]

No disrespect, but so you ahve a link or citation where this man is telling people to do those thing of his own volition?

Re:Here we go again... *sigh*

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I could go on forever answering that question. For starters
-rushing to commence unnecessary litigations
-signing pleadings unsupported by insufficient evidence
-making false statements of fact
-making false representations about the law
-using financial might to crush innocent people
-attempting to conduct McCarthyistic witch hunts
-deliberately pursuing children and the disabled.

Re:Here we go again... *sigh*

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No disrespect, but so you ahve a link or citation where this man is telling people to do those thing of his own volition?

No disrespect but do you have so little understanding of the legal process that you think I would have access to internal conversations and emails of lawyers on the other side?

Re:Here we go again... *sigh*

[Stu Charlton]

All right, I believe you.

Re:I guess

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Can we pay back the trial lawyers by hiring one of their biggest hacks who sued teenagers for sharing songs on their iPods? YES WE CAN!!!

Please don't equate the RIAA with "trial lawyers". Who do you think have been fighting these vermin? Answer: trial lawyers.

Re:Quick!

[bsDaemon]

Yeah, the religious right pisses me off hard-core -- oh, and the right-to-workers, and a slew of other constituencies. I just hated Democrats more, until I worked in Washington and found out that practically everything they tell people you growing up as a straight, white male of the property-holding class in the South is pretty much bullshit.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am just personally amused that a /.'er would admit to not following polotics close enough to know whats going on, and at the same time say he is a supporter of one candidate over another. Just one AC's view

As far as the topic goes . the RIAA is nothing more then a large group of bored attorneys that have found a nice comfy little niche in the market. They don't have to work very hard or even win any cases to be a pain in the ass.

And as far as Obama's other picks holy jesus i hope they will have me in Canada cause i cant stay here.

Hope!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hope for Change!

He couldn't describe his Change. Here it comes, but oddly it's already rooted here.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone happen to know who this man is in Air Force One staring at you on the left side of the picture directly next to that beautiful bouquet? ...

Yes, that's Jack Valenti

Re:Quick!

[Gerzel]

Oh like Neo in the Matrix. He has to goto the capitol and be surrounded by them so the antivirus software in his body can be spread evenly throughout the land!

It was a bad ending for the movie and is no better in real politics. I wish him well tho.

Re:Quick!

[Gerzel]

Taken?

Uhm can you at least wait for the first day in office for that?

He was elected to be a leader and well in order to see him do that you have to give him the chance as the lead.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't follow politics enough to know all the ins and outs, so I can't provide any real insight in this decision."

"I personally voted for him"

?

Re:Quick!

[plover]

Throwing politicians at the problem won't solve anything.

It will if "problem" is a code-word for a very large furnace.

Re:Quick!

[HermMunster]

It is the attorney's that strategize the attack. So, you are attacking the lawyer's tactics and thus the lawyer himself. And, there's no need to defend a lawyer. Get real.

See...

[Anonymous Coward]

...this is why i voted Nader.

Re:Quick!

[fishbowl]

>Look up what a filibuster is.

In a 98 seat Senate (pefectly legitimate) only 59 votes are required for cloture. Also worth considering, there are more than a few Republicans whose re-election prospects in 2010 are slim enough that they really need to do more during this term than merely play a game of obstruction, doing nothing but voting down cloture motions. What that means is, it's really not as important as has been claimed that the Democrats did not get a supermajority. The first time they try to vote down Cloture, Reid will give the order that the filibuster has to actually take place, and Senators will have to decide whether they want to be shown on C-SPAN sleeping on cots, peeing in bottles, reading phone books, etc., or whether they should let bills get floor votes. I'm satisfied either way.

Re:Slashdot: Behind the scenes

[HermMunster]

Lol, you should be Bush's press secretary.

Re:Quick!

[Rick Bentley]

Sweet, everyone on /. spent 8 years hating on Bush. Now, in one posting, the next 4-8 will be spent hating on Obama. Can't wait to watch this.

Kudos to Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama is the most qualified U.S. President ever. He is the best, the brightest, the smartest, and the most good looking. Not only do I defend Obama's choice, I commend him for his outstanding skill and excellent judgment in appointing this very intelligent, talented, superb, and all around very respectable individual for this important post. Kudos to Obama.

Re:Kudos to Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot to mention that he's also tanned

Re:Kudos to Obama.

[meringuoid]

Kudos to Obama.

'Don't blame me - I voted for Kudos!'

Re:Quick!

[TapeCutter]

The dude came right out and said "I can't provide any real insight in this decision. "

Yes, that was the insightfull part.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why a pistol? A 10/22 is still small enough to be able to wielded against the humans you must be preparing for, and can still afford you the range you need for small game when the shit hits the fan.... Defend your house, feed your family right????

Re:Quick!

[dangitman]

Congratulations on electing a politician.

Uhhh, who else is someone supposed to elect? Anybody who is elected is a politician by definition.

Re:Slashdot: Behind the scenes

[MaskedSlacker]

Actually he was. That was Tony Snow.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to restate? I was curious what you were going to say until you skipped a word or two and the sentence failed to compute.

Re:Quick!

[atraintocry]

Compared to other human beings who lack political aspirations, sure.

But let's at least wait until the inauguration before we compare him to Bush. I'm pretty sure that Obama causing *that* much damage to the country would be like winning the lottery twice in a row.

Re:Quick!

[arghnoname]

Keep in mind that a lot of Bush supporters supported Bush, but not his decisions. "Bush is a good man" or "A good Christian" and sometimes just got bad advice. A leader is his decisions, by and large. This doesn't mean Obama sucks, but it's something to put on the scales.

Re:Quick!

[MaskedSlacker]

2nd worst is NOT best.

Re:Quick!

[internic]

I relate to being upset with what Obama did on the retroactive FISA issue, but I guess I don't understand why this was some major shock. I personally wanted to see a candidate who was reasonable on other policy positions but treated civil liberties as a central issue. I never found one, certainly not Barack Obama. Anyway, I've been over this before, so I won't repeat myself, but suffice it to say I think people blow that incident out of proportion. Regarding your comment on Hillary, I'm quite certain she had not even bothered to show up for votes on the issue on previous occasions and had not taken an anti-immunity provision, so I wouldn't construe that vote as an indicator of any deep conviction either. I think each was doing what they held to be politically pragmatic at the moment, and I think that each made the right choice by that criterion.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

You expected an appointment by a corrupt member of the Chicago political machine not to be a corrupt appointment?

Please.

Re:Quick!

[arghnoname]

It's a train wreck and a clown car at the same time! Either way, it's hard not to watch and all the while, I can't decide if I should giggle or be horrified.

Re:Quick!

[mrbrown1602]

I believe the State of Louisiana spoke as to who was actually responsible for the Katrina & Rita mess when it didn't even give Kathleen Blanco a chance to run for re-election...

Re:Quick!

[commodore64_love]

Just wait.

In the year 2012 people will be talking about how Obama let them down.

In the year 2016, there will be a backlash and people will be thrilled to see Obama leave.

The politicians never promised *good* change.

[DamnStupidElf]

See how politics works now?

Re:Quick!

[atraintocry]

I voted for Obama. Had there been a third-party candidate that wasn't a complete lunatic, maybe they would have gotten my vote. Still, I agreed with Obama on more issues than McCain. If you want someone with policies that you agree 100% with, you are going to have to run yourself.

The Democratic party gets a lot of contributions from Hollywood. "We" knew that going in, at least those of us who have their wits about them.

I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Bruce Perens]

All right, I'll defend Obama. This really sucks but he's still the right man to be President.

It's pretty darned inconceivable that he was ever going to agree with us on everything. This particular issue is going to be a difficult one for us to win, even with reasonably enlightened political officials. Don't forget that NOBODY voted against DMCA.

I still feel wonderful that Obama's going into office rather than McCain. And you can't seriously believe that McCain was going to help us on electronic freedom issues.

I do hope that EFF, Lessig, etc. raise a platform on this issue that we can help them with.

I'll be in DC, and in front of some politicians and their staffers, next week. I'll be sure to put in a word about this. But that's going to be the first word, not the last.

Bruce

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[pimpimpim]

As a non-US citizen living outside of the US, I don't think the problem is Obama. The problem is that the US allows a ridiculous "democratic" system where corporates are allowed to sponsor elections, at all. This is an institutionalized form of corruption and I don't think it exists in countries that call themselves democratic other than the US.

For the rest I agree, Obama was the best choice, even if he was overhyped. This is for a big part due to the fact that the combination of candidates from the Republican party was an outright failure. I really wonder how they got to Palin. Maybe they thought that voters were already dumb enough to fall for just the show value of Palin. Could they, in all their members, not find ANY CANDIDATE that would be at least halfway competent to do the job better than Palin?

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Xest]

Exactly.

Also, article says this guy is going to be number three. The difference if McCain had been voted in is we'd see guys like this at numbers 1, 2 and 3.

I'd say the fact that out of all the appointments Obama has to make they've had to scratch all the way down to the 3rd line in some set of jobs to find something like this.

I'd be far more worried if we were seeing these kind of appointments at multiple points on the front line of staff he has to select.

When you compare to the likes of the Bush administration where we had this exact sort of scenario, albeit not with corrupt music industry officials at the top but with corrupt oil and finanace officials etc. at the top Obama is doing pretty well so far.

Particularly with Palin as VP who already has a track record of heavily abusing power to further personal goals we'd have seen far more corrupt people in far higher places than we're seeing here with Obama.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Carewolf]

Private support for political parties exists in most place. Many, like the US, have laws trying to control it, but many countries don't have any control at all, because it simple isn't a problem. In this respect the US just seems to have a very unfortunate and difficult to fix tradition.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Phoenix666]

I am trying to give Obama the benefit of the doubt during this transition. His vote on FISA and his appointments of ex-Clinton people have rankled me. This most recent appointment makes me sigh.

But he has proven himself to be a master of political jiujitsu, and I am hoping that his goals are more progressive than his methods currently appear to this grasshopper. At least they had better be, because if he intends to conduct business as usual then he will see his approval ratings and political support in the electorate implode.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Bruce Perens]

The thing to understand is that Obama has to lead where the whole country will follow. This means that there is lots of change he might like to make, but can't.

Regardless of what the RIAA wants, the market has rejected DRM for audio recordings. What's happening with iTunes is proof enough of that. Obviously this doesn't extend to video yet.

But the real issue we need to fight, of which the conduct of RIAA and MPAA are just one one symptom, is corporate totalitarianism. The rights of corporations stop somewhere short of the micromanagement of individual conduct represented by DRM and the legal structure supporting it. Leaders in other countries have come to understand what that is, and it can happen here too.

Bruce

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

For the rest I agree, Obama was the best choice, even if he was overhyped. This is for a big part due to the fact that the combination of candidates from the Republican party was an outright failure. I really wonder how they got to Palin. Maybe they thought that voters were already dumb enough to fall for just the show value of Palin. Could they, in all their members, not find ANY CANDIDATE that would be at least halfway competent to do the job better than Palin?

You can reverse the names and parties and still be correct.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[joranbelar]

I think the problem people are having is that the "Obama" ideal meant a completely different thing to each and every person who voted for him. Every one of them thought Obama's goals and desires lined up 1:1 with their own personal wishes. So, naturally, as they find out that they were completely deluded and/or projecting, they'll be a bit testy.

You can please some of the people some of the time, etc., etc. I wouldn't fault Obama for that.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, we don't know if nobody voted against it. No one in the Senate did, but the House went by voice vote, so there's no record. Given that I bet at least Ron Paul would have voted "Nay", I doubt it went unchallenged.

Too bad the House rules give their members an out when an unpopular bill comes up for vote. The whole unrecorded voice-vote option needs to be eliminated, but since it would only hurt them they'll never vote to change the House rules like that.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention all the Africans rejoicing about a black US president. Like that's going to get them out of their shit hole.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[CorporateSuit]

This really sucks but he's still the right man to be President.

No he's not. He voted for bills that violate the constitution when one of the only goals of his office was to uphold the constitution. That immediately disqualifies him from being the right man to be President. Even if the bill "did some good things", as soon as it violated the constitution, he shouldn't vote "Present" he shouldn't vote "yes" and he shouldn't withold his vote. He is duty-bound to vote "NO." as anything less is NOT defending the constitution, but sitting back and watching it get pissed on. If he wanted the benefits from the bill before the gross violation, he should have just drafted his own bill, and sent it through.

Before that, he should draft a bill that states that each modification to a bill made will record who made the modification, that way, if someone tries to tack a $250,000 grant to his wife's company to an otherwise good bill, it will show that -- and keep these corrupt bastards accountable.

As I've said before: The only reason I know they don't use the constitution as toilet paper in congress is that would mean some of them would have probably read it by now.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Bruce Perens]

Yes, I am concerned by the FISA re-authorization bill as well. The candidate who would have voted against that bill, and his party, were not capable of leading a majority of the American people even far enough to vote for him. Obama, in contrast, was able to rally a country behind him while still representing substantial and needed change.

If Obama continues to support bills that are in clear violation of the constitution, and that subvert the rule of law subsequent to the crime, there's a problem. This particular activity seems to have been related to moving the country on from the odious acts of the previous administration.

The fact that George W. Bush is not being tried for treason is itself a sign of the present weakness of our constitution, but such a trial might well have torn the country apart when moving on is the best solution for us collectively. I am still wondering what efforts will take place in international courts.

Bruce

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep dreaming... I know I am, especially for the day that politicians are held accountable for everything they do.

No president of a "democratic" nation will be tried for anything under any international court.

Look at Guantanamo bay, for example... Total violation of the Geneva convention, and I don't know how many other international laws. And does _any_ "democratic" country cry "acts against humanity", "human rights abuses", "terrorism", "_genocide_"? No. Can anyone tell me why? I'm struggling to find a reason, here.

Well, not necessarily genocide at Guantanamo bay, but I don't recall anyone being tried or accused of genocide when the US dropped two atom bombs on Japan. Talk about being fucking hypocrites. Seriously... The US can never cry anyone of those until it stops being so damn hypocritical.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[CorporateSuit]

Yes, I am concerned by the FISA re-authorization bill as well. The candidate who would have voted against that bill, and his party, were not capable of leading a majority of the American people even far enough to vote for him. Obama, in contrast, was able to rally a country behind him while still representing substantial and needed change.

Simply because he's charismatic doesn't mean we should hire a convicted arsonist to be fire marshal within a few months of his last fire! Obama's job isn't to get voted for. His job is to defend and uphold the constitution. He's proven himself not only incapable of that, but by saying "Yea" he has shown he'll burn the constitution himself if someone makes a good enough argument for it, and the FISA bill set the bar for what is considered "good enough argument": Pathetically unconvincing and transparently manipulative. McCain did the same. They both should have been disqualified on the spot as presidential candidates.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Bruce Perens]

How can you defend and uphold the constitution if you can't get yourself elected to office?

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's the right man because the other guy was an idiot, then we are truly in for a ride through the good 'ol status-quo. May it be a late-90's status-quo than a early-00's, hopefully...

There's a diff between right man and qualified man.

Good luck next week (for OSS!).

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[openfrog]

Bruce, I am really glad to read your post here. There are only a handful of people who could raise a sound, well articulated platform around this and you are one of them. It is a question of judgment of course, but I personally believe that the Internet communities who have helped Obama reach the presidency would mobilize on the fundamental issues around corporate vs public interests. Over the past couple of years, I have witnessed as a larger proportion of Internet users, even those who are not much computer literate, have awakened to these issues.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Bruce Perens]

Well, sorry to disappoint you, but I am out of the platform business for the moment. This is probably my last visit to DC for a while. People who play that game have to make sure they have the financial leisure to support themselves while doing it, and I have to work on that for a while. The good news is that some interesting Open Source software will come out of that.

Bruce

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Elektroschock]

In my nation parties are refunded based on election results. The negative side effect is that parties become dependend on the government and elections are less passionate.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty darned inconceivable that he was ever going to agree with us on everything.

Actually, it's pretty darned inconceivable how gullible you guys were.

You voted for a Chicago machine politician with virtually no discernible record or position on anything, based solely on his appearance and his ability to mouth prewritten liberal platitudes scrolling up a teleprompter. Who will you vote for next time? Miley Cyrus?

Well, you asked for it. Enjoy the next four years. I know I will.

Re:I'll take that up and defend Obama.

[ivan256]

Maybe after the Democratic smear campaign successfully tricked the majority of the American public into thinking that McCain was Bush, they decided that the only way to get McCain elected was to get the people who elected Bush on board?

Let's be honest here. Almost every single person who claims that they didn't vote for McCain because of Palin had already decided not to vote for McCain before he picked her.

Re:Quick!

[MaskedSlacker]

So THAT'S how Obama's bringing change. By busying the assholes with other things than harassing dead grandmothers and five year olds.

Re:Quick!

[commodore64_love]

If he really wanted to change the system, he'd leave most of the "do nothing" cabinet positions empty, including the whole departments under those positions, and then apply the trillions of dollars saved to payoff the national debt (read: Chinese, Arab, and European bankers) so we are no longer at their mercy.

By the year 2016 Obama could claim to be the third president (and third Democrat) to operate the government with absolutely no debt.

THAT would be impress me.

Re:Quick!

[Eskarel]

I'm not really a Messiah kind of guy I'm more of a realist though, and I've realized the following.

1. Even if it was legally possible another 4 years of Bush would be intolerable.
2. John McCain, as much as I once believed in him, sold out his integrity to get the nomination. A good man let bad men tell him what to do and that was a tragedy. It's possible he would have regained his integrity had he actually won, but I sincerely doubt it.
3. Sarah Palin shouldn't even have as much power as she has as governor of Alaska, and was probably unfit to be the mayor of the podunk town she was mayor of.
4. The third party candidates are all wackjobs who are, for all intents and purposes, worse than the big two, Ron Paul would have destroyed the United States.
5. By process of elimination Obama is, at worst the best of a bad bunch, and at best a chance for change.

I'm not thrilled by this appointment, but it doesn't really surprise me. IP, whether you believe in it or not, is one of the few things the US produces domestically which anyone else actually wants to buy. For better or worse, protecting the value of IP is important to the survival of the US economy.

There was never any chance that any president was going to eliminate copyright, and there is still a chance(though slim) that, despite this appointment, Obama will work to rationalize the process. I doubt it, but on the grounds that no one else(no one sane at least) was going to do it either, it's not the end of the world.

Re:Quick!

[Jurily]

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards role the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them,"
he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

Re:Quick!

[Capsaicin]

Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep. And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?

Were they employed as counsel?

Do you seriously believe that defending a client on a murder charge amounts to an endorsement of the act?

A lawyer as a duty to represent their client, irrespective of the lawyer's personal beliefs. I would expect any reasonably ethical lawyer to be able to separate those two interests. Whether they do in fact is a matter of examining the actions of any particular lawyer.

Whether Bush & Cheney were able to separate their duty to the corporations by which they were formerly employed, and their duty to the American people is similarly a matter of examining their particular actions. It would be invalid to conclude that any person, having been at one time in their life an employee of a corporation, would automatically be incapable of dutifully serving in some governmental capacity.

Would you like us to lock up any soldier returning from a the front-line where it was their duty to kill, on the basis that now they are killers it's not safe to have them roaming the streets?

Re:Quick!

[Hal_Porter]

Hmm, it was an interesting situation

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09military.html?pagewanted=print
WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 - As New Orleans descended into chaos last week and Louisiana's governor asked for 40,000 soldiers, President Bush's senior advisers debated whether the president should speed the arrival of active-duty troops by seizing control of the hurricane relief mission from the governor.

For reasons of practicality and politics, officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, and then at the White House, decided not to urge Mr. Bush to take command of the effort. Instead, the Washington officials decided to rely on the growing number of National Guard personnel flowing into Louisiana, who were under Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco's control.

The debate began after officials realized that Hurricane Katrina had exposed a critical flaw in the national disaster response plans created after the Sept. 11 attacks. According to the administration's senior domestic security officials, the plan failed to recognize that local police, fire and medical personnel might be incapacitated.

As criticism of the response to Hurricane Katrina has mounted, one of the most pointed questions has been why more troops were not available more quickly to restore order and offer aid. Interviews with officials in Washington and Louisiana show that as the situation grew worse, they were wrangling with questions of federal/state authority, weighing the realities of military logistics and perhaps talking past each other in the crisis.

To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established.

While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.

But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials.

So Bush's advisers clearly thought Blanco was incompetent and discussed using the Insurrection Act to send Federal troops and decided against it. This was in 2005. In 2006 they modified the Insurrection Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act#Differences_between_old_and_new_wording
Differences between old and new wording

The original wording of the Act required the conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, to be met as the result of

    insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy

The new wording of the Act, as amended, still requires the same conditions as worded in Paragraph (2), above, but those conditions could, after the changes, also be a result of

    natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition

and only if

    domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order.

This isnt the place to bitch and whine....

[Tmack]

So stop wasting karma here and write to those who should care: Obama himself, his cabinet members, YOUR state representatives. They probably dont read /., and the only way your opinion makes any little shred of difference in this is to get it in front of someone that might have a tiny speck of influence. Hell, if enough people complain about the same thing, someone (that staffer that read your email) might actually start to believe it and mention it to someone else, who might mention it again, and so on, and thats how CHANGE starts. Otherwise its the same insiders telling the same crap to the "new" people, so you end up with the same crap all over again.

tm

Re:Quick!

[pipatron]

Funny, they did exactly like that with Iraq, which isn't even the same country.

Re:Quick!

[TheoMurpse]

Except that there are probably millions of people who would be jobless were the government to stop funding whole departments.

By your definition, trillions would be saved. That's a whole lot of jobs destroyed in one fell swoop.

How would the economy react to about .5~1 percent more unemployment overnight?

Re:Quick!

[Capsaicin]

It is the attorney's (sic) that strategize the attack. So, you are attacking the lawyer's tactics and thus the lawyer himself (sic).

Again, the lawyer has a duty to represent their client's interest zealously, irrespective of the lawyer's personal opinions. The only questions regarding their tactics are 1. are they permissible within the rules of the game and 2. are they reasonably competent, inasasmuch as they are likely to secure an outcome favourable to their client. If you do attack the lawyer personally on the basis of their tactics, (other than for a breach of the two considerations), you are a simpleton. I guess you hate actors for the parts they played in their last movie too.

And, there's no need to defend a lawyer.

This topic and you post clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Re:Quick!

[ChangelingJane]

And by "lottery" you obviously mean the one where the winner gets stoned to death.

Re:Quick!

[MartinSchou]

In a boxing match, the second worst contender is usually the one winning. And of the two, the second worst IS the best.

Re:Quick!

[MaskedSlacker]

Are elections boxing matches? No. Are elections horse races? No.

There were not only two names on the ballot. And that's ignoring your right to write in whoever you damn well please. So your analogy is more false than my prostate.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you! Political types planting their lips firmly onto the 4$$s of those with $$$$. Oh! I morn the loss of my innocence!

give the guy a chance

[ramul]

I saw this a lot with our fairly recent election in australia and im seeing it here now on slashdot.

The people that vote for 'the messiah' aren't necessarily convinced they are voting for a solution to every problem they ever had..they might just be voting for a guy who finally seems to agree with their way of thinking and might do some good things with the country. Its ok to get excited about that isnt it? I was when we were getting rid of our ultra conservative party in favor of the sortve liberal one here. Obamas probably pretty busy, give him some time to sort out his shit.

dont you people have any faith in anything at all?

Re:give the guy a chance

[Spatial]

One more appeal to emotion, and it's +5 funny.

Re:give the guy a chance

[Doghouse Riley]

"dont you people have any faith in anything at all?"

I have faith in my loved ones, my coworkers, and my neighbors. None of them has ever held political office.

Re:give the guy a chance

[squiggly12]

dont you people have any faith in anything at all?

:) This is /. of course not!

You have a great point though, and really guys, he hasn't even taken the power from Dubya yet!

Re:Quick!

[ari_j]

You assume too much. We could elect a different politician in as few as 4 years, and enjoy only 4 years of corporate whoring followed by 4 years of corporate whoring.

Re:Quick!

[ravenshrike]

You voted for a corrupt, backstabbing Chicago pol because you wanted someone sane and relatively moderate? (10 minutes later) Okay, I'm done laughing. That's just sad.

Re:Quick!

[Wonko the Sane]

payoff the national debt (read: Chinese, Arab, and European bankers) so we are no longer at their mercy.

I really wonder about that. Those bankers really need the US government to repay those loans and the US government needs the bankers to continue lending. If the US decides not to pay those loans and the bankers stop extending credit, then does anyone really "win"? It seems more like MAD than one party being at the other party's mercy.

Re:Quick!

[dbIII]

Everyone start defending this decision.

Petrelli? Flying Man! He is one of the good guys. Mister Eye Sark said so.

Re:Quick!

[ari_j]

And that's why you can't give handouts in any kind of rational expectation that they will result in the person getting a leg up and no longer needing the handouts.

The standard human response for someone into whose outstretched hand you place an opportunity to get out of his rut is to reach out the other hand, palm up.

NIGGA PLEASE!

[Anonymous Coward]

that is all

nope

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope y'all are happy. History has a funny way of recording things. Something tells me that in 80 years, Bush will be remembered as being a better president than Obama.

Lawyers are lawyers

[detritus.]

I think alot of people are forgetting that lawyers are lawyers. They are paid to represent and fight whatever battle if someone throws enough money at them, regardless of their personal views on the case, much like mercenaries. I think Obama knows this being a Law Professor, so I'm personally not too worried about this appointment and don't see what the big deal is.

Re:Lawyers are lawyers

[californication]

Yes, does this guy still work for the RIAA? If he doesn't, then does anyone have any evidence that he personally believes in the RIAA agenda? The question is, is the RIAA comes knocking, can he do his job without being biased towards a previous employer?

Re:Lawyers are lawyers

[shentino]

Indeed, a good question to ask.

I hope we don't have a repeat of the Searle, DOJ, and Nutrasweet aspartame scandal.

Re:Lawyers are lawyers

[eiapoce]

When you make a choice in your life you make a personal statement. Every time you decide who is your employer you take a big decision. There is a speech in the movie Clerks where they debate about the workers on the death star killed by the rebellion. They were working class, supposely the people the rebellion was fighting for, but they choose to work for the evil empire so they deserved to die. Well that's the point.

This guy choose to work for a organization that recklessly goes after private citizens, lobbied the government into absurd laws and hs been twice in judgement for the abuse of RICO tactics ( http://www.p2pnet.net/story/7767 ). This would have rang a bell in any "non sociopathic" human being looking for a job. Me for one would feel very bad in pursuing normal people with small incomes and ruin their lifes just to make a billion dollar industry richer. But this guy looks like he hasn't got these feelings and did indeed choose to work for them. But does being a lawyer qualify you for a moral licence to accept and pratice social unacceptable behavious like those emploed by the RIAA? I don't think so.

He is a lawyer but I hope not all lawyers are made this way. On slashdot there is a very active member that decided, for instance, to have a carreer standing with the people.

In other words Obama "for a change" instead of being lobbyed as his predecessors took a step forward and appointed the least qualified to rapresent people in a public institution. Infact this man with his choice has already shown to prefer money over ethics.

Good luck with your change.

Re:Lawyers are lawyers

[plasmacutter]

are you so sure?

Corporate positions at that level pay considerably higher than government ones, and he's basically going into a third tier position.

I'd say it's a very public "atonement"

Re:Quick!

[Wonko the Sane]

I shouldn't feed the trolls but I do think this is an example worth pointing out.

The confederacy was right about states' rights. They were wrong about slavery. I think that a war to end slavery was justified, but it really sucks that "limited government" was killed along with it.

Re:Quick!

[Toonol]

I didn't vote for Obama.

That's neither here nor there, but I just want to get it out and documented early and publicly, so that I can point to it four years from now when everybody is denying they voted for him.

Re:Quick!

[Sarkoon]

If you need a permit to exercise a constitutional right, something is very wrong. What's next, permits required to speak within free speech zones?

Re:Quick!

[calmofthestorm]

Some things were going to happen no matter which way you vote:/ The RIAA has plenty of stool pigeons in both the parties, they're not going anywhere.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered that he might be employing the peter principle? Huh, have you? Damn republicans...

At least he's not...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's at least third worse by my count. Imagine the world right if Ron Paul was President, trying to destroy the Federal Reserve at the exact moment that it is the only thing standing between us and the second Great Depression.

ah...

[LodCrappo]

fuck

Re:Quick!

[calmofthestorm]

And any Lawyer that nearly gets sanctions for getting caught lying to courts...

I have no problem with someone who's willing to represent Hitler in Hitler v. Cute Puppies, or anyone, we do have a right to representation. But that's going too far.

Disprove the first sentence and my objections to him go away.

Re:Quick!

[calmofthestorm]

Feed it with campaign donations and it will feed you tasty pork for many years to come!

mmmm...pork...

What!

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you appear to be guilty before the trial, you get a rubbish lawyer, a poor defense, and justice is served!

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Quick!

[calmofthestorm]

They like lending us money, treasury loans are used as a base rate for completely risk-free investment. They'd like us to pay it back, but they really can't afford to stop lending to us as long as their economies grow.

Re:Quick!

[Tubal-Cain]

Cry me a river. Idle bureaucrats employed by the government are a waste of our tax dollars.

The government's purpose is to effectively serve the public; not employ those that can't hold a regular job in the private sector.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want someone to walk out the door, you can't cut him off at the knees, at least not until he's off your rug...

Re:Quick!

[XSEnergy]

Ah America, to have completely lost faith in those you elect .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Postal/

Re:Quick!

[Deanalator]

Insightful? Sounds to me like cynical flamebait

When did anyone ever say that the job of a politician is to make everyone happy? Of course politicians aren't going to please all of their supporters all of the time, that's not how it works.

Obama didn't run on a platform of anti-corporatism. He ran on a platform of more government control of corporations, and more public transparency of the government.

We currently have had a vice president for the past 8 years who was the CEO of a major defense contractor. On the other hand, one of the many people that Obama selected for a DOJ position worked for a law firm that represented a company that many of us don't like, and people flip out over that?

Sure, he is going to make some moves that don't fully satisfy the tech sector, but the sky is hardly falling, and I personally don't think the tech sector has had it this good in a long time.

Re:Quick!

[Lars512]

The standard human response for someone into whose outstretched hand you place an opportunity to get out of his rut is to reach out the other hand, palm up.

And equally, the standard human response for poverty and desperation is crime and violence. I'd rather give people a chance.

Re:Quick!

[Kierthos]

I may not necessarily like the choice, but Obama is free to pick whomever he wants for the job. To the best of my knowledge, they still have to be confirmed to the post by Congress. (Which, yes, will probably be a done-deal anyway.)

Okay, so he was an RIAA lawyer. So what? Yes, the RIAA has done some incredibly stupid things in their lawsuit strategy, but a lawyer is supposedly to zealously represent their clients. Not half-ass it.

Re:Quick!

[sponga]

Dude, don't shoot yourself in the head over that. There are better ways to approach problems in life, killing yourself is not one of them.

Re:lawrence lessig? where are you?

[nordah]

Interestingly, Lawrence Lessig returns to Harvard Law just a few weeks before Harvard Law dean Elena Kagan is nominated for Solicitor General. How many more will Obama take into his administration?

So was this the change we need?

[J'raxis]

So was this the change we need? The one everyone was hoping for?

Re:CHANGE

[techno-vampire]

A vote for Obama is a vot for change.

True. However, he never told you what type of change he was planning, did he?

Re:Quick!

[Dulcise]

Brilliant! I was just about to start hunting for this quote

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Once he's surrounded by them, he'll be able to change the system.

Sounds like a scene from a Steven Segal movie.

Add the info to his WIkipedia article

[Mathinker]

> The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of
> the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind
> of morals they have.

Someone should add this tidbit, with linked evidence, to the guy's Wikipedia article, no? His article reads like a press release right now.

Re:Add the info to his WIkipedia article

[LionMage]

His article reads like a press release right now.

And it will again about 2 minutes after someone adds any embarrassing information to the article, whether it's supported by citations or not. You can bet any high-profile attorney or politician who has a Wikipedia article about them probably has at least one staffer whose job it is to police information about their boss on Wikipedia, and sanitize it if necessary. It's just another PR function these days.

MOD PARENT UP

[zooblethorpe]

Oh, but for some mod points right now! I grew up in DC... suffice it to say that I generally agree with you. :-\

Cheers,

Re:Quick!

[kisak]

What was [president Bush] supposed to do, Fly to Baton Rouge and bully her into making a decision that [the small state Governor] felt was unnecessary?

Yes, who ever expect a president to act like a leader in a crisis?! I mean, the decider can't make such tough decitions straight from the hip! When people are dying in the street, the leader of the free world needs to eat cake with the people who paid to get him elected, so that he has a clear head when the voters starts to ask questions why nothing was done.

South Park

[AliasMarlowe]

"When you vote, the choice is always between a douche and a turd" [South Park series 8, episode 8]

Re:South Park

[Opportunist]

While I agree that this is the situation we're in, I ask why it has to be that way. Why do we only get the choice between hanging and shooting, why can't we get a politician that we don't see as the lesser evil, but one that we actually want to win?

Re:South Park

[geminidomino]

While I agree that this is the situation we're in, I ask why it has to be that way. Why do we only get the choice between hanging and shooting, why can't we get a politician that we don't see as the lesser evil, but one that we actually want to win?

A) Because those people generally don't run for high political offices.

B) A great many people in this country (so many that I have to wonder if the distribution is still normal, or if the mean is far too stupid) DO want either the cocksucker or the jerkoff to win. Usually based on one insipid bullet point. "The cocksucker will make the 10 Commandments into law and talks to Jesus! He MUST win!" "The jerkoff wants to make sure people have enough food to eat, and can get it just by making sure that no one gets TOO much to eat! HE must win!"

I seriously doubt, even after the clusterfuck of the last eight years, that Americans will ever understand the gravity of the choices they make (if they bother to make one) every other November.

Instead, they seem to think "Woah, Cool. It's like Bud Bowl, but with real people!"

Re:South Park

[Moryath]

See also: How Obama Got Elected.

Re:South Park

[geminidomino]

Considering the source, though... that doesn't prove much of anything, other than some people who voted for Obama are idiots. This is the implication H&C were going for, obviously.

Combined with the fact that some people who voted for McCain are idiots as well, and you get a point I already covered. The idiots are on both sides of the aisle, and there's a metric assload of them...

Re:South Park

[bugi]

Hey, I don't care about his sexual proclivities. I just want him to act responsibly and ethically.

So did Obama not do his research, or is this a demonstration of to whom he owes favors?

Re:South Park

[cayenne8]

"I seriously doubt, even after the clusterfuck of the last eight years, that Americans will ever understand the gravity of the choices they make (if they bother to make one) every other November."

Every other Novembers??

Our presidential elections cycles are for 4 years each....

Re:South Park

[Applekid]

Because those people generally don't run for high political offices.

I'd take issue with that. The mainstream media covered three people throughout the election season: McCain, Obama, Clinton. Anyone else was a footnote and a comment en passant.

There were many people who have tried and failed, past and present, not because of the merits of their ideas but because they were painted as fringe and irrelevant in a two-party system. Among them this time around: Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and others. Their only faults were not being part of the established political machine and not spending millions upon millions in advertising. Should the leadership of this country be decided by an advertising campaign? Really?

The majority of voters don't even know who they are, or what they stand for, or if what they stand for aligns with their vision for what the US should be. I mean, hell, most of these alternatives were stonewalled out of even getting ballot access via the states.

Remember, that episode was about how the vote is between a douche and a turd sandwich only because PETA didn't let the school use the South Park Cow as their mascot. If we're going to pretend people who can REALLY change things for the better don't exist, of course we're going to have dirty candidates, empty promises, and morning-after regrets.

Re:South Park

[geminidomino]

And our Represantive Cycles are 2 years.
And our Senatorial (sp?) Cycles are 6 years.

So yeah, every other year, SOMEONE with the power to fuck things up is being chosen.

Contrary to what Redneck Nero and his cadre have been trying to tell us for the past 8 years, it ain't all about one guy.

Re:Quick!

[debatem1]

I have to disagree with you- while it is clearly a lawyer's duty to act zealously in his clients' interests, that obligation cannot be reasonably construed to allow him to act unethically or illegally. Please don't pretend that the ethical deficiencies of the client excuse the courtroom behavior of their counsel- the ABA doesn't.

Presidential responsibility

[interactive_civilian]

And a President's first responsibility is to the US Constitution. But that didn't stop Obama from voting yes on the FISA Reform Bill.

Does it surprise anyone that a politician willing to put politics above the constitution would choose as a DoJ appointee a lawyer who puts client above the court?

I'm still cautiously hopeful for the Obama presidency, but I do not have high expectations. I have yet to see a high level politician put the good of the people above the good of the government. I hope he surprises me, but I don't expect him to.

Re:Presidential responsibility

[Stanislav_J]

I think every Obama supporter (and I am one) needs to temper their lofty expectations with a dose of reality. He's not the Second Coming -- he's both human and a politician, so he already has two strikes against him. He will make (and already has made) some decisions and appointments that will piss us off. It's all a matter of contrast and degree. Considering the debacle of the last 8 years, if Obama is even moderately successful, it will be a vast improvement. He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.

If you've been living off rice and gruel for years, you may dream of steak and lobster, but at that point even a humble peanut butter and jelly sandwich is going to taste pretty damn good.

Re:Presidential responsibility

[john82]

He has surrounded himself, for the most part, with some very competent people, yards better than the rouge's gallery that has run the show under Bush.

That remains to be seen. Thus far what we have are promises, nothing more. If we should reserve judgment on the potential for disappointment, then we should refrain from claiming success as well.

As for competent, Mr Panetta has no qualifications for his rumored post. I'm hopeful that Obama will pick someone who IS qualified.

Re:Presidential responsibility

[Stradivarius]

Obama originally wanted John Brennan, who IS qualified by virtue of his experience at the CIA. But rumors of his appointment pissed off the left-wingers. Apparently having worked at the CIA at any time during the Bush administration is considered a disqualifier by the extremes of the party. Obama was unwilling to stick up for his desired choice against his base, so he picked Panetta instead.

There are a couple of ways to look at it. One is that Obama wimped out, or that he's politicizing intelligence after criticizing Bush for doing exactly that.

The more Obama-friendly view is that he's picking his battles, and that intelligence experience is not required for agency heads. There was a story on NPR the other day that noted that previous heads of the CIA, widely regarded as successful, also had no intelligence experience upon starting the job. For example, Bush 41.

Pick your poison :-)

Re:Presidential responsibility

[recharged95]

"I think every Obama supporter (and I am one) needs to temper their lofty expectations with a dose of reality"

.

I beg to differ.

.

Obama supporters should demand the lofty expectations he promised. Otherwise, it is truly politics as usual and we voted in a guy that will likely sit on his laurels since ANYTHING opposite to Bush or even logical will be better (according to those that support Obama).

It's politics, not medicine. The people need to demand performance. Come on people, he's just now doing the "I'm smarter, from harvard, so trust me" talk to set expectations low, when he originally set them high to get YOUR VOTE. Don't believe the hype, demand it.

Re:Presidential responsibility

[sootman]

That remains to be seen. Thus far what we have are promises, nothing more. If we should reserve judgment on the potential for disappointment, then we should refrain from claiming success as well.

Reserving judgement. What a great idea. Tell that to the people who started NOBAMA IN 12--how 'bout we let him at least be INAUGURATED before assuming that we don't want him running things?

One can only hope...

[zooblethorpe]

... but having grown up in DC, all too close to the stench of the halls of power, and all too cognizant of the squalor prevalent mere blocks away, I am far too cynical to really expect that this might be the case.

May I be proved wrong.

Right, because the former chairman of Pepsi

[unassimilatible]

Would take care of his buddies at Coca-Cola if he were to become president?

This "Bush was an oil guy, so he looks out for oil guys" meme is so mindless. These oil people were Bush's competitors for crissakes!

Oh, and Cheney:

1) Have job that pays millions
2) Give it up to earn $200K as VP, be vilified as Darth Vader
3) Profit???

Re:Right, because the former chairman of Pepsi

[mspohr]

Oh, and Cheney: 1) Have job that pays millions 2) Give it up to earn $200K as VP, be vilified as Darth Vader 3) Profit???

Actually, quite a bit of profit.

Cheney continues to receive deferred compensation from Halliburton as well as having stock options which have mysteriously risen in value by 3,281% in just one of the past years.

You coudn't have just looked at his voting record?

[unassimilatible]

Obama had the most liberal voting record in the US Senate according to just about every metric, and got an "F" rating from the NRA. And you, as a gun owner, actually thought he might be on your side? I can see gun grabbers thinking he is great, but there is this search tool known as "Google."

I've been telling people for a year now...

[macraig]

... that Obama was not the Electoral Messiah and will not change anything significantly for the better. He's one of the same club of Good Old Boys as GWB and John McCain now, regardless of his skin color or where and how he grew up. He is part of the controlling power structure that wants to preserve its control, both for itself and the hands that feed it. Mark my words, there will be more disappointments like this for those people delusional enough to buy into campaign bullshit.

Go ahead, mod me down you Obama-lovers... you know you must to preserve the delusion a little bit longer.

(Disclaimer: I am not a Democrat. Unfortunately for the conspiracy nuts, neither am I a Republican nor a Libertarian (*puke*) nor a Green nor a Constitutionalist nor even an Independent... I'm an independent with a lower-case "i". Groupthink disgusts me and I'm immune to it because of a neurological "disorder". I do happen to be Caucasian, though.)

Re:I've been telling people for a year now...

[ramul]

psst you didnt tell us who you would have run america..

Re:I've been telling people for a year now...

[macraig]

How about someone who has firm well developed ethics but no ambition to cloud the ethics? It would take an electoral lottery system to get that person into the running, though.

God bless America.

[eiapoce]

Dear Americans,

You didn't like RIAA abusing the Law to make profits out of filesharers by suing families, kids and dead people. You ask for a change. You've got it.

Now RIAA makes the law. God bless america.

(Not that voting the other candidate would have help, but a least you would expect it from a Republican... Anyway that's nice to know that you have a kind of security: either party you vote won't make your interests).

What do you expect? You're in a police state!

[itsybitsy]

It's quite amazing that this story should come as a surprise considering that the USA is a police state par excellence.

It's time to shake the delusions that you live in a free society and take back YOUR power.

Electing a man, even an obama man, isn't the path to freedom. It's just another guy to be emperor for the next few years.

Alter the system. Go back to the roots. Take back your rights from those usurpers who usurped them.

Say no to government in all it's evil and vile forms.

Say no to state sponsored terrorism in your country.

a kdawson post is always this skewed

[cliffski]

this is posted by kdawson. You really expected it to be impartial? The guy only posts anti-copyright anti-content producer, pro-piracy bullshit.
Its like digg, but pretending to be for grown-ups.

Re:a kdawson post is always this skewed

[rolfwind]

You don't actually say what is skewed in the summary. Attack the message, not just the person.

Re:a kdawson post is always this skewed

[plasmacutter]

this is posted by kdawson. You really expected it to be impartial? The guy only posts anti-copyright anti-content producer, pro-piracy bullshit.
Its like digg, but pretending to be for grown-ups.

I see how professional and impartial you are with this post. I mean, after all, everyone who despises what an irrelevant industry has done to an entire age that was promised us in shows like beyond 2000 is just being "petulant" for considering their crusade against technology, consumer rights, privacy rights, and the internet as we know it as well as their desecration of the art forms they claim to represent to be steps too far.

Pardon me for seeing through clearer eyes than you do.

I actually read the article and am not concerned with the choice at all. The third tier of the DOJ is a position safely away from issues of copyright. It's not the "copyright czar", it's not the USTR so he won't be in a position to touch acta either.

This is a non-story.

There is no "change" button

[Meneth]

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2994

Obama is your version of Tony Blair

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Luck.

Re:Obama is your version of Tony Blair

[DanJ_UK]

...and still, I love(d) Blair.

Go go Obama!

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

republic never really scaled. on almost every democratic country republic is flawed by the need of exposure for the candidates to win. exposure means money, and money means private interest.

Re:Quick!

[jimicus]

A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.

Not true. Any professional's first responsibility is to the profession.

Now, that may mean different things in different contexts. While I can't imagine it would ever mean knowingly lying in a court of law, at the same time it doesn't mean you have to give your client the third degree to confirm with absolute certainty that the story they're giving you is true.

Did any supporter say he was?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

They said he was a lot better than Bush.

Re:Quick!

[mcvos]

There were not only two names on the ballot. And that's ignoring your right to write in whoever you damn well please. So your analogy is more false than my prostate.

Your problem is that the media (and pretty much everybody else) only gives attention to the two main party candidates. The media usually pick the side of one of the two big parties, and certainly the side of the big parties against anyone else. And that means nobody from outside of those two big parties is every going to be elected.

Re:Quick!

[commodore64_love]

You are correct. I worked for the FAA and half the people sat-around doing nothing all day except surfing the web. Another quarter worked half the day and surfed the net the other half the day. Only around 25% actually worked all day long without goofing off.

Therefore you could easily lay off 75% of the FAA's "surf the web" workforce, same as a corporation operates during tight times, and not notice a significant falloff in productivity.

Re:Quick!

[commodore64_love]

Had I been Bush I still would have gone to the scene in order to be captured by cameras and be "seen doing something". Of course hindsight is 20/20.

I think the point where Bush loss is when the economy turned to crap. That's what cost Gore the election in 2000 too, and Bush Senior in 1992. When the economy turns bad, the voters turn to the opposite party.

Re:Quick!

[mcvos]

If Slashdot was predominantly Libertarian, why did it whole-heartedly support a politician

Slashdot doesn't support any politician. Various slashdot regulars support various politicians. Or vote for them, at least.

Re:Quick!

[Aceticon]

Sarah Palin was what made the Republicans loose the Independent vote.

In the beginning McCain was very much seen as and independent thinker, one of the few Republicans not in bed and not in thrall with the religious-extreme-right-moralistic-evolution-denying part of the Republican party.

Then his campaign changed tack to attract that segment of their party, culminating with the choice of Sarah Palin as running mate for McCain.

The thought that if McCain became a president he could die in office (he is in his seventies) resulting in an extreme-right-religious-nut-Alaskan-redneck inheriting the office of United States President sent shivers down the back of the vast majority of Independent voters and pretty much killed any chance McCain had of getting their votes.

In the eyes of many people McCain started his campaign as "a forward thinking, independent minded Republican" and ended it as "the vehicle that will bring the Dark Age to the US"

Re:Quick!

[theaveng]

P.S.

>>>How would the economy react to about .5~1 percent more unemployment overnight?

Usually when a company removes its do-nothing workers, the stock price goes UP because the investors are happy to see their company operating more efficiently. If the government did the same thing, I expect that Wall Street would react with a positive upswing.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

I believe the State of Louisiana spoke as to who was actually responsible for the Katrina & Rita mess when it didn't even give Kathleen Blanco a chance to run for re-election...

As true as that might be the fact remains that POTUS has the biggest bully pulpit in the World. It seems inexcusable to me that he opted not to use that bully pulpit when Americans were suffering and dying. I got modded into oblivion for pointing this out but really, what happened to "The Buck Stops Here"?

Would Reagan have been content to let Americans die because of incompetent state government? Would FDR? Eisenhower? It just seems like a really piss poor excuse, IMHO.

Re:Quick!

[luther349]

i believe that is his plain is to balance things out on alot of matters. at least thats how things seem.

Another word for bait and switch.....

[3seas]

... guess.

Hint: starts with 'O'

Re:Another word for bait and switch.....

[Anonymous Coward]

orgasm!

LOL I saw this coming

[Anonymous Coward]

this is why I didnt vote for Obama. His first signs of having zero interest in bringing positive change was when he boldly lied about his position on the wiretapping and telecoms. He claimed up until the day of the bill being signed that he would not sign it and that the telecoms should be punished.

When it came down to it, he voted in favor of their immunity.

That's when he lost my vote.

I didnt vote democrat or republican either.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

What was he supposed to do, Fly to Baton Rouge and bully her into making a decision that she felt was unnecessary?

Get on the bully pulpit and point out how many people are suffering and dying? Appoint someone to FEMA who had experience in disaster management instead of horse racing? Appeal to the Louisiana Congressional Delegation to kick the Governor out of her complacency? There are a lot of things he could have decided to do. He did none of them. In any event, whether deserved or not, I still think this is the point at which the GOP lost the independent vote.

ignoramus' butt out of the fire because she felt she didn't need federal help

Really, what happened to "The Buck Stops Here"? In the military it's called "Command Responsibility". If some Junior Officer of the Deck parks his ship on a sandbar do you really think the Capitan of that ship gets to say "It wasn't my fault, I wasn't on the bridge at the time"?

Apparently pointing this out earns one a 0, troll rating. I really don't care -- I have lots of karma and I stand behind my point.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

I think the point where Bush loss is when the economy turned to crap

Bush's approval ratings were in the shitter long before the economy crashed. You might have a point that the economic crisis was the final nail in McCain's coffin though.....

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Trust me, you would not want a federal government that could simply decide to go into a state and take over

Did I say he should have taken over?

Re:Quick!

[j-pimp]

Ah America, to have completely lost faith in those you elect .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_Postal/

I find nothing wrong with that particular dichotomy. Since we don't realize that term limits are in our best interests, we might as well hate whoever we elect enough to not want to reelect them.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

think that a war to end slavery was justified

The war wasn't launched to end slavery. The war was launched to bring the southern states back into the union. Lincoln actually went out of his way to say that ending slavery wasn't the goal during the beginning. Ending slavery become the goal later for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which was keeping France and England out of the war.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Well there was a Supreme Court case that upheld private gun rights, so I don't think we'll have to worry until new Supreme Court justices are appointed

As glad as I am that Heller was decided the way it was, I doubt it will make any real difference here in New York for a long time to come. I'd still wager on the NYS Legislature passing more gun control laws. The fact that those laws might eventually get struck down is small comfort -- that will take years and in the meanwhile our rights are infringed upon.

On the Federal level, Obama's own website states that he is in favor of a new assault weapons ban and "child proofing" guns (whatever the hell that means). Sorry, I don't have much faith in our rights not being attacked in the next four years. I hope I'm wrong but history suggests I'm not.

Re:Quick!

[j-pimp]

I shouldn't feed the trolls but I do think this is an example worth pointing out.

The confederacy was right about states' rights. They were wrong about slavery. I think that a war to end slavery was justified, but it really sucks that "limited government" was killed along with it.

People don't get that the formation of confederation was a principled objection to the methods being implemented to end slavery. You can not argue that America had a right to secede from the British Empire, but states have no right to secede from the United States.

I'm against abortion. However, I want Roe versus Wade and each state to individually ban abortion because I believe its a states right issue. I would not object to a constitutional amendment banning it, but I prefer it be dealt with at the state level, as murder is. It would be hypocritical for me to think otherwise. I believe it to be murder and murder is rightfully dealt with at the state level,

Two important things in politics

[Firrenzi]

There are two important things in politics:

1) Money
2) And I forgot what the second one was...

Uh huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is your "change" now, bitches?!??! Looking more and more "hope"less every day isn't it?

Re:Quick!

[Opportunist]

Great. We used to have politicians that we put into their positions because we thought they'd make things better. Now we're already happy if they don't fuck the whole thing up as much as the administration we had before.

What's next? I guess expecting from our representatives that they're just as inapt as the ones we had, and hoping and praying they ain't much worse. How low are we willing to go with our expectations before we say 'enough'?

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Please. If Bush enacted the Insurrection Act and threw out Posse Comitatus, you would be bitching and screaming about how Bushitler was taking over the country with his private military force or something. This is simply all about blaming Bush for whatever you can get away with, because he can do no right.

Meh.

[happy_place]

I thought it was obvious that Lawyers and litigation was a favorite of liberal politicians? That coupled with the love-affair that Hollywood and the Entertainment Business has with the president elect, this really should come as no surprise. If you vote for a rockstar, don't be surprised when the rockstar's legal team joins him on the ticket. (Shrug.)

Re:Quick!

[Opportunist]

It's all in the wording. When you compared the economies of the USA and the USSR, the USSR had a remarkable runner-up position while the USA came in shamefully second-to-last.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawyers have high duties to both court and client. Sometimes they come in conflict with each other, and sometimes good lawyers end up sanctioned because of this conflict, regardless of how they resolved it.

Re:Quick!

[Digital Vomit]

It sickens me how blinded people are by partisan politics.

Then why do you engage in it?

Actually he didn't...but you did.

The OP's post doesn't presume anything to the effect of being partisan. That you think it does shows that you are the one with partisan presumptions.

War Machine

[Bios_Hakr]

The economy was already reeling from the dot-com crash. 9/11 was an excuse to spin-up the military machine. Without the war, the recession would have been much worse.

The military is,after all, the biggest welfare program in the USA.

Of course, those bills still need to be paid. Have lots of kids and hope they fall in a bad tax bracket.

Re:Quick!

[Danathar]

I'm from the government and I'm here to help....

Re:Quick!

[Wonko the Sane]

The war wasn't launched to end slavery. The war was launched to bring the southern states back into the union. Lincoln actually went out of his way to say that ending slavery wasn't the goal during the beginning. Ending slavery become the goal later for a variety of reasons -- not the least of which was keeping France and England out of the war.

The end of slavery was the only good result of that war and it wasn't really even the main objective. Every other aspect of the outcome was bad.

Unfortunately . . .

[catbertscousin]

The politicians aren't the ones who end up in the furnaces. It's whatever minority can be used as scapegoats.

Re:Quick!

[bsDaemon]

To be more to the point, I wanted Sarah Palin and her religious views as far away from DC as possible. I'm used to politicians being corrupt and backstabbing. I can deal with it so long as they don't believe in intelligent falling.

Re:Quick!

[Ex-MislTech]

In courts of law there is guilt by association, and it is
clear through some of the tactics of the RIAA they have
broke the law.

Some ppl were innocent and brought to financial ruin,
and others were bullied and terrorized into accepting
plea agreements even thou they were innocent simply
because they could not afford a lengthy and expensive
blizzard of paperwork that would ruin them even if they
were found innocent.

Those who participated and assisted in their circumvention
of the law can be held guilty as accessories to the crime,
if the court can find the evidence.

Unfortunately the government is largely paid off by lobbyists
and we are well and goodly screwed.

THAT is why some ppl abhor this appointment amigo.

Re:Quick!

[geminidomino]

Meh. I posted it on election day. I only bothered going to the polls to vote against Amendment 2 (Florida's analogue to the more widely publicized "Prop 8" from California.)

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Every other aspect of the outcome was bad.

Now how can you say that when it provided us with civil war reenactments? ;)

50% of Obama's money came from small donors

[Anonymous Coward]

"For Obama, 47 percent of money raised has come from individuals who have donated $200 or less, while 27 percent has come from persons who have donated $2,300 or more."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_average_size_of_obamas.html

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Reid will give the order that the filibuster has to actually take place

My friends on the left would laugh in your face for assuming that Reid actually has the backbone to do that. I kind of agree with them on this -- I'll believe it when I see it.

Oh!-Bam!-Arghhhhhh.........

[Anonymous Coward]

good grief! noooooo.........

Re:Quick!

[OhPlz]

I agree about McCain. But I would have still taken him over Obama. Romney was the only candidate I really liked. He was expected to win my state fairly easily too (NH). I have my own suspicion that independents, who often vote democrat, voted on the republican side during the primaries and picked McCain so they wouldn't have to face a strong candidate like Romney. It's the only thing I can figure, because McCain was completely off the radar by the time the primaries started. It irks me a bit too because I was a supporter of the independent's right to vote during the primary. The state legislature was considering abolishing that practice.

Where is the change

[Anonymous Coward]

He lied to me, there is no change. Every pick is the same old same old. Now this one? Remember the post is department of "Justice", how has this lawyer server "Justice". Is it "justice" to charge some 90 year old lady 250,000, because a neighbor kid hopped on her wifi and download 10 songs. Admit it, we were all fooled, if I could do it again I would pick McCain and probably at least 10% of you would too. The only ones who wouldn't are so gone it is silly. I am so fuming now, one pick after the other. How are they different than what Hillary woudl have chosen, except she would have had the brains not to pick this one.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

I'm quite certain she had not even bothered to show up for votes on the issue on previous occasions and had not taken an anti-immunity provision, so I wouldn't construe that vote as an indicator of any deep conviction either

I don't think Hillary has "deep convictions" about much of anything. I say that as one of her constituents too and someone whom actually voted for her twice (mainly because both Republicans that ran against her were complete idiots). It was just more salt in the wound to see that she voted against it after I worked with the Obama campaign during the primaries.

Would she have voted that way (or voted at all) if she had won? I honestly can't say. Don't mistake my earlier comment for any belief that she was actually better on the issue -- as I said, it was just extra salt in the wound.

Re:Quick!

[apoc.famine]

Hop the border to your North-East then. In Vermont, it's legal to have a loaded handgun on the dashboard of your truck. (Or car, but who drives one of those things?) It's NOT legal to drive around with a loaded rifle, because you might shoot a deer with it. But pistols are fine. No handgun permit needed. There's no concealed carry law in the state, but individual cities sometimes have some variant, and you can't bring firearms into Schools and Courts. It seems that Government Buildings and Churches are fine.

As some friends of mine have explored, it's perfectly legal to tuck a loaded handgun into the back of you pants, drive down the the store, buy a gallon of milk, and drive back. As long as you aren't reckless or threatening, it's just fine.

(The same goes for nudity around here as well. No state law on public nudity, although some towns have them. It's perfectly legal to grab your wallet, get into your truck nude, drive to the store, walk in, buy a gallon of milk, and drive home. As long as you don't do anything obscene, you're fine. Despite this, we have few problems with either nudity or handguns. Or nudes with handguns. It's probably because a large part of this state is, oddly enough, very conservative. And we have winter, which severely curtails the amount of public nudity people are interested in engaging in.)

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the biggest bunch of hooey! What color is the sky in your world. If you want change you do not hire the same people who have screwed up the system. maybe ONE dinasour so you can tap into their thought processes. You hire people who have been successful in their fields that want to change things. That is how you do it.

Re:You coudn't have just looked at his voting reco

[Shakrai]

Obama had the most liberal voting record in the US Senate according to just about every metric

See, that I just don't buy. It makes a good soundbite but are you really going to tell me that Obama has a more liberal voting record than the self-described socialist? More liberal than Russ Feingold? These types of soundbites don't really contribute anything to the political discourse and I tend to tune them out.

and got an "F" rating from the NRA. And you, as a gun owner, actually thought he might be on your side?

I wasn't a gun owner until a friend of mine pointed out the hypocrisy in my position of shouting at the top of my lungs (1st amendment) on just about every issue while not bothering to exercise my 2nd amendment rights. My main motivation for getting a gun at this point is to exercise that right (rights not exercised will eventually cease to be rights). This also stuck out in my mind as a pretty compelling argument for gun ownership and reminded me of events in our own country where the police did nothing while innocent people were being murdered.

For what it's worth I'm now a convert to gun rights and will be doing my utmost to speak in favor of this issue and vote it at the ballot box in the future. I'm also going to try and bring some friends into the shooting sports. What else can you do?

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Your problem is that the media (and pretty much everybody else) only gives attention to the two main party candidates. The media usually pick the side of one of the two big parties, and certainly the side of the big parties against anyone else. And that means nobody from outside of those two big parties is every going to be elected.

I don't know if I buy that. Ron Paul has gotten quite a bit of mainstream media coverage. Ross Perot certainly generated a lot of media attention back in the day. I think it's more of a "chicken and egg" thing than anything else. The media isn't going to devote a lot of coverage to someone they perceive doesn't have a shot -- but without that media coverage the name recognition that goes along with it most third parties don't stand a chance.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

She's a hardcore DLC [wikipedia.org]er, working tirelessly to pull the Democratic Party to the right (not to mention her bog-standard low-road campaigning).

Yeah, because Obama has never resorted to "bog-standard low-road" campaigning.

Who should you have voted for instead?

In the Democratic primary? I honestly can't say. I've never liked Hillary as I don't think she's been a particularly effective advocate for my state. Everybody else dropped out before it got to New York. In the general I wound up doing a write-in for Ron Paul, mainly because I couldn't stomach voting for Bob Barr.

but, in the end, was by far the best choice.

Voting for the lessor of two evils is still evil. I doubt you see it that way as you seem to be much further to the left than I am (based on your support for Kucinich and complaints about the DLC) but that's how I feel. Obama is going to erode our civil liberties. The only difference between him and Bush is which civil liberties each one will erode.

Who's surprised?

[crhylove]

Obama is a total corporate hooker. He selected a monsanto poster child for department of agriculture. An RIAA poster boy for the copyright courts. A lying talking head for surgeon general. Every cabinet position is basically filled with a corporate criminal with a long history of doing everything possible bad for people and families, and good for corporate bottom lines. The only reason the 5 media companies that run every tv station, book publisher, and newspaper (viacom, aol/time, bertelsmann, disney, news corp) picked him as president is exactly that.

He's already totally bent over for the oil companies, and that was a major part of his campaign!!!

Both parties (D & R) are completely contrary to the will of the people, and are actively promoting prescription meds and media lies to keep the populace too stupid to realize whats going on. They are ruining human lives, families, and also destroying the environment we rely on to survive, while feeding us cancerous toxins and dumbing down our schools.

It's been this way since they killed JFK. It's been all down hill and anti-everything good in the world since that day to this, and will be till Americans arm themselves and take the power back with violence.

But it will never happen because the corporations have made us all too stupid, lazy, sick, and comfortable to even realize what the fuck is going on.

Buy a gun and set fire to something corporate. There's really no alternatives left.

Re:Quick!

[Doghouse Riley]

McCain lost me when he voted for TARP. Palin had nothing to do with it.

I told everyone I knew that I would vote and work for whichever candidate would oppose TARP, if the other candidate supported it.

I've never voted for a Democrat for a national office in my life, so I was saved the gut-wrenching decision to support Obama when he drank the Morgan Stanley kool-aid along with McLame.

The Bob Barr sign went up in my yard the next day.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Hop the border to your North-East then. In Vermont

Actually Vermont is one of the places that I would consider moving to if I ever left New York. New Hampshire is another. Pennsylvania would probably be my third choice.

It's perfectly legal to grab your wallet, get into your truck nude, drive to the store, walk in, buy a gallon of milk, and drive home

Well, I'm assuming the store owner might have a problem with that ;)

Re:Quick!

[jedidiah]

> People don't get that the formation of confederation was a principled
> objection to the methods being implemented to end slavery.

Infact, the north did everything it could to bend over backwards and
accomodate the southern states. This notion that it was some "principled
objection" is utter hogwash. The southern states pretty much got everything
they asked for and still wanted more. HELL, they even got the New Fugitive
Slave Act which if anything is about the most egregious violation of
"States Rights" you could think of.

Fire Eaters brought the whole situation about by engineering the downfall
of the Democratic Party and allowing the Republicans to fill the vacuum
left over afterwards.

Without unreasonable southern aggitation, slavery could have gone on a good
while longer with the status quo being maintained.

The north as a whole was not particularly pro-black or anti-slavery.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be, ah, Mr. Barack Obama.....

Re:Slashdot: Behind the scenes

[Anonymous Coward]

Tony Snow is dead.

Re:Quick!

[Philip K Dickhead]

I think Obama is falling short on his "hope" message. There is a serious lack of magical pink unicorns that we all expected.

In fact, it looks just like the perfect intersection of Clinton and Bush II.

Could have used those unicorns... I hear they fart rainbows and glitter.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple answer; because his running mate was bat-shit crazy, or so it seemed to us.

Re:Quick!

[Shakrai]

Funny how Bush "going to bed" didn't seem to affect the people in other places that were hit just as hard, like EVERY county in Mississippi.

Just to be clear, I never claimed it was entirely his fault. Only that he didn't do enough to stop it. The President of the United States of America shouldn't go to bed early and eat cake with fund raisers while Americans suffer and die -- even if that suffering may have been self-inflicted.

Either way though I'm glad I live in New York. Why is it that my state can handle a terrorist attack out of the clear blue sky with professionalism but New Orleans can't even keep their cops from deserting during a natural disaster with days of advance notice?

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it would be horrible to judge people by the company they keep.
And I assume you also believe that Cheney and Bush are completely free of influences of the oil industry, in which they were both employed?

Were they employed as counsel?

Do you seriously believe that defending a client on a murder charge amounts to an endorsement of the act?

... It would be invalid to conclude that any person, having been at one time in their life an employee of a corporation, would automatically be incapable of dutifully serving in some governmental capacity.

Would you like us to lock up any soldier returning from a the front-line where it was their duty to kill, on the basis that now they are killers it's not safe to have them roaming the streets?

Though it is true that judging people by what they have been associated with previously is a large leap, it is NOT ENTIRELY inaccurate.

For instance, someone that is morally sound that spends a lot of time around people that shoplift is more likely to commit an act of shoplifting.

The troops we have sent to other countries that have killed people as was their duty (and I salute you all as the necessary defense of this nation) are more likely to act violently especially if they've had long terms of service in active areas (one of those reasons they try to cycle people in / out of war zones).

The term 'guilty by association' is fairly accurate here. Eventually you will be influenced by those around you and the actions they take.

For a lawyer things are more complicated. Obviously, being around a potential murderer isn't going to make them kill people as the potential murder is 'out of their element' and not engaged in any such acts around the lawyer. Other acts may challenge the lawyers professional ethics, however, such as lying. This doesn't mean a lawyer will intentionally lie, either, as they may be misinformed by their client or colleagues as well.

The short of it being we are influenced by the people we're around. Often we choose to be around people with like minds, however, rather than those that are radically different so the change in us is lesser.

Now I'll bet your not happy...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that you voted for that bastard.

ONE strategy could help repair the damage...

[Anonymous Coward]

...of the DMCA, MPAA, RIAA, and the Hollywood/Entertainment Industry complex.

But I doubt hardly anybody here has the courage and strength to pull it off.

And that strategy would only take one year.

For one solid year:

• Do not buy, or even listen to *ANY* recorded music. Turn off your radios too, and keep them off for a year. Go see live concerts only. Preferably local small-time musicians.
• Do not buy, rent or go to theaters to watch any movies at all. None, zip, zilch, nada.
• Ditto for all television programs except maybe PBS.
• Do not buy, rent, or play any video games either.
• Do not buy any products connected to Hollywood or the entertainment industry, such as Disney toys, clothing, promotional merchandise, etc.
• Adjust all your spending habits in any way you can to deny and starve the machine of as much revenue as you possible can

Of course, the vast majority does not have the guts or the willpower to comply with any of this, but if a nationwide concerted effort could be sustained for just one single year, it would impact the evil entertainment machine irreversably in our favor.

Re:Quick!

[Waffle Iron]

You can not argue that America had a right to secede from the British Empire, but states have no right to secede from the United States.

America in fact did not have the right to secede from the British Empire. That's one major reason that wars are fought: it's a way that a group of people can accomplish things that they don't have a right to do. Whether they accomplish their goal depends on who wins the war, regardless of any "rights".

Re:Quick!

[eiapoce]

Do you seriously believe that defending a client on a murder charge amounts to an endorsement of the act?

But we are not talking about murder judgements. We are talking about ACTIVE PROSECUTION OF HARMLESS INDIVIDUALS that are charged under a RICO scheme.

You are not talking about a duty to rapresent a client but rather about the sociopathic behaviour of acting in the name of a corrupt law to obtain a unproportionate amount of money from poor people.

Re:Quick!

[tbannist]

That's what Americans get for electing an idiot to run the country. The person following just has to not screw up as much to be a success.

Frankly, this works in every single facet of life. Following incompetence, makes competence look like genius.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you like us to lock up any soldier returning from a the front-line where it was their duty to kill, on the basis that now they are killers it's not safe to have them roaming the streets?

Interesting example. Sensationalist, outrageous, extremely loaded, but interesting.

In Bush and Cheney's cases, they made their fortunes from the oil (and in Cheney's case--defense) industry.

Do rich, famous baseball players love (and favor) baseball?
Do rich, famous musicians love (and favor) music?
How about carpenters? lawyers? doctors? police officers?

In fact, soldiers was probably the most ridiculously biased example you could have used. Most people favor their careers and their field, and the people and businesses who are still involved in that field.

fail

[Stu Charlton]

Yes, I admit my fix fails at grammar. Sorry, where's the edit post feature!? Yar

SCOTUS - Heller Decision

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there was a Supreme Court case that upheld private gun rights, so I don't think we'll have to worry until new Supreme Court justices are appointed. If Obama gets to appoint new SC justices, then they might have a chance at ramming threw more onerous gun control laws.

And New York, Chicago, DC, etc, are all now saying, "Fuck the Supreme Court of the United States. How dare those bastards have the gall to think they can try to tell us what we can and cannot do. Fuck them."

You see, those govts abide only by the Constitution, Federal Laws and Supreme Court decisions, when it pleases them to do so, and only when it benefits them, but whenever it opposes their tyrannical desires, they consider the Constitution and SCOTUS to have zero authority over them.

Re:Quick!

[Gizzmonic]

Term limits just give the people behind the throne more power. No thanks, I'd rather the politicians be powerful and visible, rather than the lobbyists and influence-peddlers in the background. The same thinking goes for a legislature with thousands of representatives vs. a legislature with 25-50 representatives. The "machine" politicians of the 19th century loved huge state legislatures and city councils, it served their interest to have a bunch of unremarkable interchangeable cogs.

Re:Quick!

[tompaulco]

You're in the vast majority of people who voted for Obama then.
What? The vast majority or potential voters didn't even vote. Of those who did vote, a less than 10% margin of the popular vote turned the vote towards Obama.

Re:You coudn't have just looked at his voting reco

[Khisanth Magus]

Yes, I'm sure an armed mob of half-trained civilians would have solved columbine SO much better than the police.

Prostitution is ok in my book

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm missing your point.

Does he get any points for his other cases?

[John3]

From Wikipedia:

"In 1997, Perrelli left Jenner & Block to join the Department of Justice and served as counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno. He subsequently rose to Deputy Assistant Attorney General, supervising the Federal Programs Branch of the Civil Division, which represents virtually every federal agency in complex civil litigation. In that role, Perrelli led a staff of 100 attorneys charged with defending the constitutionality of federal statutes, defending federal agency action and regulations, representing the diplomatic and national security interests of the United States in courts of law, and conducting significant Title VII, personnel and social security litigation.

Perrelli also supervised the Justice Department's Tobacco Litigation Team in its litigation against the major cigarette manufacturers. In addition, he played a leading role on significant policy issues ranging from medical records privacy and the use of adjusted figures in the census to Indian gaming and legal ethics."

Re:Does he get any points for his other cases?

[geekoid]

no, no. that's too much of the picture. we want to whine do to one specific issue.
Now if he had appointed Kevin Bankston, we would love him even if when not doing EFF work he eats babies.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we mod the parent post to this one any higher?
Please?

Thanks.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, they did exactly like that with Iraq, which isn't even the same country.

Based on that example I think we can all agree with the grandparent.

hear hear!

[ovu]

Seriously, this is the real world after all.

The prez is always going to be eyebrow deep in mire and will be forced to do unpopular and ugly things to perpetuate the interests of the nation, but most importantly, he has some intellect and character this go-round.

He's not going to fix your problems. He's just going to steer the ship while looking out a little further towards the horizon, for what that's worth.

Re:Quick!

[T.E.D.]

The clear difference between Mississippi and Louisiana was that one place heeded the warnings and didn't wait for the government to hand-hold them

What a load of right-wing claptrap!

There was no difference between rural/smalltown Louisiana and rural/smalltown Mississippi. Both were totally devestated, and both had similar levels of death and breakdown in government services.

The difference between New Orleans and Mississippi is probably what you are thinking of. Do you not recognize at least a wee difference in scale here? New Orleans was a major city with over a million people in the metro area. More than half of those were packed densely into a very small area which is almost entirely below sea level, and is only connected to the outside world by 3 causeways/bridges. Most of those people are quite poor, and unlike the rural poor, have no personal transport at all. Even other large costal cities tend to have good access to the hinterland for evacuations, but New Orleans is south of a big lake with only one very long causeway crossing it.

There is frankly no way the city could have hoped to cope off its own resources. You can say the state should have stepped in, but really the state doesn't have much more to draw on than the city did. Natural disasters (and unnatural ones) hitting major cities like this are one of the main things we need a federal government for.

Oh, and by the way, the rural areas of Mississippi were completely devastated, and have not yet recovered. The only reason you don't hear about it as much is that the numbers are smaller. George Bush doesn't care about poor white people either.

Offtopic

[dupper]

Great point. Following from that and off-topic, it just made me think: in English, I guess the definite article is implicit.

So how would languages without an indefinite article make this same suggestion/distinction? It seems kind of important to distinguish "Comrade Stalin made top general disappear" -- "Stalin made a top general disappear" vs "Stalin made the top general disappear"

Linguists/Rooskies?

Re:Quick!

[joranbelar]

Variety is the spice of life!

Re:Quick!

[Austerity Empowers]

Relevant to this topic:

3. Will he be able to separate the interests of his country, above those of his client.

i.e. Is he still representing their interests, one way or another, or can he see the other side of the equation and make the laws better?

I'm a bit jaded I admit, I think long after he leaves the government, he's still got to make a buck, and we know where he saw the easy money in the past.

Change we can believe in.

[kenp2002]

Change, from bad, to worse. That man isn't even in office yet and he's already making bad choices. Lets see if the chosen one's followers will accept responsibility for electing him or quietly disavow him. I can't count the number of people that had the local paper frame with the big title CHANGE as the head line. Now out of 12 friends who had it proudly displayed, none have it up anymore. One appointment after another and the truth comes out. We never had a choice when it came to change, we were given two crooks to choose from and didn't have the balls as a nation to pick a third party.

We get the government we deserve, and we deserve little if anything anymore..

Real change starts in the mirror and we as a nation are cowards, more concerned about picking a winner then voting our hearts.

Don't blame me, I voted Constitutional this year.

Guilt by Appointment

[4D6963]

Since the game of guilt by association is over for Obama, let's play a game of guilt by appointment! Oh no he's appointed people we don't like! Boooh!!

Re:Quick!

[T.E.D.]

So Bush's advisers clearly thought Blanco was incompetent and discussed using the Insurrection Act to send Federal troops and decided against it.

Bush's advisers always think everyone else is incompetent. Guess who it turned out was really incompetent?

Re:Quick! Partisan Politics!

[mcgrew]

Since there isn't a "-1, stupid" you were well modded.

The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is which corporations they choose to support in the corporate's efforts to screw the American populace. Look at Illinois Governor Rod Pottymouth (D) and US President George Dufus (R). Both are political hacks, far from statesmen, who appointed incompetent cronies to top positions in their respective governments. Blago has shown himself to be the more dishonest of the two, or at least, more prone to being caught.

That said, so far (until this appointment) IMO Obama's choices have been sound. Third in line at the Justice Dept is a lot better than first in line at any department.

And since the guy's a lawyer, and lawyers are supposed to represent their clients to the best of their ability, perhaps this guy was just doing his job even though he didn't like it. And maybe he wasn't all that gung-ho about it, which perhaps is why the RIAA hasn't won a single case (discounting all the extorted money they got from settlements).

At least he's third and not first in line, and even if he were first, he's GOT to be better than "torture is legal" Gonzales.

I'm still disappointed in this pick, but like I said, it could have been worse. He could have appointed him Attorney General. Hell, he could have appointed Cary Sherman.

Re:Quick!

[bugi]

And this guy's client is whom exactly?

Sorry, but for my taste, given his background he has too much experience representing the interests of the scum of the earth. His motives are suspect from the get-go, so of course the reason for his appointment is suspect.

change?

[anonieuweling]

In what respect is this choice *in* the perspective of the proverbial 'change' that Os^Hbama advertised? I see nothing but 'old boys', at least coming from the established lobbying areas of the USA government. No unknowns, no `small` people, no 'differing' people. No change at all from my perspective. It's just another side of the same dollar.

Re:Quick!

[bugi]

Lawyers are people too. Where do you think his loyalties lie?

In particular, do they lie with Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, or with its natural enemies, those for whom he has already committed numerous ethical breaches?

Re:Quick!

[Copid]

Usually when a company removes its do-nothing workers, the stock price goes UP because the investors are happy to see their company operating more efficiently. If the government did the same thing, I expect that Wall Street would react with a positive upswing.

In general, I'd agree with you that anything we can do to make any organization more efficient is a good thing. We might do well to consider the demand shock that a HUGE and instant uptick in unemployment would cause to an economy that has already had the bottom fall out of aggregate demand. Sometimes it's wise to take things slowly.

Re:Quick!

[4D6963]

Why is this modded down? It brings up a most valid and relevant point, that if you respect state rights like this you would have had to respect southern states for continuing slavery. You could apply the same logic today for things such as death penalty, three strikes (in California), anti-sodomy laws, and so on..

Re:Quick!

[bugi]

Who said he's from Chicago? I thought he was from Hawaii by way of Nigeria. :)

Lawyer not lobbyist

[4D6963]

I hate to point out the obvious, but he's RIAA's favourite lawyer, not RIAA's favourite lobbyist. That means he doesn't necessarily give two shits about RIAA and its "cause", nor does he have a conflict of interest. If being RIAA's favourite lawyer means anything, it's that he's a good lawyer.

Re:Quick!

[FireStormZ]

Its a bleak mark on someone who promised change to bring in tha top gun lawyer for what amounts to a lobby group...

Re:You coudn't have just looked at his voting reco

[Shakrai]

Yes, I'm sure an armed mob of half-trained civilians would have solved columbine SO much better than the police.

Most gun owners wouldn't advocate trying to "solve" problems like Columbine. They would advocate for the victims of an attack such as that to have had the ability to defend themselves. Columbine is a unique situation since most of the victims were underage but imagine if one of the VA Tech victims (or a teacher at Columbine) had been armed and able to defend themselves instead of waiting to be murdered?

Re:Quick!

[strong_epoxy]

How can you vote for a man with no related experience for President, then complain when he appoints people with NO experience to posts in his administration?

Corrupt

[wurp]

Do you have any references, or even verifiable assertions, to back that up?

Re:Quick!

[tsm_sf]

A lawyer's first responsibility is to the court, not the client. They are supposed to represent the client to the best of their ability, but not at the expense of the court. The simple fact that this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have.

Do you know any lawyers like this? I'm not going to stick up for a guy who's behavior I find to be inexcusable, but let's not set the bar (aha ha) too high here.

Re:Quick!

[Repossessed]

Bullshit. The southern states seceded because they wanted to keep their slaves. Oh, the propaganda was all about states rights and other bullshit, but whatever Joe the blacksmith felt, the people behind it wanted slaves. The north's motives aren't relevant, the south is the one that seceded. Hell, the south started the war by attacking a Union base. It's the south's motives that matter, and that was slaves.

Party pooper!

[GameboyRMH]

I'd say its safer to chalk it up to a mistake rather than make this into some sort of witch hunt.

But witch hunts are more fun! I got my torch and my pitchfork and everything! :(

Look everyone, nobody could confuse the words armor and army in their mind while rushing to type a post before their boss comes around the corner! He's a racist, burn him!!!

Re:Quick!

[geekoid]

In my experience, they are.
Of course, they can only react to input, and your clique;s desires may not be what most people want.
Government is complex, and most people only look at it through a very narrow keyhole.

Remember, as bad as Bush is as a president, he believes what he did as good fro Americans.
It wasn't, and it was stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that he felt he was acting in the best interest of Americans.

Re:Quick!

[geekoid]

care to list some of these 'do nothing' cabinet positions?
In order to have a good discussion, you really need some specifics.
For example DHS should be done away with. That only add 2 things:
a layer of controls with no responsibility, and a way get get around controls that protect citizens rights.

Take that money, and put it into good CIA operative training, and proper legal intra-bureau communications.

The other two times wasn't done be eliminating cabinet positions, why do you think that is needed?

Re:Quick!

[geekoid]

Why do you think they are idle?
Why do you think can't 'hold' a 'regular' job in the private sector?

I was in the private sector for over 20 years, not I am a government employee. I work very hard, and with the most dedicated and knowledgeable people I have ever worked with.

I suggest you study up on the numbers.
1) most government work is done ontime and at or under budget.
2) In the private sector there is about 1 success for every 100 projects, in the government there is about 1 failure for every 1000 projects.

The issue is that in the private sector, the companies get to tout success and bury failure, in the public sector the media specifically touts the failures.
All this is document in fiscal reports.

Another issue is that in the government, if you like your job you don't have pressure to move 'up or out'. I work with people that have had the same job for 10+ years. The tools have changes, but it's the same thing. These people have a vast set of knowledge about the way things work. Very valuable.

Before anyone says anything. I come in at 6, take my lunch between 10 and 11.
I leave between 5-6.

Re:Quick!

[cayenne8]

"this particular lawyer has had at least one of the judges recommend sanctions speaks volumes about just what kind of morals they have."

LOL...you used the words 'lawyer' and 'morals' in the same sentence!!

There should be some kind of award for pulling that off with a straight face.

:)

Re:Quick!

[RocketScientist]

I voted for obama too, but....

Really, what the fuck did you expect?

In a campaign financed with big money from actors, musicians, movie studios, producers, and so on, nobody has any RIGHT to think anything but this would happen. THE MAN HAD BIG NAME MUSICIANS ON STAGE PERFORMING BEFORE HIS SPEECHES. They weren't doing it solely out of the kindness of their hearts. And if you think they were, PLEASE STOP VOTING BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

Seriously. Anybody who expected an "information wants to be free" pro-copyright-reform president is way out of their fucking skull and shouldn't be voting.

He's got to do this, and copyright enforcement is going to be a very big priority for the incoming administration, just like anti-porn enforcement is for the outgoing administration. They have to pay off their constituencies. That's how the game is played. The game didn't change, no matter what the slogan was.

So why'd I vote for him? Same reason I ever vote, lesser of two evils. They would have done the exact same things economically (none of which will work) and spent the exact same amounts of money causing the exact same amounts of debt, pulled us out of our foreign expeditions at the exact same time. McCain would have put pro-life creationists on the Supreme Court, and Obama won't. That's the only difference worth voting on.

Re:Quick!

[geekoid]

Hey Jackass, the only person who seems to think he's the Messiah is the attack ads.
Nobody who voted for him thinks that. Why do you parrot attack ads? please learn to think.

This is a pretty good appointment, if you bother and think about the skills needed to up hold the responsibility the position will need.

Yeah, here is a man who is appointing the best for positions , regardless of party. Isn't that what we want? no more single party in all the positions?
You're a fucking whiner, and we don't need people like that anymore.

Re:Quick!

[SanityInAnarchy]

exposure means money

Really?

Seems some of the more "exposed" ideas have come as Internet memes. Obama had plenty of money, but he also used the Internet effectively.

Re:Quick!

[geekoid]

the responsibility of the failure in Katrina should ahve be placed on the DHS. IT was there fuck up. Of course the president created the DHS, so he needs to share it as well.

Re:Quick!

[Smooth and Shiny]

I said "people who voted for Obama," not "potential voters." There is a difference.

Re:Quick!

[StikyPad]

Trust me, there's just as much poverty and dependence on government handouts in MS as in LA. I think there are plenty of other explanations equally or more plausible than "liberal welfare makes people stupid and incompetent."

* There's a higher population AND population density in NO, which is both more difficult to evacuate, and results in a larger raw number of people affected even if the percentage of people affected was the same.
* People who live in the city may tend to have less of a fear/respect for nature, and therefore felt it unnecessary to evacuate. Most people have never experienced a flooded city in their lifetime, so it's not like they had a frame of reference.
* Anyone who lives below sea level may be of questionable sanity to begin with.

Re:Quick!

[Stradivarius]

I don't think it's as simple of a moral issue as you imply it is.

Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose you, as a lawyer, know that your client committed some heinous crime.

You, as his lawyer, devote yourself to getting the guy off, via technicality or by attempting to confuse the jury about the truth of what happened when the crime occurred. Is that the moral thing to do? You know that if you succeed, an injustice will have occurred. Yet, if he doesn't have full legal representation to ensure a fair trial, an injustice will also have occurred.

Ensuring a fair trial is unobjectionable. But there comes a point at which representing a client's interests to the best of your ability can result in an unjust result. That's the nature of an adversarial system of law. From a system design perspective, one can see the necessity of having talented and devoted people performing such roles. But it takes a special kind of person to choose to take on that role, knowing that they will often be devoting their full energy to preventing the legal system from punishing the guilty, and that those that go free may use that freedom to hurt someone again.

So you ask yourself, what motivates someone to defend the guilty? Are they that inspired by the big-picture necessity of it, that it can override their repugnance for their clients' actions? Or do they care more about the money they make, than the issues of justice? I think this ambiguity is at the heart of a lot of the lawyer stereotypes.

Then you add to the mix that lawyers choose which group(s) of clients to work for, and it just adds to the questions. What motivates someone to work for various corporations, or the RIAA, or murder defendants? What made them choose defending those particular people as their life's work?

If a lawyer spends their career working for a cause you believe in, it's easy to support them, because you don't see a potential moral conflict. But if they spend their career defending actions or groups you believe to be immoral, it's difficult to know what to make of them. A natural caution or suspicion sets in, at least until you get to know the lawyer in question.

In short, I don't think it's always so cut-and-dried as "he's just their lawyer". Representing someone says something about the lawyer too - the hard part is figuring out what exactly that is.

Re:Quick!

[geekoid]

Reagan? why yes he would, and in fact he did.
He intentionally and willfully refused to make AIDS an issue for 2 years.

He completely miss handled the falling of the wall, which is why the former USSR is in the shape it is now, and is hurting American business.

Reagan was a worse president then Rutherford B. Hayes.

Re:Quick!

[larry bagina]

Looks up John McCain's voting record. Look up Olympia Snow's voting record.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

We won't see real political reform until more Americans abandon the ridiculous idea that politicians of either party are actually acting in the interests of the general public.

We won't see real political reform until more Americans abandon the ridiculous idea that everyone falls into one of two political categories. When people go to the polls not to vote for someone they truly want, but to vote against someone they don't want, you know there's a problem. Everyone should be able to vote for someone who represents their interests, and when we're only given two options that obviosuly doesn't serve the public interest. Sure, there were at least 5 candidates on the last presidential ticket, but how many of them got to debate each other in prime time? 2 of them. The media pushes every election as a contest between democrats and republicans, when in fact a large portion of Americans are neither. I agree with a lot of things both parties say, and I also disagree with a lot of things they say. There are other political parties that are a lot more in line with the way I think, but they don't get allocated any time in the spotlight like the other two get.

Re:Quick!

[geekoid]

Obama isn't even president yet and just look at the problems America has! Sheesh, what a horrible president elect. Add to that he has been open and candid, what he hell is he thinking?

Re:Quick!

[mcgrew]

Actually I'd like to see some Clinton retreads. I thought Clinton did a damned fine job as President (and it WAS the stupid economy). I voted against his first term, but I voted FOR his re-election.

I lived in a very bad neighborhood. He put cops on the street, and the neighborhood cleaned up. The economy got better. His only offense was doing so good a job the Republicans started a witch hunt looking for corruption, and when they found none came up with a goddamned blow job that cost the American taxpayer forty million dollars to prosecute.

I never thought I'd see a worse president than Carter, but Bush proved me wrong.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

But Biden is STILL batshit crazy

Re:Quick!

[MaskedSlacker]

Your response is akin to replying that squares are rectangles after I said rectangles are not squares.

2nd worst can be best, if there are two. My point, which the vast majority of people are too dense to wrap their miniscule minds around was that there were not two options. THere were over 100 millions optinos (every natural born citizen over the age of 35 being eligible for being written in). Even if you restrict it to names just on the ballot, still more than two.

Re:Quick!

[mcgrew]

The incompetence was at all three levels of government - city, state, and Federal. "Good Job Brownie" did NOT have the qualifications to run FEMA. Jesus, it took a week to get water to the stadium.

When the tornados tore up a good section of Springfield in March 2006, the Illinois and Federal governments again fell down on the job. Unlike NO, Springfield's government actually went to work and fixed things.

State and Federal governments finally got around to doing nothing more than writing checks - six months later. Yes, the only difference between Rod and George is one is a Democrat and one is a Republican.

Re:Quick!

[DrgnDancer]

Really, why is this so difficult to understand. Obama is a human, worse, he's a human who is not me. The only way I am going to get a president whom I totally agree with is if I manage to land the job myself. This is one decision on one, fairly low level, appointment. I disagree with it, but I was pretty sure when I voted for the guy that he would make decisions I would disagree with. Remarkably, through the whole election process, no candidate made any promises to run all his or her decisions by me personally.

You're about the 10th person to post some variation on 'See, look, he did something you disagree with, you shouldn't have voted for him'. I absolutely guarantee that whoever I voted for they would have done thing I disagree with. I didn't vote for the man expecting perfect conformation to my ever whim, I voted for the guy whose policies most closely match what I thought was needed for the country to succeed. I had two choices (maybe 6 if we step outside of the two main parties, but regardless a very small number of choices), I picked the one I though most appropriate. He's not God, and he's not me. He's pretty damned unlikely to make all choices I agree with.

Re:Quick!

[rawtatoor]

Maybe I'm a semantics nazi, but there is no such thing as States' "rights". Being governments, States are granted powers, and rights are something that only individuals can possess. (not paying attention to stupid ideas such as women's rights, gay rights or anything else meant to separate people into groups.)

Re:Quick!

[mcgrew]

There were six Presidential candidates on the Illinois ballot. Why were only two of them in the debates? Why were only two of them covered by the media? After all, they were able to get on the ballot, we should have been able to hear their views.

That was a rhetorical question, since we all know the answer - the corporates only want Republicans and Democrats in the public eye. They control the media, so my question is pretty much meaningless.

Re:Quick!

[HermMunster]

You are saying that it was OK for the RIAA lawyers to claim to the judge that making available is considered distribution, and even basing it on a decision that they knew was overturned before they told the judge? This is the exact same type of behavior they've been continuing.

Big business and lawyers are essentially doing things (anything almost) that they want knowing that the public is not educated enough in the laws in those areas. They do it till it looses cost effectiveness. They only quit when the courts start to take large sums of money from them.

I say large businesses and lawyers for a reason. Here's an example: With Vista, Microsoft has installed 47+ programs on your computer to spy on you. There are more; and that doesn't include the WGA/WGN programs. These are applications that collect information about what you do and report it back to Microsoft. When you bought the machine and you started up the OS the first time you are required to agree to the EULA. The EULA is a document that you can't possibly have any idea of its meaning nor the impact of that meaning, and you didn't get to negotiate it. The result is that you unknowingly give them this permission. The only way to deny it is to not use their software. But which software to use? Well, use one that doesn't force this sort of crap on you.

So, you give them permission without really knowing it that allows them to spy on you. Would you let Walmart enter your home and search it for potential stolen goods? Would you let them put a camera in your home to monitor you? Would you let the police do this in order to ensure you are not breaking any laws? Of course you wouldn't. No one in their right mind would. Yet, your computer is an extension of your home and business and you are giving Microsoft permission to do this.

This is a violation of your privacy and most people don't know that they are doing this. When someone points it out you (or others) debate it till you are blue in the face and the conclusion is that you are not a lawyer so you should STFU.

Microsoft has learned that they can simply ignore some of these issues till they go away, such as the outrage over them installing the 47+ programs on your computer because the public memory is very short. It's like Linux. You used to hear the word Linux from Microsoft. Now you never hear the word from their mouths as if they are trying to say that we don't acknowledge it is even a product.

This is precisely the reasoning and tactics of the large businesses and the lawyers behind them. Are they protecting their clients or are they violating yours?

They know you are incapable of fighting it so they do it until the regulators start to tell them to stop or face punishment (but large companies such as Microsoft can even afford large punishments (e.g., the EU fines for non-compliance is a great example of blatant non-compliance with a legal court's orders--because Microsoft thought they were too important to the economy of the EU to have them actually follow through)).

As long as laws are created and they are strategized by lawyers that are not held to higher standards, we'll have every sort of abuse possible. And to then appoint one of these maniac lawyers to an important position is beyond most people's tolerance that understand what's been happening.

Re:Quick!

[Tubal-Cain]

most government work is done ontime and at or under budget.

Even if that is true (have any sources to back that up?) That is only impressive if the budgets and deadlines are reasonable.

2) In the private sector there is about 1 success for every 100 projects, in the government there is about 1 failure for every 1000 projects.

[Citation Needed]
Also, Duh. Of course governments are going to have a higher "successful" project ratio.
Businesses need to kill dead-end projects that are losing them money or they go bankrupt.
Government organizations simply ask for a bigger budget next year.

Admiration.

[LoyalOpposition]

Obama is wonderful. He's taken an unethical lawyer and made an honorable public servant out of him. Why are you against honorable public service?

-Loyal

Re:Quick!

[arghnoname]

Actually I never said you shouldn't have voted for him or it's a bad vote, or he's a bad guy, etc. I voted for him, given the options, it was the right vote. You say he's not a God. I agree, my problem is some of his supporters don't seem to understand that. It's the worship of a guy who hasn't done anything yet. Blind loving adoration is not a healthy thing in a Democracy, especially when you have one party rule. The best way to make sure our leaders are responsive is if they know their constituents are paying attention and that their support can't be taken for granted.

Wake-up call

[Plugh]

I know millions of people breathed as sigh of relief on the night of November 4th, 2008, thinking that with the election of Obama, somehow the world would be come a safer and freer place. (At the same time that another few million people were stocking up on guns, mind you)

Face it: those millions are going to be very disappointed.

Whether you're one of the Disappointed, or one of the ones buying guns while there's still a 2nd amendment, you might want to check the link in my .sig

Considering how hostile big media seems toward...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Republicans, I'm always surprised at the eagerness with which Republican Party office-holders and bureaucrats rush to turn the wish-lists of the RIAA and MPAA into law.

Could be worse...

[Dysantic]

...imagine Jack Thompson was tapped for that position...?

eat one

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that you voted him in...you must love who he's picking.

Re:Quick!

[fishbowl]

It is equally ridiculous to believe that 100% of the Republican Delegation will devote the entire career to doing nothing but obstructing the Senate, though. That is the implication behind any mention of the fact that the Democrats have fewer than 60 seats. The Republican Party Unity doesn't extend so far as to engender political suicide for any given member, and some of them are not facing healthy prospects in their 2010 election cycle.

Remember, only two, maybe three Republican Senators have to be willing to do something other than participate in a blatant political obstruction, and they are much less coherent than that.

The Senate leadership is equally satisfied with Franken and Burris taking office, those seats being vacant (but uncounted, it's a 98-seat Senate until there is a process by which those seats could be filled), or even with moderate Republicans who are facing election in 2010. The Democrats are not seeking a majority or even hoping for a supermajority anymore. All they need is for one or two Republicans to be less than willing to halt their careers in order to blatantly obstruct the Senate. It's ludicrous to believe they will *all* do that.

Re:Quick!

[atraintocry]

We used to have politicians that we put into their positions because we thought they'd make things better.

Sure about that? (I mean, yeah, we did, but we still do. It just depends on what side you're on and who's writing the history book. Things were not all rosy in past eras, in any case.)

I really only posted because I'm tired of the "I told you so's" that dominate every thread about Obama. They'd be warranted if everybody here came out strongly in favor of him, but it's Slashdot, and instead everyone was incredibly skeptical. If anything, I mostly saw Americans declaring loudly that they're too cool to vote and everyone else taking another opportunity to criticize us as a nation. Frankly the only reference to this idea of a "tech president" was in the posted headlines. Which are designed to get page views.

It's insulting to hear people comment as if the rest of us haven't been around long enough to know how politics work.

Like I said, I voted for him, but I didn't get in anyone's face about it, and I thought long and hard about my decision. I was happy to interpret his "change" slogan not as his campaign intended, but in a more practical way...that is, let's change the locks on the doors after we get the neoconservatives out.

Silly to surrender before battle starts, no?

[Mathinker]

I would guess that in Wikipedia the balance of power would be more even than in most other places. If the guy's staffer starts a sanitizing edit war, there's the whole arbitration process, etc., which is set up for this kind of situation.

I'm not claiming that the change will necessarily be accepted in the end, but if no one tries, for sure nothing will happen.

Why Palin. Two reasons.

[Quila]

She is not a power-driven career politician. Most of the nominees had been working on their political career for decades, constantly maneuvering and making the connections to attain more power. Obama and Clinton are perfect examples of this. For Palin politics is more something she fell into out of necessity because she wanted to change things for the better in her town. Holding office was the best way to do it, and thinks kind of ran from there.

She is not beholden to party. She has made her career exposing the corruption of those in her own party and then taking their place in office. She is a perfect complement to McCain to start the cleanup of Washington corruption.

This is the EXACT opposite of Obama, who is his party's lapdog. Generally in this country the Democratic party is owned by the entertainment industry, among others. This appointment is Obama doing the bidding of his masters at the behest of those who control the purse strings. It is the equivalent of Bush putting those with oil interests in charge of energy-related policy.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no.

.

Local, State gov't we're 100%. It was Bush, all Bush. He wanted all the xxxxx and poor people to be washed away due to his racists beliefs!

.

... Of course, that was accordingly to P.Diddy, Kayne, JayZ, Oprah, Rev Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and friends... And of course, was shouted everyday during the election.

Re:Quick!

[recharged95]

Yes, the end of slavery was a war tactic to penalize the Southern States that the North/union would not recognize their contract to slaves (hence the migration of slaves to the north).

.

Back then, in the south, no slaves == no workers == no production == no revenue == no ships/tanks/guns == lost war.

So we like the RIAA now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to buy a couple of dozen Sony CDs tonight.

Doing otherwise is racist.

Re:Quick!

[hkmwbz]

Honestly, I lost all hope when he won the election. Now I'm laughing at all the drones here that fell for the Messiah's clever PR campaign.

Are you fucking retarded or something? Just because someone voted for him, they automatically see him as the Messiah?

Idiot. Fucking idiot.

Re:Quick!

[Ubergrendle]

Lawyers are mercenaries. The fight dirty and want to win. Prosecutors become defenders (or vice versa, albeit more rarely). They fight for who pays them. Obama is probably picking a strong attorney who knows how to win in court. This appointment is not necessarily an endorsement of a political position or even his personal beliefs.

Re:Quick!

[rob_benson]

Can this post get a +3 for plagiarism?

Re:Quick!

[Eskarel]

Well I'd suggest that your right about the cause, and wrong about the reasons. I'd agree that indepedents probably shifted things towards John McCain, but I don't think they did it to stuff Romney or the republicans.

I voted for Al Gore in 2000, but if John McCain had won that primary, as the man he was then, I'd have voted for him instead. I think he would have made a great president.

Unfortunately he sold out to the lowest common denominator and picked a terrible vice president. If you listen to John McCains concession speech, you'll hear everything that's wrong with today's republican party. John McCain is making an eloquent speech about unity and the American dream, and his supporters are as they say, a hootin' and a hollerin'.

The republican party stopped serving the ideals of small government, states rights, etc a long time ago and all they do now is take money from big business and pander to the ignorant and bigoted.

Re:Quick!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Obama is probably picking a strong attorney who knows how to win in court.

Yeah. Mostly against children, students, grandparents, stroke victims, the homeless, the deceased, welfare mothers, people on Social Security Disability, home health aides, etc. His track record against parties who can afford lawyers is nothing to write home about.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you understood what you just read.

The DHS is a federal body. Triage is done by the state, then the Feds come in and pay for everything once a base of operations has been established.

This is how our military and our gov't are configured to operate as based on years of successful campaigns and disaster responses. This time the state fucked up... and the beach-head was lost. Guess we should've sent in the Marines.

Re:Quick!

[dila813]

Your all going to be shocked when this story is written, this was the biggest snow job in history. I surprised that these appointments are so mild, I was expecting him to try to appoint someone to lock down all those darn bloggers so he can maintain an unchinked appearance of absolute support for his policies. The one thing that I can say, Obama keeps impressing me how skilled a politician he. He is the master.

Re:Quick!

[JackieBrown]

This is more like, to get the murderer off you kill someone else in a copycat fashion so that your client - who is in jail - is release based on the false new evidence.

Finding methods within the law to have the murderer released is one thing. Breaking the law to "best represent your client's interests" is another.

Let the President-Elect know what you think.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://change.gov/page/content/contact/

Re:Quick!

[j-pimp]

America in fact did not have the right to secede from the British Empire. That's one major reason that wars are fought: it's a way that a group of people can accomplish things that they don't have a right to do. Whether they accomplish their goal depends on who wins the war, regardless of any "rights".

I'm talking about inalienable rights, not legal right. Those that lean religiously call them "God given rights." Others call them intrinsic or self appointed rights.

Government != Society. A group of people get together and form a government. They appoint people to implement that government. Government exists at the consent of the governs. Some times those appointed to positions of power get that consent by force, but it is still consent.

If we the people decide to allow the government to treat the government as a "living document," it will happen. If that bothers the majority of the people, we will get up an do something about it. We might vote people out of office, we might protest, or we might start shooting.

A perfect example is gun rights in urban areas. People in cities think guns are unnecessary, bad or dangerous. As a result, people allow laws to be passed that people in other parts of the country would consider unconstitutional.

My rather long winded point is the people of America had an intrinsic right to secede from Britian. They used war as that means, as the laws and their enforcers did not acknowledge that right.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this even remotely insightful?! I'm against obtuse political bias, and this is a clear case of that.

This is nothing more than trash that needs to be buried.

Re:Quick!

[Atario]

That was a rhetorical question, since we all know the answer - the corporates only want Republicans and Democrats in the public eye.

I imagine that might limit the number of bribes they have to hand out, but the real answer is structural.

The "first past the post" voting system we have in this country more or less guarantees there will only be two viable candidates for any single-seat election. If we did something as simple as Approval Voting -- using checkboxes instead of radio buttons -- we'd be loads better off.

Re:Quick!

[Waffle Iron]

A *territory* has no "inalienable rights".

If it did, then Native Americans tribes would still be fully enjoying their inalienable rights to their homelands, which as a just society we would surely be honoring.

Re:Quick!

[lsatenstein]

Rather then attacking Obama, why not write to your senator and congressman, and all the others about what you feel is an injustice. Don't complain here, noone cares to take action. In fact the only thing that happens on Slashdot is a bunch of blogging to provide opinions. Time to show that Slashdot readers do take proactive action.

Re:Quick!

[tompaulco]

Sorry, I grouped it like this:
(You're in the vast majority of people) who voted for Obama then.

And I guess you meant:
(You're in the vast majority of people who voted for Obama) then.

Changes everything.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen to that. Oh Mr. Adams! Where art thou when we need you most? Hope there's no lizards wherever you are...

Re:Quick!

[j-pimp]

A *territory* has no "inalienable rights".

If it did, then Native Americans tribes would still be fully enjoying their inalienable rights to their homelands, which as a just society we would surely be honoring.

I never said the Indians had no right to go to war with us to claim our land. I never said European countries had a right to colonize America.

Now, at some point Great Britain had established control of the 13 colonies. They had no right to do so at the time. However, they had before the American Revolution, established a degree of control over the colonies. When that control was threatened, they had a right to fight to retain control of it. The colonists, had been wronged by Great Britain, and therefore had a right to secede. Both sides were right. Their cause were both just.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

You are overlooking the fact that lawyers can 'decline' to take a case.

The sheer fact that he was in bed with the RIAA proves that he is a scumbag.

Re:Quick!

[ericspinder]

Of all the rotten people Bush picked for nearly every job in his administration, and you had to pick out Tony Snow. As a news reporter, he was a good pick for Press Secretary, and by all accounts with the script that he was given, he made a fine one. I would challenge you to find one reputable account of him poorly doing that job (even before he announced the return of his cancer).

Then you have the gall to imply that Sanjay Gupta, was a bad choice for Surgeon General. Wow, do you even do any research before you make an opinion? Dr Gupta, a neurosurgeon (that's a 'brain doctor'), was a White House Fellow in the Clinton Whitehouse working on Health care policy. He practices medicine at two Atlanta Hospitals; Emory University School of Medicine (a top ranked school), and at Grady Memorial (a top ranked public Hospital). You might also know him from TV, as a reporter for CNN he was embedded in the "Devil Docs" Hospital unit, and was respected by them enough to be asked to help with both military and civilian casualties. I did actually watch a report which featured 'his day', it's nuts; the guy basically holds down what others would consider three full time jobs. This is a guy who is a well respected doctor, great on TV, and already trusted by millions. Over the last couple of decades, the Surgeon General has had a bully pulpit for health issues; I don't think that Obama could have found a better candidate.

no, Republicans=Big Business

[Uberbah]

...and as Hollywood is Big Business, Republicans are also pro-Hollywood.

I suppose you could see it that way

[Uberbah]

...if you were a complete moron who's trying to have his own set of facts to back up his opinions.

It normally takes a few years to achieve this much scandal but he's not even in office and he has corruption (Blogo's relationship to Chief-of-staff Emmanuael

Ah, the "associations" bullshit again. Emanuel was a prominent congressman from Illinois - and Blago was the governor of Illinois. OF COURSE there will have been times when they have talked. Even Fox says there was only one conversation between them on the subject of Obama's replacement to the Senate.

Bill Richardson

Withdrew his name for consideration as he came under investigation. What's your point?

David Rubin

Who donated money to Richardson in an alleged pay-to-play scheme...which is Obama's fault how, exactly?

AND backpedaling on stated policy (withdraw from Iraq), etc.

Just how stupid are you, really? Obama's position on Iraq has been nothing but consistent: a flexible withdrawl over the course of 16 months.

If you want to bitch about Obama, there are plenty of substantive criticisms to make - his FISA flip flop, having his head up Israel's ass, picking the bigoted Rick Warren to be a part of his inauguration - without having to make dumb shit up.

Re:Quick!

[Opportunist]

While I'm sure we have worse politicians today than we had after the war (well, it was maybe different for my country, being in ruins after 1945), what bothers me is the change of slogans and promises.

First of all, at least back then they tried to keep the promises they made. By now we already know they don't even try anymore. So their tactics changed, instead of hearing what they want to do, we get to hear why we mustn't vote for some other party because look what THEY want to do!

Now bluntly, why should I vote for anyone if all I get to hear is how badly they all suck? A party even entered the election (we had one recently as well) with slogans telling us what promise us not to do.

Can you be any more direct about "vote for us, because at least we won't make it worse"?

Honeymoon over

[Squidlips]

That was a short honeymoon; Obama is not even elected yet and it is over.

Re:Quick!

[bsDaemon]

Wouldn't that be "From Nigeria by way of Hawaii"?

Unacceptable

[rats modeerf]

"Despise" the rich? How does that goes with giving indirect of DOJ to a human right abusing, corrupt, cares about nothing Corporation which just keeps extorting money out of random people just for their own good? Thanks a lot asshole.

Re:Quick!

[Anonymous Coward]

psst. that's part of the joke.

president Bush

[falconwolf]

To those that think the president is the end all be all, read the constitution.
His mandate is over the military and approving or denying congressional bills.

It was president Bush who issued hundreds of signing statements when he signed bills. And he also the president who believes in the Unitary executive theory, giving all the power to the president. His actions speak quite loudly.

This is not the first or only time they have blamed Bush for failures that were actually someone elses responsibility.

He wanted all the power he gets all the blame.

Falcon

they did vote...for more government

[falconwolf]

and less freedom.

Come now, there's no need to bring the 2004 election into this, leave it in the past where it belongs.

History repeats itself.

Falcon

democracy

[falconwolf]

The only thing that can fix our country is education. For instance, a good start might be educating everyone about why democracy [lexrex.com] is evil, and not something that we want more of.

To use Winston Churchill's quote, "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others". And anarchy won't work either.

Falcon

who's cosy to the mass media?

[falconwolf]

The Democrats have always been fairly cozy with the media industries in particular, so it wouldn't surprise me if Obama is likewise fairly cozy with them.

It was a Republican dominated FCC board that allowed mass media to increase it's ownership in local media from 35% to 45%.

My question is whether the RIAA stuff is the sum of what this lawyer has done with his career, or if there are other achievements, perhaps more noteworthy

And it's a good question. Wiki has a page on Thomas J. Perrelli but there's not much there. Here's more, what I found interesting was that the entertainment industry contributed $7,669,442 to the Obama campaign. The American Prospect has more as well.

Falcon

public is pursuing tobacco companies

[falconwolf]

I don't think it's the public at large that's going after tobacco companies but a vocal minority.

Falcon

Re:public is pursuing tobacco companies

[John3]

Isn't everything the government does ultimately due to pressure from one vocal minority or another? Government takes action when a vocal minority convinces them something will benefit the public at large. The public at large rarely speaks with one voice.

vocal minorities

[falconwolf]

Isn't everything the government does ultimately due to pressure from one vocal minority or another?

Yeap, like the copyright extension.

Government takes action when a vocal minority convinces them something will benefit the public at large.

But they don't benefit the public sometimes, should as copyright extensions. All they benefited was copyright holders.

The public at large rarely speaks with one voice.

On the invasion of Iraq the majority did speak with one voice, against the invasion. But it happened anyway. That's one reason I prefer small government, small government may not have had the resources to support the invasion.

Falcon

PS, I used copyright extensions because of another discussion I'm having about copyrights.

Which comes first?

[Explodicle]

the duly elected President of the United States, which I have sworn to protect and Defend, in full accordance with the Constitution of the United States, which I have also sworn to protect and defend.

If the president and constitution are in conflict (torture, warrantless searches, etc) which one do you side with? Even if you don't think the president has done anything unconstitutional since you swore your oath, which one comes first?

The sky is falling...(not)

[Anonymous Coward]

[Begin Rant Here]
While Obama dose seem to have made a bad choice for a DOJ representative, it's quite encouraging to note that he has put a pro-net-neutrality guy up for the FCC's top spot.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/13/obama-fcc.html

It ticks me off to no end, those who run into a speed bump and act like they've been hit by a roadside bomb.
Besides, cut the guy some slack, he has a very full agenda. There's not one topic that he hasn't promised direct action on, so he has to prioritize! The economy, Iraq, National Security and getting that old man smell out of the oval office are probably the most pressing maters at hand to him right now ;-), it's only natural that IP takes a back seat for the moment being.
    I for one am just glad that reinstating net-neutrality's on his shortlist:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/29/obama-promises-to-reinsta_n_70317.html

    Four (maybe 8) years are a long time, and your already drawing conclusions on him at -1 week. I know that hope is an unfamiliar emotion to you tin-foil-hat-wearing cellar dweller's, but don't give up on it *this* easy. :-P