Slashdot Mirror
Julius Genachowski To Head FCC
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The US President-elect, Barack Obama, has selected Julius Genachowski to lead the Federal Communications Commission. This appears to bode well for a forward-looking (or at least clued) Internet policy, since Genachowski is credited with running Obama's internet-based election campaign, and, according to 'Fierce Telecom,' 'has an impressive record working with technology and communications companies: He was Chief of Business Operations at InterActiveCorp; he's co-founder of Rock Creek Ventures, which currently backs 11 internet-based start-ups, and he's also served on the boards of numerous technology and new media companies, including The Motley Fool, Web.com, Truveo, and Rapt'."
With the ridiculous fines being handed down on censorship, I'd like to know where our new FCC chief stands. Are we to continue being the ass backwards country when it comes to censorship (nudity is bad, but violence is ok!), or will he take steps to allow parents to determine what their kids can and cannot see?
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Wait, competent people from the startup-world with real success are "extreme leftists" but Bush's pick of fucking lawyer with no tech business experience is "good business sense?" Get off it already, no one but the Rush Limbaugh echo chamber believes these talking points.
Sorry, but, you know, this whole hippy thing of nudity is love and violence is evil is just stupid.
Nudity has nothing to do with love. Sticking your dick into some slut's snatch and gushing it around until she says she loves you doesn't do anything for the country at all. Unless she decides she's up for breeding some good old babies for Jesus, otherwise, it's useless.
On the other hand, violence is plenty useful. It can get you more oil, access at the bargaining table with the great powers, AND, most of all, it can get your more broads to ram that fuckstick of yours into.
I know what Jesus said and all, but, the reality is different. If you want to be a big pussy and wish you had a girlfriend, value nudity. But, if you want to have tons of oil and power, then be violent, as you'll get tons of pussy to boot, and, they'll all be cranking out your genetic destiny in the form of children.
Who would you rather be, Ghandi, living impoversished in a tent, and getting shot in the end by some punk. Or, would you rather be Ghengis Khan, with an empire the size of Asia and the Middle East, tons of loot, and more women than you can name colors?
This is my sig.
If you read the article you just posted, she simply didn't want to be in a position where she would be accountable for what she said. Sounds bad right?
My dad works in a high position in an international company and me, getting into the working world the last year, and him sat down to have one of our many talks about office politics. I showed him some of my many notebooks I use to document all the projects I have to do. He responded in kind of a story about his company being sued over a project he had been involved in; at the time he kept similar paper notebooks. He was terrified at being called in to testify.
Now I should explain, my dad is about as straight shooting, honest son-of-a-gun you ever knew. To this day he does not allow people to put mp3s on his computer. He paid a speeding ticket when he went to Panama, a country where it's common and accepted as Status Quo to bribe the cop who pulled you over. So why would be he scared to be called to testify?
Lawyers for one, they're professionals at twisting words and documents to their stories. You just don't know how they'll take your simple notebooks and use it against you; and you could then be held PERSONALLY liable. Needless to say, after the trial, my dad destroyed those notebooks.
Point is, just because you have nothing to hide, doesn't mean you won't be found at fault.
Posting with out proof reading since 2001.
There's been far too little scrutiny of a number of Obama appointees... he seems to be stacking the cabinet with nothing but extreme left-wingers every chance he gets.
Aside from low-level appointments to things like HUD and the EPA, this is pretty much backwards. The major positions are being filled by some moderate Democrats (with Napolitano and Richardson being the only thing to approach "extreme left-wingers"), some independents, and some Republicans.
More than half of the major defense, foreign affairs, and economic appointees served in significant positions in Republican administrations (mainly under George W. Bush and/or Ronald Reagan)
Of the "big 3" cabinet positions, 2 are Bush appointees:
Secretary of State: Hillary Clinton (D). Leftie, but hardly extremist.
Secretary of Defense: Robert Gates (R). Republican, Bush cabinet member
Secretary of Treasury: Timothy Geithner (I). Generally conservative. Bush appointed him chairman of the New York Fed.
Of the "next 2", one's a Reagan appointee:
Attorney General: Eric Holder (D). A moderate Democrat, Holder is a Reagan appointee (Superior court) most famous for prosecuting Dan Rostenkowski (D).
Secretary of Commerce: Bill Richardson (D). Somewhat of a leftie.
Other major appointments
The other major names on his economic team are Reagan CEA member Lawrence Summers and Reagan Fed Charman Paul Volcker
The other major defense names are 4-star general Jim Jones (recipient of multiple Bush administration appointments and special Middle East envoy under Condaleeza Rice) and Arizona Gov Janet Napolitano.
Napolitano, Richardson, and Hillary Clinton are the 3 most "leftie" of the major appointees.
The other 6 (Gates, Geithner, Holder, Summers, Volcker, and Jones) are all significant Reagan/Bush adminstration figures.
rage, rage against the dying of the light