Slashdot Mirror
Obama Nominates RIAA Lawyer For Solicitor General
Xiph1980 writes "President Barack Obama on Monday nominated former Recording Industry Association of America lawyer Donald Verrilli Jr. to serve as the nation's solicitor general. The solicitor general is charged with defending the government before the Supreme Court, and files friend-of-the court briefs in cases in which the government believes there is a significant legal issue. The office also determines which cases it would bring to the Supreme Court for review. Verrilli is best known for leading the recording industry's legal charge against music- and movie-sharing site Grokster. That 2003 case ultimately led to Grokster's demise when the US Supreme Court sided with the RIAA's verdict."
I can understand the argument that he wants the most vicious shark in the tank to be his attack dog. I might could even buy the argument that this WASN'T just another in a long line of examples of Obama prostrating himself before his Hollywood and entertainment industry patrons. But, it seems to me that he could have found an attack dog that was just as vicious who didn't come with RIAA baggage. To hire someone whose such an obvious enemy of much of the online community and such a lapdog of the entertainment industry seems specifically designed to send a message to his patrons that he's definitely in their pocket. It's the judicial equivalent of Eddie Cicotte hitting the first batter in the 1919 World Series.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yep, there's a bit more of that "change" and "hope" from the 2008 campaign. Another corporate weasel appointed to look after corporate interests.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
BOOOOO... Obama should pick a lawyer of the people not a lawyer against the people.
Does he have a hidden agenda? Was he elected under false pretenses? Is he really a bad guy? I don't think so. I prefer to believe that he's a good guy, overwhelmed with work and following some very bad advice.
I understand that English is a living language, but I object to changes arising merely from repeated errors.
...prepare to be disappointed.
Whoever said "Justice is Blind" was a real idiot.
"The office also determines which cases it would bring to the Supreme Court for review. "
This'll surely stop moneysharks from randomly suing people without enough evidence.
so it is doubly disappointing when he acts like George Bush III. Not only do I have to deal with this crap, but I can't help feeling ever so slightly responsible.
... is the the Hope, or the Change?
Hey, just trying to keep mak'in a few bucks here! Nothing to see here move along, move along.
It would be super though if we saw more people in high government positions that didn't have such a strong history of supporting one view or another. On the other hand is does help the informed voter understand where our government's views are at.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
So this third Bush Administration term is placing more people with big corporate ties in important positions. Raise your hand if this somehow surprises you when you consider every decision they have made since the 2008 election.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
the informed voter understand where our government's views are at.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
"Informed voter".... God! You kill me! No, stop it! Stop it! I'm going to shit in my pants!!
And they get informed by watching TV?? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Or by reading internet blogs that are sponsored by big media?! AHAHAHAHAHA!
* shits in pants *
Gotta go.
Enough is enough. I hope we have a serious challenge from the left in 2012. Obama has sold us out. Breaks my heart to say that, but it's true.
What a massive betrayal and a major disappointment to the left he has turned out to be.
vs. McCain?
How's that working for you?
What makes you think he really cared then? How is it no one else saw him for the charismatic used car salesman politician he is?
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I'm stumped. Maybe Obama thinks this is what the voters want based-upon the November results, but I seriously doubt it.
If you listen to Glenn beck or Judge Andrew Napolitano (L), you'd know he's always been pro-business, dating all the way back to when Mr. Obama met with insurance companies on the campaign trail and promised to help them make a profit via Mandatory insurance requirements for all americans.
Also observe that most of his "czars" are either ex-financial agents of Bear-Sterns, AIG, and so on. This is Obama doing what he's always done.
Of course if you only listen to Rachel Maddow, then you were probably unaware.
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Having successfully argued in favor of leveling million-dollar fines against people for downloading a handful of MP3s, he's clearly uniquely qualified for defending insane positions that cannot be rationally argued with anything but emotion.
just like how other appointments in his administration turned out to be.
Read radical news here
Verrilli was not, as the summary implies, a lawyer who worked exclusively for the RIAA. Verrilli worked for Jenner & Block, one of the larger law firms in the US. The recording studios were one client of many, and it does not appear that he had a habit of representing studios. Judging by his significant Supreme Court experience, Verrilli represented a wide variety of clients, including indigent criminal defendants, a federal employee who alleged he was discriminated against because of his age, insurance agent trade groups, wireless telecommunications companies (against the FCC), Coors Brewing Company (arguing against a state law forbidding the display of alcohol content on beer), citizens alleging violations of their voting rights, and the American Libraries Association (arguing against the Communications Decency Act of 1996) .
That's a broad set of clients, including a lot of litigation against the government, which is what the Solicitor General handles. It is absurd to impute an agenda to an attorney based on one case, and Verrilli seems qualified for the job of Solicitor General.
Think of the children! Think of all those children who will sleep hungry tonight because you downloaded a 99c mp3 file.
--->
Think of the children! Think of all those children who will be sleep scared tonight because you wouldn't let us squash the big bad evil person into Guantanamo.
Pattern match!
hey, if i didn't vote for the corrupt fascists, the OTHER corrupt fascists might have gotten into office
we can't have that
You know, as an attorney, we're hired to defend vigorously the position of our clients or their interests. That doesn't necessarily mean we advocate for that position as private individuals, or that we are incapable of striking a fair position. The only thing that should matter as a nominee for a Solicitor General position is whether she can diligently represent the government's position, and that is all.
My postings are informational and does not constitute legal advice. Act on it at your risk.
Enjoy your Palins in 2012...
You got what you wanted.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
So, someone represented a company that has different ideas than you do...and that's a problem because? /.ers really believe that their employer is their sole identity defining characteristic?
Do
Are all of you who work for asshole-bosses also assholes?
It sure seems that that's what you're all saying when you go on these witch-hunts.
I think we should look into WHY they chose him. He represents the government in front of the supreme court. His specialty is copyright law. What sort of laws or decisions do you think the administration will be enacting in the near future that they thought they'd need his services? It looks like Obama's getting ready to be challenged in court. We should expect so new draconian policies regarding the internet in the near future.
and btw-- before the FBI shows up at my house-- the hostility I feel is from him, not towards him. Sheesh.
It depends on how you define pro-business. I would say that Obama is anti-business but pro-corporation. However, the only thing that has changed with Obama is his rhetoric. His policies have always favored large corporations and harmed small business.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
you are wrong.
many of us voted 'in his direction' but not FOR him.
we were not (none of us) given a true choice. a truer choice would be something like:
- vote *for* R
- vote *for* D
- vote *for* I1 (thru In)
and then the discrete complements:
- vote *against* R
- vote *against* D
(etc)
and so you would tally your vote sheet to say what you felt. you may not want to put D's in office, say, but you sure as hell don't want to see R's there. with this kind of multi-attribute ballot, you could do that. would they ever consider this? NO, of course not.
so what we have is a simplistic DUMBED DOWN ballot and we are forced to pick the least of 2 evils. this is why obama won this time. the other guys were just that much worse and we didn't want THEM in office. we knew our guys would be hell but a slightly less harsh form of hell and in slightly different ways.
this is american politics. its not logical or reasonable or designed by 'folks like us' that can deal with multi-attrib tables and columns and really do a sort on more than one column. WE could do this, but 'we' don't get in office or run things. 'we' are always on the sidelines, noticing it but powerless to do a damned thing..
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
He was not RIAA's in-house counsel, responsible for all of their litigation strategy. He is a "generic" litigator with a wide-ranging practice. He did happen to represent the RIAA in the Grokster case, which was not, in any way, related to the verifiably insane suits against individuals.
In case you hadn't noticed, when somebody bring a lawsuit, they are going to be represented by somebody, and that somebody does not necessarily agree with the positions they argue on behalf of their client.
I was writing my reply and was wondering if you would be offended if I didn't capitalize the "n" in grammar nazi.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
This guy was NOT the RIAAs chief counsel, or responsible for their litigation strategy against individuals. He is a lawyer who has litigated a wide range of cases, most of which have absolutely bupkis to do with the entertainment industry. In fact, it is probably his broad expertise that led to him being appointed to the job. Yes, he was the litigator for the Grokster case, which he won. I don't see how this makes him a slave to the entertainment industry. Both sides of a case are entitled to be represented by counsel; in this case, he happened to be representing a side we, Slashdot, don't particularly like.
Just because a lawyer represents one side of a case does not mean they approve of everything (or even anything) a client does. Are we also going to claim the lawyer representing the maniac from AZ is on the side of "letting psychotic killers go free?"
Of course if you only listen to Rachel Maddow, then you were probably unaware.
If you think that Rachel Maddow doesn't hit Obama for this stuff all the time, then you're just as blindly partisan as you claim other people to be. Characters like Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, and Bill Maher have been giving Obama shit since be got elected - from hiring much of Clinton's economic team with their heavy ties to the financial industry, to his backdoor meetings with healthcare providers promising not to bargain for lower bulk rates if they would support the reform bill.
See, the funny part about all of this is that people like Glenn Beck think that Obama is a socialist, an evil plant of the far-left set out to destroy all American values, but then they turn right around and accusing him of being in the pocket of big business without the least bit of irony. The guy is a centrist, and he's clearly positioning himself to work with the Republican Congress to try and get some compromises and get some things accomplished over the next two-year period - much to the chagrin of his Rachel-Maddow-watching supporters.
Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
His specialty as a paid litigator is IP and Telecomm law. But most of his Supreme Court cases were on other topics, including those near and dear to Slashdot hearts like civil liberties.
Seriously Obama, at least give head to these guys in private so we don't have to watch you do it on the news. It's embarrassing for you and, frankly, stomach turning for us.
...not "What's the deal with Obama?" but rather instead "What's the deal with all you voters who voted for him in the first place?".
Obama's politics were presented and well-known quite clear up front before the election. He's a left-wing, "progressive", socialist-leaning democrat who fully intended to do all the political favors for his cronies that he could possibly get away with and he never pretended to be anything else. None of that was ever "hidden" about him.
What's actually happening here, is that a huge number of you voters who voted for him only thought that you were also liberal and "progressive", because it was the fashionable way to be.... but in harsh reality you are actually discovering some very important things about yourself that you didn't think you were...that you're actually a hell of a lot more conservative deep down inside than you ever thought you'd admit to be.
Now it's time to "come out of that closet."
Trust me, you'll feel much better about yourself once you finally admit to yourself that you prefer a way of life where everyone is expected to exercise personal responsibility, earn your own living instead of suckling on the taxpayers' teet, and the "nanny state" doesn't keep intruding into everyone's lives, and that the government in general is kept as small as possible, and doesn't meddle in private business -- rather the natural market forces of a free economy shall control business' behaviour instead.
And don't blame me either, I hate democracy. Overrated big time. Give me a leader with a salad bar of medals and 10 stars on his shoulders. El Presidente knows what's best for me. Might as well IMHO, this charade is becoming one big fucking joke.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
I never thought I'd see the day in which a post referencing Glenn Beck* as an authoritative source would get modded up here on Slashdot of all places. Things must be bad...
* I did listen to him 'til they took him off the air here this year - I found him entertaining. Occasionally a bit liberal with his "facts" -- a true master of contextual contortions - but entertaining in spite (or perhaps because) of that.
Yet more "Change I can believe in."
There is a difference between the beliefs and interests of a client vs those of a lawyer.
Quite often a client will have different views than the lawyer, this is one of the challenges of the legal profession.
Just because you argue for a client doesn't mean you share their beliefs.
Many, many jobs require you to do things you don't quite agree with.
Maybe it is a big thing like arguing that Mr Bloodthirsty criminal should go free, maybe it's releasing a program with bugs. It doesn't mean the lawyer or the programmer believe their client/employer is right, but they have a job to do, and they're doing it.
I'd rather take the good lawyer/programmer that had scummy employers than the crappy lawyer/programmer that was only ever employed by the purest of souls.
I buy all mine too, but recent DVDs have told me I cannot watch them on an oil rig (where I work, spend half my life there) or in a hotel (waiting to fly offshore). It says nothing of how big an audience, only that these locations are specifically excluded by your license (which you don't see until the package is opened). "Own it now on DVD". Yeah, right!
I can hand over their money, and still be a criminal if I watch the DVD I paid for!
Tell me again why I should pay for them?
If I am a criminal anyway, I might as well get it for free. *sigh*
I agree. Lawyers are like personal demons. They will do what they are hired to do. This is why there are so many jokes that insult the integrity of lawyers.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
Newsflash: USA surpasses Canada
The United States has taken the crown from Canada. The USA now has the best government money can buy!
Dante sent a vision through a medium. He says you escaped the lower 3 rings of hell and hopes you like circles 2-4. There's a free Jalapeno-Licorice cupcake for you at the front desk. Consumption is mandatory.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Here they come now, all the corporate Cronies! Yeah! Yeah Yeah!
Bleeding us dry like Bony Ponies! Yeah! Yeah Yeah!
Crony Crony!
We need Weird Al now.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Better vote for me, kang.
... it will all end in 2012!
Lawyers are paid to represent their CLIENT's interests, not their own. This guy could have personally disagreed with the RIAA and the Supreme Court's ruling, but as an attorney you are obligated to represent your client in the best possible manner.
I'm pretty sure a defense lawyer for Jarad Loughner personally believes her client is guilty and should get the chair for his crimes, but she's still obligated to defend her client as best as possible.
... but not surprising. You see what Obama has done while in the white house, he does something here that everyone has said since day one is a evil(give support for RIAA/MPAA). Yet, since he is not a Republican, it is excused. I see so many people here looking down at their noses at non-democrats. Yet you display the same type of "logic" you blast the "inbred"/"flyover" republican voters for.
How about coming down off your pedestals and hold your political party accountable. The GOP folks have attempted to do such with the Te Party(whether you like it or not), but from the Democratic side, what do we see as an alternative? CPUSA? lol
Change it from inside, don't just accept it. You all appear to be working out of fear - at least he's not a Republican. That is why we are in the mess we are in today.
CHANGE THINGS!!!
Obama uses bigger words but that doesn't mean he's smarter. You are probably prejudiced against Bush because of the Texas accent, which to you sounds stupid but can hide a smart mind for those unwilling to look beyond the superficial.
A study was done comparing the grade level of speeches by both Obama and Bush. Bush's speeches were actually two grade levels higher than Obama.
Your biggest mistake is equating your dislike of the content of a speech for lack of intelligence on the part of the speaker; a dangerous mistake for then you are oft prone to underestimate someone.
We, as a society, really need to move beyond the thinking that just because someone is credentialed makes them automatically more intelligent than someone without as many credentials. They are an indicator but not the whole story.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.
Thus allowing Obama to win. The same effect is had by voting for any other third party (or alien).
The real solution is to take over one of the parties from the inside to become more reasonable. This is happening now with the Republicans, and could with some effort happen with the Democrats too. But it means being involved in local primaries, where your vote has much more of an impact.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
While I agree with you on principle, I am afraid to say you position does not hold logically.
Since America has a first past the post system with candidates tied to a physical locality. The system favors bland central politics over the passionate radical fringe.
Take the following example. You have 3 candidates, a central left, a central right and a hard green. For arguments sake assume that the “green” movement is neither left nor right. Both “Central” candidates are polling at 40% and the green is at 20%. The left central candidate adopts a “light” green policy. She picks up 2% of the green votes and loses 1% of the left voters. She wins while throwing only the barest of bones to the Green Movement.
3 party movements can go for years with sold numbers that would put them in parliament in a proportional system but in America they are forever shut out of power – unless they can get their ideas into the main stream. Look at the Abolitionism Movement, the Wobbiles, Green, etc. All of these radical movements have been incorporated in the center. We can see this with the Tea Parties today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
She's a woman.
Who better than someone like that to hide government malfesance and argue *for* the boot stamping on people's faces: :/
Is Obama on a mission to pick the worst people possible for the various jobs? I can't come up with any other reasonable explanation for his absolutely horrible track record on appointments. Is the presidency that horrible that he's trying to make everyone hate him so he can fail miserably come re-election time? I'd like to call him up and say "Dude, seriously? You can do better than this" :-)
He's going from defending the RIAA to defending the government. His clients get scummier every year... :p
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
The problem is she's a dangerous lunatic. She doesn't know squat, doesn't care and is PROUD of it.
Also, as soon as she could make money off it, she left politics and used campaign contributions to buy her book and move it up the charts.
Nice.
You're not forced to choose between the least of two evils. You actually have a lot of choices as far as voting goes. You can vote for the Communist Party candidate, your next door neighbor, or Santa Claus if you really choose to. There were quite a few people running for President that weren't in either major party, and they could be found listed on most ballets. Don't see who you want? Use the write-in section. That is what it is for.
Right now a lot of people are very fed up with the two party system and are giving the lesser known "third parties" a far more serious look. The "Tea Party" is proof of this. Agree with them or not, they have given the finger to the Democrat party AND the Republican party and have found people that they believe in - and they now have those people holding office. It didn't take very long for that movement to get off the ground either. Two years ago they were nothing. Today, they're a small but represented political force.
You're not going to get a major third or fourth party overnight. It takes some time to build everything up, but I don't see why it isn't possible - except for people who refuse to look beyond the D and R, and bitch and moan when they force themselves to believe that D and R are the only two choices.
As far as I'm concerned, if you can't find someone that you want in office, then you're not looking hard enough. If nothing else, vote for yourself.
Love sees no species.
Those of you that vote D just to keep the R's out or R just to keep the D's out have fallen for one of the biggest scams ever in the history of this country. Take a look at the ridiculous abuses of your civil rights that continue daily with no end in sight. 9/11 got the ball rolling under the R's but the D's have not done a darn thing to curb those abuses: TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, throwing people in jail for asserting their rights . . . the list goes on and on.
The current systems main purpose is to perpetuate itself. Not to help you in any way shape or form. If you receive some benefit from your vote this is a collateral coincidence and not the intent of the electorate.
For the vast majority of candidates running for public office, when you elect a D or an R to office, you are just picking a particular flavor of lies and erosion of your rights. You are not making this country into a better place. You are helping to perpetuate a system that has been co-opted by special interests and legalized bribery.
Why doesn't the FBI get sanctioned for warrant-less wire tapping of American citizens?
Why is the TSA permitted to continue to operate as it does even though it's been proven time and time again that it's procedures and methods are woefully ineffective?
and so on and so on.
Wake up and smell the corrupt system.
There is a restaurant that I like to frequent. It's a casual place and they have a number of humorous signs posted on the walls. My favorite is:
"If voting made a difference it would be illegal"
It's a joke but like all good humor it's the bit of truth behind it that makes it truly funny.
Yes it's possible that you are "throwing" your vote away when you vote for someone outside the two parties. But at least you are not helping to feed the machine that doesn't give a hoot about you and your rights.
Vote for someone/something else. When enough people do so, the system WILL change.
How do you know what Obama's IQ is? Even his college grades have not been released!
>>>Obama is a socialist, an evil plant of the far-left set out to destroy all American values, but then they turn right around and accusing him of being in the pocket of big business without the least bit of irony. The guy is a centrist and he's clearly positioning himself to work with the Republican Congress
You're both wrong.
Looks like a Mussolini-style fascist/corporatist to me.
i.e. Trying to meld government/business into a single whole piece of cooperative effort.
Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
obama, you're a dick.
Curious.. you're at a natural -1, and yet you are receiving more replies than when you had a karma bonus modifier.
Kinda throws a monkey wrench into your whole "OMG DOWNMODS ARE CENSORING ME!!!11" claims, doesn't it?
to like these RIAA guys. How many ex-RIAA laywers are now in the DOJ? Last time I heard there were something like three or four of them in important positions. Very troubling indeed.
http://www.acetonestudio.com
When oh when will Obama be inaugurated???
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
I've had it with Obama's across-the-board corporatist appointments. 3rd party in 2012.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
What does the Solicitor General do? Well, for example, they can get governments like Saudi Arabia off the hook for things like, oh, funding the 911 attacks against the US. If they're good, they can even get a seat on the Supreme Court. You know, stuff like that.
The idea of the RIAA being "the bad guys" is very much a fringe position. The cause for activism that seems so obvious in our little echo chamber isn't really a driving force outside of it. Someone like President Obama almost certainly doesn't think of it at all. It may be a consuming issue from our point of view, but the idea that the RIAA is somehow evil or un-American not even on the periphery of this appointment. Here some are thinking there should be some kind of revolution because of the actions of the MPAA/RIAA, but there's none of that going on at the level where Presidential appointments are made. That's what all fringe activists need to remember -- while they can find like minded people to assemble with, they are still desperately small.
It would have been neat to find out that President Obama had his finger on the pulse of the ideas of IP liberty and agreed with the general attitude of the average slashdotter, and let's say appointed an EFF lawyer instead. But really, does anyone really think that dialogue even exists in his world?
No surprise here. Intellectual property is the only economy the US has left after outsourcing everything else to China. If they want to maintain the cashflow, they have to enforce their IP.
FCKGW 09F9 42
You [theaveng and twoallbeefpatties] are both wrong.
You should probably go see a doctor about your split personality problem, Mr theaveng / commodore64_love / C_amiga_fan / cpu6502 / commodore6502. If there is a non-troll among all of your personalities, hopefully I am speaking to it, because if you can manage to control the others, it just might help you from getting karma-bombed in the future.
If nothing else, vote for yourself.
pardon my french, but WHAT THE FUCK does that prove?
the issue is how to stop horrible things happening. its often the best case scenario you can hope for.
voting 'for myself' is truly throwing my effective vote away; in fact, it does not even send any message at all!
voting 3rd party also throws your vote away IF the goal is to stop the worst of the worst from getting in.
if you have the luxury of saying 'none are too bad, so which one do I *like*' that's great. but that's just not my experience in this world. mostly, its 'who needs to be STOPPED' that we have to address our votes toward.
we won't get a 3rd party candiate overnight OR EVER. get a clue how locked-up tight our broken assed system is. you think things can be fixed. I do not. I think the whole thing needs a total re-write, nothing short of that will fix it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Bush Jr: Evil Genius or Bumbling Idiot?
Obama: Evil Genius or Benevolent Failure?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Sorry about that... you are absolutely correct. That'll teach me not to read twice before responding.
I'm all for RIAA bashing, but I think most lawyers would agree that they do the best job they can for whichever client they work for within the boundaries of ethics and the law. They do not make the laws they argue them for the rights of their clients.
So yes the RIAA suing everyone is BS. However it is the system, not the lawyers that enable it. It is the judges that set precedent and the politicians that make laws. Many lawyers have to have dirtbag clients, some (thought I know its hard to believe) are even worse than they jerks at the RIAA etc...
IANAL either! Having one of those sneaky bastards on your side might be a good idea, particularly when involved in the snake pit of politics.
A Third party in will never exist in America as a significant entity. We are a democratic republic. Third (and fourth, and fifth...) parties can work in a parliamentary system where power is shared in coalitions, but in the American system things are more winner-takes-all. Any third party here is either not significant, or it becomes a spoiler. Any third party that actually became big enough to win (only happened once), would quickly cause the smaller of the two original parties to vaporise. This is exactly what happened when a new upstart third party (the Republicans) arose to challenge the two big parties (the Democrats and the Whigs) 150 years ago. Those pesky oddball whacko right-wing extremist nuts who actually wanted to inject morality into politics (sound familiar?) by claiming that blacks were people and slavery was wrong (the morals issue of that day) actually managed to elect a poorly-educated stupid hick from the wilderness (sound familiar?) Abraham Lincoln as president and with the well-educated super-wise intellectual Democrats (ring any bells?) firmly supporting slavery (after-all, morals should not be in politics, right?), the Whigs did not just recede to be the smaller of three parties...... they evaporated. The Democrats back then of course went completely insane over the hick oddball gun-toting Republican (Palin-Derangement-Syndrome on steroids) and dragged the country through a bloody civil war. Not too many people look forward to such a massive political shift. To be fair, those times and people do not compare well with these times and these people, BUT too many who have grown-up in relative peace and prosperity and who slept through History classes have a remarkable ability to imagine that political upheaval could never happen here (even though we have proof it can) and/or would be smooth and happy (even though we have proof if might not be).
People in our system divide between the two most-viable parties based mainly on the big issues of the day. Whigs who could adapt to the concept that blacks were people, merged into the Republican party; those who could not, merged in with the Democrats. There are still people in the Republican party who insist that morals should not be in politics, but they stay Republican because the party is also to the right on economics (which they admit to caring about more than the pesky morals stuff). There are still people among the Democrats who are to the right on economics, but they stay with the Democrats because the Democrats have their preferred positions on morals and they value the morals issues over the economic ones. In picking a party, most people prioritize and go with the party more aligned with them on the thing or things most important to them, rather than trying to form a third party that would more-precisely align with their beliefs but which would never be more than a spoiler.
The simple fact is that if the Greens ever rose to be significant, they would replace the Democrats rather than becoming a permanent power-sharing source of left-leaning frustration.
The Libertarians, likewise, will never manage such a rise; they would naturally replace the Republicans, but the biggest base of the Republican party is deeply attached to certain moral principles which override personal economics for them and keep them from ever participating in such a replacement. The people the Libertarians would need to add to the mix for a replacement (the sex and drugs libertarians) find a more natural home with the Democrats and are not a large enough block to replace the morals voters in the GOP. Even if the Libertarians did find a fantasy way to replace the Republicans, you would simply have a re-run of the old Whigs-and-Democrats system and the Libertarians(playing the role of the Whigs in this thought experiment) would collapse to be replaced by some new morals-based Republican party.
The interesting thing actually is the Tea party, which is trying something else: Form a non-party party and attempt to use it to steer the more-closely-aligned exist
I never thought I'd see the day in which a post referencing Glenn Beck* as an authoritative source would get modded up here on Slashdot of all places. Things must be bad...
GP poster has been mod'd down to "Troll". Which it obviously is not. A coworker of mine are both big fans of Glenn and "The Judge" (I prefer Glenn as cartoonish antics are my preference, he prefers Andrew for a fast-paced, guest/news driven show). You should fear abuse of moderation as was demonstrated. At best, his post could be "overrated" or possibly "flamebait". Of course, it is only "flamebait" do to the obvious progressive bias that has infilitrated Slashdot, to its own detriment.
Um, Sorry but Bush was flying the F-102 which pre-dated the moon landing. This is important because the Apollo guidance computers were (under the direction of Neil Armstrong) adapted by NASA to become the early experiments in making USAF jets eventually the super-computerized fly-by-wire wonders they are today.
In case you are thus-far missing my point, the jets Bush flew were the old-school heavy-metal fly-it-right-or-die machines which were designed with a lot less aerodynamic knowledge, not the modern computerized craft computer game players fantasize about. Furthermore, the US Military does not put a pilot into a jet until he is fully trained and qualified (including an education in aerodynamics). Think it's easy? Sign-up and prove it! Or are you dumber than a chimp?
And no, no chimpanzee has ever flown an airplane
And someone needs to add to the firehose (I apparently am a horrible writer, as mine never get picked) just to balance this out and show BOTH sides suck the big wet titty that the GOP is pushing for ISP spying again by having every single thing you do retained by the ISP for later perusal by law enforcement "for the children".
If anyone needed proof that both parties are a bad joke and we have NO representation in congress this article plus TFL should end all doubts. Because I really can't see the average American for 150+ year copyright laws and busting kids and grannys for music anymore than I can see them being for having every single thing they do tracked and handed over to police, can you?
Without a third party that actually has a chance your vote is worth about as much as the hot air the Ds and Rs spew. And for anyone that says "but but but...that was his FORMER job!" oh please. This is a "gift" from Obama to those writing the big fat checks, his way of saying "Hey pal, see what I did? I put one of your guys right at the top!". This is no different than the way the corporate lobbyist has cushy jobs set up for those that "play ball" waiting for them when their constituents finally get tired of being ignored.
We need to push our family and friends to vote straight Green party across the board in 2012. It doesn't matter if they have never heard of them (which they never will, as the MSM is all for the status quo) and frankly it doesn't matter if you support their current policies or not, because as long as we only have two parties we have nothing but two sides of the same rotten coin. BOTH are for bigger government and more control over your life, BOTH are for "socialism for the rich" in the form of bailouts, too big to fail, and looking the other way at tax dodges like the double dutch, and BOTH happily sell out America and the American people if those that write the big fat checks tell them to. Voting for either the Ds or the Rs anymore is nothing but that popularly quoted definition of insanity in action.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
....unqualified minorites. While many minorities there are certainly qualified, these institutions do in fact pride themselves on the way they rig the rules to admit minorities who would not otherwise qualify. This is part of what makes the scheme so nasty.....it introduces doubt on all the fully-qualified minorities who attend on their own merits. Bush, like all other recent Presidents, authorized the university to release its records on him. What is Obama ashamed of? What's he hiding? What are we not allowed to know about him? Do we even know his real name? There is absolutely nothing in Obama's college years, absent a release of records, that tells us anything about him or his qualifications.
Why has Obama prevented a release of his college records?
What were his grades? What were the admissions criteria he used to get admitted? How did he pay for his Ivy League education?
Let's see, Obamabots claim his Harvard education is proof he is a genius (there's no other evidence) but his records are sealed and his supporters claim that Bush's Ivy League education proves nothing because Ivy League Schools make exceptions....they claim that Bush is obviously a chimp!
The only chimps in American politics are the Obama supporters who can keep those two contradictory ideas in their noodles at the same time without seeing how dumb they look while doing it
...If you smoke pot you're a fool...
There, much better. The rest of what you wrote looked like it was written by somebody who smokes..... oh, wait, ..... never mind....
All Obama Lefties
Should we infer that it is because Obama, or the Dems are in power? Do you consider them "Lefties?" Shall we further infer that you think the Republicans, conservatives ("Righties?"), or McCain would not have been cronyists? Do you actually think the Republican Team is better than the Democrat Team, or that they are in any measurable and substantive way fundamentally different?
I have a friend who does mostly capital murder. He says a pretty significant portion of time, the only issue to argue is the death penalty or not. So guilty or not may not even be the issue.
Keep getting your news from Jon Stewart, Kos and HuffPo if you like, but your ignorance is astounding
She has spoken on the 10th ammendment and understands it very well
Palin never said she could see Russia from her house... People who think she did are outing themselves as people who get their news from Saturday Night Live. Palin said that Russia can be seen from Alaska (something I have personally observed) as a way to indicate that the governor of Alaska cannot be completely unaware of international matters because Alaska's proximity to Russia and shared waterways mean that issues related reach the governor's desk (as happens in other border states).
She did not draw crosshairs on ANYBODY. Her campaign put out a map with crosshairs on congressional districts JUST like the Democrats used bullseyes to mark congressional districts on the map THEY put out
Yes, when a crazy guy who was not a follower of hers and did not see her map shot somebody and all the liberal media outlets in the country accused her of being involved (Which is in fact a blood libel by the old definition.... people said "The Jews killed Jesus!" in order to damage the reputation of Jews by associating them with the death of a popular figure) she is in fact being vicitimized. If all the media outlets in the country started blaming you for the bombing at the Russian airport, because you posted something on the net (even though there is evidence of other motives and no evidence anything you posted was ever read by the murderer) you too would be a victim of a "blood libel".
She could easily have completed her time as governor, but the Democrats who hate her with such venom kept filing baseless ethics charges in Alaska which were taking lots of time and costing state taxpayers lots of money. She made her reasons for leaving very clear. The taxpayers of Alaska have been spared a lot of money and her opponents were caught off guard by the move. Was it the best move? Who knows given the circumstances.....but I bet you have never even managed half a term as governor, so I guess by your standards you are more vapid, incurious, etc than she is.
You libs need a new line of attack that involves facts and reality....monkeys fling poo, people should engage in actual discussions
...idiots like Gore and Kerry, and evil men like Bin Laden and Hussein that got us 8 years of Bush.
Self-serving disingenuous drivel
Consider:
1. A soldier hunts-down and murders innocent women and children. When the war is over and he is tried for war crimes he says "I LOVE women and children, I was just following orders!"
2. A Lawyer works to free a murderer who then goes on to kill more innocent women and children. When asked later, the lawyer says "I hated the guy, I was just vigorously defending my client's interest!"
3. A Lawyer who helps an evil regime justify genocide by finding legal loopholes later says "I oppose genocide, I was just serving my client (the state)"
What is the result in each of the above and why should the lawyers be viewed any differently from the soldier? Human beings have a remarkable capacity to find ways to justify personal support for evil, and sometimes even personal profit from that evil. The legal profession has perfected this human flaw. Take any side you can on any available case if that's what suits you and you can make some more dirty money doing it, but don't think everyone will respect you for such moral recklessness just because your profession has a self-serving slogan. If you are defending a murderer, face up to it and admit that you are advocating for a murderer. Do not dare to presume to be morally equivalent to the lawyer who is is prosecuting the murderer. BTW: I realize that some highly-educated lawyers are actually so dumb that they are fooled by their dumb uneducated clients......but the lawyers in the Arizona shooting case, for example, cannot possibly even pretend to think that the murders did not happen or that the cops got the wrong guy. Any decent lawyer can get off of a case (quit, arrange to get fired, etc) if he or she finds it sufficiently objectionable, so we the public are free to draw certain conclusions if a lawyer sticks with a particular side of a particular case.
Only a man with no soul can take either side of an argument when a matter of morals or principles is on the line.
Shameful... the RIAA has achieved almost nothing so why would anyone chooses a scumbag from that group unless they wanted to achieve almost nothing as well. Surely this position should have gone to someone with a high level of achievement in human rights. What a complete sell out to industry and a loss of opportunity for people.
If Virrilli is his pick for Solicitor General, so be it. He gets a lot of credit for a high profile file sharing entity, but he put nothing concrete in place to stop the intellectual property carnage that continues "under the radar". When Hillary Rosen headed the RIAA at the dawn of the internet, she was so inept that she ceded the entire system over to a new generation of "free" seekers and systemic theft became the norm for the first time in our nation's history. You can't steal a loaf of bread without risk of prosecution, but you can steal an artist's song, a studio movie (YouTube is crowded with unauthorized 4-10 part postings of entire movies), etc. Intellectual property is treated like bathroom tissue these days. Lower prices are good, "free" (aka theft) is bad and this brings harm to all, little by little, day by day.
Thom
And don't blame me either, I hate democracy. Overrated big time.
I don't know. It might be worth giving it a try some time.
Yes, you have just accurately described what the job description of the President's General Counsel does.
But none of that has anything to do whatsoever with the job of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General's office argues on behalf of the government for the Supreme Court. They also approve (or disapprove) appeals by the DOJ when it has lost at the trial level. (I guess to act as a "sanity check" on appeals)
It is completely separate from the General Counsel in the Office of the President.
"There is no honest reason to believe that Sarah Palin is stupid."
My assessment of the facts is different; her public misstatements always came off as being more serious than the mere verbal gaffes of the Bushism (that last phrase is a key part of the type of "'I hate dubya, but he's not dumb' speech" to which clyxemaxwell refers.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.