Slashdot Mirror
Two SOPA Writers Become Entertainment Lobbyists
schwit1 writes "According to Politico, 'A pair of senior Hill aides at the center of a brewing battle between Hollywood and Silicon Valley are packing their bags for K Street, where they’ll work for two of the entertainment lobby shops trying to influence their former colleagues in Congress on the very same issue. Allison Halataei, former deputy chief of staff and parliamentarian to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), and Lauren Pastarnack, a Republican who has served as a senior aide on the Senate Judiciary Committee, worked on online piracy bills that would push Internet companies like Google, Yahoo and Facebook to shut down websites that offer illegal copies of blockbuster films and chart-topping songs.' Techdirt adds, 'Pastarnack went to the MPAA where she'll be "director of government relations" and Halataei to the NMPA (music publishers and songwriters) where she'll be "chief liaison to Capitol Hill." The Politico article linked above notes that this kind of "revolving door" is all too common. It may not be directly corrupt, but to the public it sure feels corrupt.'"
First, in some countries this would automatically spark an ethics investigation or be deemed corrupt. It may not be "corrupt" in the US, but I suspect that's more of a relative definition of corrupt than an absolute one.
Second, the US is ranked 24th in the world on corruption. I'd therefore argue that the standards the US government holds itself to is not only nowhere near what it could be, but isn't even anywhere near as good as other nations are managing on a day-to-day basis. This isn't great for smaller nations, though you can understand that they don't have the resources to be equal and of high quality. They also don't have much influence and the impact of corruption is necessarily limited. A fair number are also very new and don't have much experience. A nation like the US is a different matter. They've plenty of resources, they've had three centuries to work out the flaws, and they've far too much power to not be responsible with it.
The fact that New Zealand, Denmark and Finland are first and joint second respectively (none of whom are permanent members of the UN Security Council, hold nuclear weapons, dominate either the IMF or World Bank, or control vast swathes of international trade) is worthy of great respect. They don't have to be as good as they are, they just are because they by-and-large want to be. Not saying they're perfect, this is a ranking system not a measure against a fixed standard, but it is highly commendable none-the-less.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I used to think this way.
Made the trip from apathy to habitual voter. Read up on everything, kept abreast of the latest developments, supported "my" candidates and voted in line with my desired outcomes.
Now I'm back to not giving a fuck about voting. I've seen what it's worth and I'm tired of being a rube. It's principled apathy, not laziness. I'll keep giving to the EFF and I'll support the Pirate Party when they sail into town but until then there are better things to do with my time.
And that would be exactly the reason you have no right to a negative opinion.
I think non-voters most certainly have a "right" to a negative opinion, whether or not they choose to "voice" that opinion via voting. They simply view voting as a nearly useless (inaudible) way to voice their opinion; or perhaps that increasing the "percent abstained" figure is a more valuable way to express their opinion -- the "vote of no-confidence".
Personally, I would wager that posting my opinion in the Slashdot comments is likely to have at least as much, if not more, of an impact than visiting the voting booth ever will.
"If you don't order chicken or beef from the menu, you don't have a right to discuss the morality of animal consumption." But I'm a vegetarian!
This should be the sole focus of the Occupy movement: a law that makes it illegal to engage in any business with the private industry which you have recently helped regulate, for a period of 10 years.
Two problems with that idea:
You can't make immorality illegal, no matter how hard you try. The problem is cultural. The mantra that companies' sole priority is to increase shareholder value via any legal means necessary will inevitably lead to companies trying to affect the 'legal means' part of the equation.
I know whereof I speak, by the way. I live in a very small country, and am fairly often asked for expert advice on matters pertaining to technology policy by players on both sides of the field. I answer any request for information to the extent that I can. If it takes a lot of my time, I charge for it. I have only one condition: I refuse to change my advice, nor to hide my opinion, nor to serve one side differently from the other.
In one case, someone involved in litigation asked me to brief his legal team on the particulars of technology in this country. I said I would, but that he should be advised that, while I'd not repeat what was said in the meeting room, I would offer the same advice and information to anyone who asked. He didn't seem pleased with the idea, and never followed up on the request.
As long as profit is the only criterion for success in the US, you're going to have the problem of people gaming the system and congratulating themselves when they do. That has to stop. Competition is not about playing with the rules, it's about playing by them.
What you really need is a generation that says, 'There are some things that I simply will not do.' That won't be easy.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Honestly, you're full of crap. It's true, one vote doesn't matter. Especially when your only choice is between a politician who increases spending to buy pork and one that increases borrowing to buy pork.
But going to party meetings or working for a campaign? That's how things change. It's how the candidates that actually end up on the ballot get determined, and it's how those candidates determine their positions. Go to one of these places, offer to "help" and then while you're there, argue with them. Make them either see it your way or prove you wrong. If you can get them to be candid and admit their position is chosen based on funding or to play on public ignorance rather than based on reason, be their conscience. Be there to show them that you, as a representative of the human race, disapprove of what they're doing, care about it, and want them to change. Sometimes they will. Not all the time, but sometimes.
Or you can sit at home and bitch about everything on the internet. That's probably just as good.