Slashdot Mirror
Republican Staffer Khanna Axed Over Copyright Memo
Bob9113 writes "Ars Technica reports that Derek Khanna is getting axed over his memo detailing the conflict between laissez-faire-oriented free market ideals and the regulatory monopoly that is copyright. 'The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives, has told staffer Derek Khanna that he will be out of a job when Congress re-convenes in January. The incoming chairman of the RSC, Steve Scalise (R-LA) was approached by several Republican members of Congress who were upset about a memo Khanna wrote advocating reform of copyright law. They asked that Khanna not be retained, and Scalise agreed to their request.'"
Who in the adult world is surprised when a low level employee is canned for upstagin and blindsiding the higher up leadership??
This is not the least bit surprising and shocking. Anybody who does this in an other venue would have gotten the boot, and rightfully so.
He had to know this would cost him his job.
He could not have expected anything else.
Highest bidder wins all! The US political system in a nutshell...
You younger Slashdotters may not believe this, but at one time we had conservatives (and Republicans) with principles.
(Not that the Democrats are all that great.)
Anyone wonder why the political process does not serve the people?
They've publicly disowned the brief and now it looks like they're cutting off the hand that wrote it ... but have they actually put forth a logical and rationale rebuttal that explains why Khanna was so wrong that his termination was necessary?
If my employer came to me and said, "Pack it up, you don't have a job tomorrow." I'd be very interested in knowing why and being completely fine with my termination if they were just batshit insane in their reasoning. I'm sure I'm not the only one that suspects this came as an order from an industry lobbyist or at least in the form of "This is very interesting work by Khanna. On an unrelated note *cough* *cough* you might be hard pressed for campaign donations next election cycle."
Oh, and I am absolutely relishing the goodwill and lip service paid to the Republicans in the initial Slashdot comments.
My work here is dung.
except when they don't!
He pretty much is responsible.
You shouldn't be - after all, this is the same political organization that had a report banned from the LoC, because the facts contained within did not mesh with their party philosophy.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If you're not echoing the echo chamber's talking points, you're not allowed to talk to other Republicans.
That's it in a nutshell. And so we have Romney condemning 47% of the population because some idiot in the WSJ did the calculations, found 50% of the country weren't paying one type of tax, ignored the fact that most of these people weren't paying it because their employers were too cheap to pay them a decent wage, and called them "Lucky Duckies". And he, and others, refused to hear the counter arguments, and he ended up making a fool of himself.
Indeed, we have the entire Republican party convinced that the way to win an election in a recession is to say "Yeah, we know you're feeling really insecure at the moment, so we're going to take your safety net away. Because anyone receiving UI is a moocher."
We have Rove and others absolutely convinced they were going to win the election, because they refused to read the polls.
There's been a lot of discussion after the 6th about the Republicans and why they lost. Sure, they lost because of their policies (well, duh.) But the question remains: how did the Republicans end up with such an absurd ticket, and how did they drag along 47% (interesting co-incidence) of the country to vote for them anyway?
Answer: because they built an echo chamber. If it didn't fit the interests of those funding the Republicans, it wasn't said. People who said the Republicans might be going in the wrong direction were purged. Fox News, the WSJ, and some blogs and radio stations were pretty much seen by Republicans as the only media to read, and because those outlets insisted that anything that wasn't them was "liberal biased" they didn't see the truth, they didn't see what was going on out there, they totally missed the boat.
This firing suggests they still haven't "gotten it", no matter what was said after November 6th.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
There are at least two important points we can take away from this:
1. The republican party lies about having free market ideals.
2. The current IP regime is NOT an example of free market economics, even though it is widely touted as so.
I was worried there that the GOP was going to stare into the face of their 2012 defeat and make a sincere effort to move forward. Looks like I can rest easy that the tired old hypocritical ideologies are still firmly in place.
of why I'm not a Republican....
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
He had to know this would cost him his job.
He could not have expected anything else.
He's 24 and probably still believes that United States politics offer an open and free forum where you can put forth ideas no matter what side you're on and the change that follows can be a good thing if the logic behind it is sound. Surely the worst that could happen is that your party would have to explain again logically why your brief was incorrect and unsound?
Boy it sure was hard typing that with a straight face.
My work here is dung.
From the article:
Many things the Republican Party is doing are surprising moves, for a party that is looking for ways to attract...well, anyone. It almost seems like the party forgot that the point of democracy is to represent your own people, not try to tell them that you know better than they do what would be good for them.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
at this point it seems that they are unable to do anything unless it benefits the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else.
If one of my workers told the whole country why he thought I was stupid, I'd fire him too, regardless the merit
HA! "Fear will keep them in line"? Well, I'm sure the rest of the country has great faith in you if your response to a challenge of your position is to just get rid of the guy. Oh my god that's funny! Did you know that in my software development team, we challenge each other all the time and, no, we don't have our coworkers offed if we are wrong. Is Derek Khanna on his way to the gulags? Perhaps a Republican Rehabilitation camp in Fairbanks, AK?
My work here is dung.
Backup copy. (And because the document was created by a Congressional employee, it's not copyrightable. So there.)
Here's the proposal:
This is a good proposal. Start circulating it around. For only a very small number of copyrighted items is there revenue beyond 12 years, and that's covered.
It's nimwits like you that detract from the real issues. If you don't have anything of substance to contribute why don't you just refrain?
http://www.linkedin.com/in/derekkhanna
subtle mind control in the land of the free.
Happens nowadays on all levels in the corporate or political ladder.
US mainstream journalism in particular.
Politicians are not just corrupt, politicians have been raised, grown up, got their experience in a system where the truth is told, more or less. In the real world, we know evil exist but politicians are shielded from the real world pretty early on. They are in a rare world where meetings and negotiation "work". As you learn the world of politics in high school and university were your adversary are at worst teachers or fellow students and then ONLY those students who are interested in politics. They are surrounded and protected by people who share the same world view, not just left or right wing but the idea and knowledge that money is never an issue, you can always find another job, multiple at the same time, hard work is having a long meeting and there is always a deal to be made with the other side and the other side is never ever really just out to screw you over.
In Holland, when the rail system was privatized, a contract was drawn up that allowed the rail company to do its own customer survey reports and ignore user reviews that scored to low. Choose its own lines to ignore for judging its punctuality, not have to count canceled trains as delayed and a lot more stuff that any sane person would NEVER have allowed in a performance contract. So... were the people who signed it bought off? To stupid to be allowed to live?
Yes... and not exactly. The parties responsible BELIEVE in privatization, all their models, all their advisers say it must work and surely business wouldn't lie to them because they don't lie, they just present facts that exist in their mind and not in the real world. Their was a parliamentary investigation on whether privatization in the last two decades had a positive effect and the answer was NO and the two parties (CDA VVD) STILL said what was needed was MORE privatization.
They can't do anything else because it has become their identity, it is what they are, their faith, their gospel. And any evidence to the contrary isn't going to shake a faith they grew up on. The left isn't much better, the multi cultural society is falling apart and the best the left can manage is "we shouldn't want that"... Groen Links (Green Left) was decimated in Holland when it became clear the party had lost all touch with reality in supporting several right wing measures, forgettin they were supposed to be a LEFT wing party. CDA has been recudeced to a fraction of itself and still doesn't know why. SP scored big in the polls but lost it all during the actual election and still is wondering what happened.
The arstechnica article expresses suprise at this move because it thought the republican party was trying to appeal young voters. WRONG. Oh it wants to attract more voters but it is NOT going to change itself, it can't. It is what it is. To change itself, it would first have to admit it was wrong, ALL if it, ALL of them, ALL they ever believed to be true. WRONG. People don't do that. Especially people who live in an ivory towers removed from all reality. Romney wasn't a particular evil guy, he just really believed his fantasy land, the made up world of Fox News.
And people living in made up worlds are easily manipulated by people good at telling stories. The Lobbyist know how to bend the world of make believe to reflect their wishes. The ordinary voter doesn't. Not only is the average voter barely coherent but everyone one of them has an endless amount of conflicting wishes so any politician who tries to actually listen will quickly realise that if you can't please them all, why bother. In the mean time, the lobbyist gives a clear simple and therefor sensible and achievable story.
Basically, we are screwed. We need more REAL people in politics but the only way to get anywhere in politics is to grow up in it and become part of the system. Any real person will either quit in disgust, be torn apart by the pack for daring to rock the boat (any outcast public figure like Assange) or become part of the system.
You could try an experiment if you got the time. Write down your
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Can't fight the machine, can you?
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
The same reason that Israel hates the idea of the Palestinian state. The victim mentality has been honed to an art form by the Jews. Hitler was a bastard, in more ways than the obvious, because he failed in everything he attempted: failed artist, failed genocidist. Today, it is the Indians, not to be confused with First Nations, whom want Amerika because it fits their corrupt culture but the elite are all goo-goo over India. Canada will have to invade Amerika and push the Indians into the ocean.
I'm always stunned at the people who vote for republicans. All of the lower/middle class white guys that vote republican no matter what are the people who the republicans care about the least. Shocking how all those people are willing to vote on the three G's - guns, god, and gays. Hooray for immigrants finally breaking the hold of rednecks on the presidential ticket. A lot more work to do to break the republican control of the house, though, because they have redistricted themselves into permanent positions of power.
I read an artical that analized his report and the republican response, and I agree with him on every point. The republican response came only after their corporate masters threw a temper tantrum! So they published his report, got called on the carpet, and tried (badly and non-sensically) to reverse themselves, and now are being ordered to fire him for doing what he was asked to do. Typical.
It will be completely forgotten by the next election.
Dear Derek Khanna,
You have made more friends than enemies. You may have been canned today, but you could easily replace your boss. RUN FOR OFFICE!
Sincerely,
Someone who actually votes.
Posted by timothy on Thursday December 06, @02:15PM
What got posted is an edited version of my submission, and the editing is a distinct improvement. Thanks, Timothy!
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
I think most of us realized long ago that when politicians claim to be "pro-business" they are referring not to some abstract ideal of free markets, but rather to being in favor of the incumbent players getting richer and more powerful. But just in case anyone on Slashdot hadn't figured this out yet, hopefully after this event they will have.
I think he should stand by his memo and run for office.
Copyright reform should be the conservative position since our current state of copyright is so far out of line with the original constitutional text and intent. Conservatives rightly complain when we use foreign law to influence interpretation of the Constitution, yet our copyright has been warped to follow the copyright schemes of most foreign countries, not ours, and that's somehow considered constitutional.
Abandoning their principles, the basic reason the Republicans lost, and will keep losing. All the Democrats have to do is not screw up too badly.
KHANNNNNNA!
I don't mean this to stick up for the Republican party at all but does anybody really believe that the Democratic party would welcome this report any more than the Republicans? Would a Democrat who wrote this report still have a job afterwards? I doubt it. Both sides are in bed with corporations and especially the media ones.
From the article:
Many things the Republican Party is doing are surprising moves, for a party that is looking for ways to attract...well, anyone. It almost seems like the party forgot that the point of democracy is to represent your own people, not try to tell them that you know better than they do what would be good for them.
Actually, that attitude is very much in line with what large chunks of the hard-right fundamentalist Christian faction believe. They want someone with greater authority to tell them what to believe, what to do and think.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
I don't really think this is a contradiction. I think the reality of the party line is more "Corporations are people .. the only people." Less government, less taxes, less regulation, more rights. These apply to real people: corporations, not you or me.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
They'll soon have to fire *everybody.*
Next up:
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. drug laws, gambling and prostitution.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. air and water pollution that effects everyone.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. food safety inspection.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. building safety inspection.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. allowing the import of foreign drugs.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. allowing insurance companies to compete across states and countries.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. allowing banks and major financial institutions to fail.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. subsidies for the oil, gas and nuclear industries.
Reducing the size and scope of government vs. abortion and gay marriage.
Cheers!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
He released the memorandum on his own, totally undermining other staffers and most likely bypassing any sort of vetting, validation, and/or peer review stages. It's naturally in the RSC's best interests to put forth memos and reports that present a consistent argument and (most importantly) don't express opinions in a way that may offend constituents.
While I hate to see them distance themselves from a sane and rational argument for copyright reform, I can't help but think that any other organization would do the same thing when one of their employees decides to go all "cowboy" and fire off memos and reports without organizational consent.
Rarely do I get to read something written by somebody who "gets it." Thank you for showing there are some people using their brains still out there. (Seems like you are not an American? it would figure you'd not be American... The few not living in a bubble rarely want to discuss the situation.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Dear Mr Kline,
I'm deeply disappointed in my GOP caucus at the dismissal of Derek Khanna for his writing of a paper discussing copyright reform.
(ref http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/staffer-axed-by-republican-group-over-retracted-copyright-reform-memo/)
I sincerely hope you weren't "one of the congressmen" Rep Scalise was approached by to remove Mr Khanna.
Copyright reform is a desperately-needed, serious issue. "Shooting the messenger" signals that the GOP is NOT the party interested in fixing the situation. To less charitable eyes, it might even seem that these Representatives are just doing the bidding of their lobbyists from the MPAA and RIAA donors. The *only* silver lining here is that the Democrats are even MORE obviously in the pocket of media producers.
I invite you and your peers to review the Copyright Clause of the US Constitution: (art I, sec 8, clause 8) "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Note, copyright is to PROMOTE THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE - not to promote the ongoing rent-seeking by the umpteenth-descendant of an artist. Further, the clause specifically says "LIMITED TIMES" - constantly revising copyrights out to longer and longer durations is complying with neither the letter nor the intent of the US Constitution.
So, I ask MY PARTY representatives in Congress - what's your point here?
I would love to get a serious, considered response to this email, or would cheerfully like a chance to talk to you on the subject.
-Styopa
Remember folks. You can vote for the elephant or you can vote for the donkey, but either way, you're voting for the mouse.
His committee asked him to write it and then signed off on publication, so he neither blindsided nor upstaged the management. They changed their minds, and then went for plausible deniability.
davecb@spamcop.net
Seriously? You're worried about the Jews taking over America? What about all the people who call themselves Americans, clearly distancing them from the original population who are classified as Native Americans? They've been an occupying force for ow, I don't know, 300 years? Or was it 400? When are these people gonna do the right thing and return the country to the rightful owners? Sound ridicules? So do you.
There are things that were created well before we were born, that will not fall out of copyright until well after we die.
Fix this.
Sincerely, Humans
We're starving.
Regards, Public Domain
http://www.stevescalise.com/contact.html
I think we should tell ol' Steve exactly what we think about this...
He knew a second language, clearly not a believer in American Exceptionalism. Unelectable!
What's next, offer up an atheist? HAHAHA. HAHAHA.
Yeah, heavens forbid that executives ever be given information that they might disagree with. Shame on this person for thinking that executives should be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and opinions.
FTFY
The Republican party was started by religious people who had MORAL reasons for objecting to Democrats owning black people and did not want that EVIL to spread to any newly admitted states. There WAS a not-Democrat party back then (the Whigs) that only cared about money and national security but refused to get into the "icky" moral/religious fight over slavery. The Whigs went away because the nation only needs one godless evil party and the Democrats have that pretty much covered.
The Republican party of today has the same positions on "gay marriage", abortion, slavery, etc (all the moral stuff) that it had when Lincoln was president. The Democrats of today, however, have moved far away from what they were even under JFK (who never publicly advocated for "gay marriage", or abortion, or gays in the military, etc). Oh, Democrats today DO still have one of their old beliefs: they still think they own black people and they hate any black person who escapes the plantation...
not necessarily pro-business in general.
Mertrometro made an insightful comment along those lines:
Rove is a tool of the party establishment, and the establishment demanded Romney, an investor (not a real entrepreneur). Romney (having never actually created anything real) setup an election "machine" that was severely flawed and that flawed "machine" spewed bad numbers which people like Rove believed. It's no wonder they were confused/shocked by the loss.
The TEA partiers saw this coming many months earlier, which is why they pushed as hard as they could to get the party to run "ANYBODY but Romney" (surely you remember that was the entire theme of the Republican primary?) but the establishment of the GOP would not bend and insisted that only a "moderate business man" who would avoid any non-economic issues could win. The people running the big parties have certain ideas they will not easily part with, no matter how wrong or unpopular.
The Democrats have similar problems with their establishment types... they slavishly follow the demands of the entertainment industry on all matters of patent/copyright/IP etc no matter how much their base might dislike this stuff
You're all a bunch of jackasses, where do I send this kid a check?
This whole "the GOP has moved SO FAR RIGHT even Reagan would not be welcome" theme is a Democrat talking point without any substance. Name one thing the TEA partiers or the religious Republicans would disagree with Reagan on
On the moral issues:
Gays (openly) in the military? No change ... Reagan opposed
Gay marriage? No change ... Reagan never supported this.
Abortion? No Change ... Reagan was pro-life
Fiscal issues:
Low taxes? No change... Reagan was for lower taxes (yes, he DID raise them when the democrat-run congress demanded that in exchange for huge cuts in government... which was a lie, they never allowed the cuts... which is why conservatives no longer accept any promise of "future cuts" tied to current tax increases)
Size of government? No change ... Reagan was for making it smaller
Dependency? No change... Reagan was for encouraging people to work rather than "living on the dole"
International Issues:
Strong defense? No change... Reagan as for "peace through strength"
Opposing an overactive UN? No change ... Reagan did not have much patience for the institution
This rhetoric is designed to distract from the real party radicalization that has happened
On all of the above subjects, the Democrats no longer have the same positions they had as recently as 1976. JFK would be run out of the Democrat tent today as a "radical right wing extremist republican"
They'll soon have to fire *everybody.*
Next up:
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. drug laws, gambling and prostitution.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. air and water pollution that effects everyone.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. food safety inspection.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. building safety inspection.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. allowing the import of foreign drugs.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. allowing insurance companies to compete across states and countries.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. allowing banks and major financial institutions to fail.
Laissez-faire capitalism vs. subsidies for the oil, gas and nuclear industries.
Reducing the size and scope of government vs. abortion and gay marriage.
Cheers!
You are suggesting the majority of Republicans are merely giving lip service to their ideology. Oh, the cynicism.
Is that you?
We should get together and vote this guy into office, regardless of whether he is actually responsible for the memo.
Send a goddamned strong message.
The majority of Republicans (and Democrats) don't have an ideology. They are strictly pragmatists and problem solvers. They look at individual problems and they try to solve them. There is no overall view of how things should be. People with views like that are known as extremists, which are nearly synonymous with terrorists nowadays. Extremists have actual ideals. Moderates don't, probably because that would require actual thought and that is way too much work. Especially when your political views are guided solely by your emotions or by your own narrow self-interest. In politics the age of ideas is long over. That ship has sailed and been torpedoed.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
I have no idea where you got your information.
The origins of the Democratic and Republican parties was basically the Democratic-Republican party (which was formed by Jefferson to counter the Federalists).. The split can be traced back to the 1824 election when John Quincy Adams was chosen to be president by the House of Representatives over Andrew Jackson. Adam's power base was in NY and the Northeast, where Jackson's power base was in the south. Although Jackson won the popular vote, he didn't win the electoral vote, so the election was up to the House of Representatives. Henry Clay (speaker of the house and a presidential candidate) threw his support behind Adams, and Jackson was so upset that he and his supporter started the Democratic party. The remainder of the party became the National-Republicans, then the Whigs, Thus the split was really more a personality and geographical based split rather than any inherent policy issue.
Although the Democratic party was a populist party at it's inception, it was populist for the day. That meant were pro-Mexican-American war and for kicking out native-americans to secure more farmland. These were important issues for their souther and agrarian power base at the time.
The Republican party didn't really exist in its modern form until the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 (pushed by the Democrats) effectively voided the earlier Missouri Compromise to limit slavery in the newly acquired territories and caused the split and dissolution of the Whig party and the defection of Northern Democrats to join with the anti-slavery remants of the Whigs to create the Republican party.
You also seem to skip the whole Progressive Era where the Republicans (starting with Teddy Roosevelt) were the trust-busters (against the so-called business interests), supported rail-worker's rights and opposed child-labor, and the opposing Democrats starting with William Jenning Bryant really didn't have much of a populist agenda and might be considered to borderline be a religious fundamentalist party during this time probably only turning when FDR was elected governer of NY (a northern state).
On segregation, in the South was essentially solidly democratic during the initial civil-rights era (hold over from the civil-war when being a reupblican in the south was a non-starter). Although JFK (a northern democrat) was one of the champions of civil rights, when the bills came up for votes, Republicans in both houses voted overwhelmingly FOR it. It was a group of Democratic Senators that initiated a 57 day filibuster to kill the original civil rights bill led by Robert Byrd (D from WV).
Strom Thurmond was a democrat because you basically had to be a democrat to win in the south back when he started his career. Later he became a Dixicrat (basically a Democrat that belived in states rights, specifically the right of a state to enforce seggregation) in response to Truman's civil rights platform in 1948. In fact, Thurmand was the presidential candidate of the Dixicrat party in 1948. Of course he lost that election, but later was elected to the Senate on a seggregationist platform. Thurmand finally bolted to the republican party when he couldn't take the democrat's increasing pro-civil rights platform stances. The triggering event was probably when Barry Goldwater convinced him to join the Republican party as part of a larger demographic electoral strategy to attempt to flip any-and-all anti-civil rights democrats fed up with the democratic party in order to develop a new republican voting block in the south now that much of the anti-republican civil-war sentiment had faded.
So in summary, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have been for any particular racial policy, nor on any particular racial side historically. Averaged over time, these two parties are generally very close to each other in policies and levels of progressivness and egalitarian issues, and much of the events of the last 200 years have been mostly based around specific political personalities that have emerged and the geo-demographics of the particular party base. It is probably just revisionist history to think otherwize.
He is one of us - look at his linkedin profile
http://www.linkedin.com/in/derekkhanna
Unless, we stand up for him, no one else will ever dare write about copyright reform in the future.
This needs to be something like fight against SOPA.
Khanna's firing will only further raise the memo's profile.
You'd think they'd be smarter about manipulating the public's attention. But then the GOP is still wondering how a bunch of tubes can sneak around and bite them in the ass.
Have gnu, will travel.
The real problem is that gov't has the power to regulate such things, when it actually doesn't, or shouldn't. Most say that corporations are to blame, but they only send their dollars and a voice to the Hill to get laws passed(regulations). These laws are mostly things that hinder upstart or impending competitors. There is no free market in that scenario. Good politicians reject such lobbying outright. There are very few, if any, good politicians. Corporations wouldn't appeal to a powerless entity would they?
They are one of the most anti-science organizations in the world.
Anybody who does this in an other venue would have gotten the boot, and rightfully so.
How is that rightfully so? Because he only spoke on something that has been an issue for years, and even more so with the shits in Big Media, and the internet.
The fact they fired him shows they have no interest in reforming anything and only want to continue sabotaging the country over issues that as of right now seem to be the only thing the press is interested in, or they want the public to know about.
Granted, his polling was never particularly great, but that was largely the result of the echo chamber never taking him seriously.
Simple fact is that Democrats weren't that happy with Obama for failing to do things like close Guantanamo Bay, even if many of his failures were due to Republicans being unwilling to allow him to do even things they'd want to do if he hadn't suggested them. They'd have voted for Ron Paul. ...and certainly the majorities who legalized marijuana in those two states would have voted for Ron Paul vs. Obama's "let's crack down on medical marijuana harder than ever" policy.
Unfortunately the Republicans were just too stupid to see that they even had a chance, as evidenced by post-election polls showing that most Republicans believed that Mitt Romney failed to beat Obama because he wasn't conservative enough, as if being less like your opponent is the best way to gain some of his supporters.
This is exactly why I am losing interest in Slashdot:
Any company would have done the same, he didn't follow proper policy and potentially damaged the relationship that the person (whom is paying him) has with their customers. He may have had a good point from our perspective but that doesn't excuse what he did. The Rep. did the right thing
Make any fucking sense get him the fuck out of here.
There need to be an evolving of ideology, be it by the party itself, or by having more than one party, with the "progressive" party of the day growing in popularity, and the "conservative" dwindling. Conservativism means stagnation. You can only make progress if you are changing. If you want to stay with the "same old" then you stagnate and aren't adapted to new environment. Ideally you have a few party more than 2 which force the main party to compromise toward progression or toward conservation, so you have not too much progress which disrupt your economy/culture, and not too much stagnation. And if a party stagnate too much and starts to be far away removed from world/culture/economy , then it can dwindle to nothing, and the other party picks up, new party be created which shift the progression/stagnation again to be more adapted to world, culture and economy. Naturally there is a risk that the party is too split to arrive to a majority for decision but 1) it happens relatively rarely so far as I see and 2) from the number of anti gov post I see in such threads, you should all be happy of a governement unable to pass a law like DMCA :P. Just kidding. But that shifting of progressive/conservative allows for the "too stagnating" to get dumped out and still have progress
Now what happens with two party ? Stagnation. Because most likely one party will be ultra conservatist, and the other will likely only have the shine of progressive on it. Sure on a few issue the limitation will be clear, but on many others both party will be conservationist, if only to keep their power. Which is why you will never see any election reform in the USA , even if any one aprty got the super-super majority. Or even a reform of IP law to be more citizen-friendly rather than corporate blow job (OK I should not be showing my bias here, but come on , 70 to 95+ years nearly of copyright ? This is downright insane). Now if the population was much more active, went into the streets a lot, yeah maybe that would for ce the two party to reconsider, but as it is now only natural death replacement of rep and dems will change party line : which is not how you want a country politics to work.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You claim that Republicans lost because they said "we're going to take your safety net away."
There's just one problem with that. No Republican has said that. No Republican has even proposed significant cuts in the social safety net.
The most extreme Republican plan to balance the budget is not at all extreme. Connie Mack's "Penny Plan" proposes six annual tiny 1% cuts that would allow revenue to catch up with spending. You can see Lanny Davis, a self-proclaimed liberal, praise the plan here.
I work on a government contract, and I can tell you it would be easy to eliminate government waste such that delivery of safety-net services improves, even as those 1% cuts are being absorbed. (I know that my productivity increases by more than 1% every year. And if they would stop allowing people like me to stay at the Ritz-Carlton while traveling, bang, you've got a huge savings on the contract.)
Mind you, the "Penny Plan" never stood a chance because most Republican congresscritters are scared to endorse even these tiny cuts.
Would you allow that perhaps Republicans lost, not because they said they would take away the safety net (they have not said that), but because the media spreads the false perception that Republicans want to slash the safety net?
If you won't allow that, then please explain how you justify your assertion that Republicans say "we're going to take your safety net away," when not one of them has said that.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Ideology is a dream not a fact. You can DREAM privatization will result in better trains with better service and lower prices and it is no different then if you prayed for it instead, Ideology is faith, not fact. You can DREAM completely different cultures will just happily live together but that is Ideology, faith, not FACT.
Parties need to evolve beyond their ideology to at least get a glimpse of the real world and learn to accept that ideologies no matter how noble often just don't work in the real world. The republicans failed so badly at this, that 2 leading right wing financial news papers reluctantly supported Obama instead because they thought Romney's plans were impossible. Not just bad but plain impossible as in trying to fit a gallon in a liter container.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I resent the term 'white'. I am not white - most paper is white and I look nothing like the color of paper. Pink skinned is much more accurate - and what our friends the Andorians call us. I scratch out white and put that on all Govt. forms. ;-)
We all know what happened to Reagan in his later years, but you need to lend an ear to
the man from the time when he had just awakened from his Democratic stupor and switched
to the Republican party with great knowledge, discernment, and zeal for conservative ideals.
His speech highlights that the Republicans (used to) stand for the Constitution whereas
the Democrats of his day stood for Socialism and Communism (not much has changed, has it?)
That's right, GOP, fire the only republican people across the political spectrum can stand.
SInce the memo has been removed from its original location....anyone have a copy we can read?
The difference is that Democrats admit that they think some things are more important than freedom. The can work against freedom without any hypocrisy, and their fight against liberty is arguably in line with their constituents' ideals. It's the platform they ran on. It's what they say before anyone votes for them.
Republicans, like Democrats, constantly fight against liberty, but when they ask people to vote for them, unlike Democrats, they say they will fight for liberty. The even sometimes claim to be conservative! (I am deadly serious: lots of people really do think of Republicans as a conservative party. The idea that Republicans are conservative, is totally mainstream-accepted! If you watch the media at all, you will often hear words like "conservative" or "right wing" used synonymously as meaning "Republican" and if you don't know this, then I'd bet $100 that you don't own a TV.)
The party line is very real. Honest evil is different than dishonest evil. You might say that either way, we're fucked, but we're getting a government that is 100% against freedom, when only about 50% of people say they don't want freedom. If Republicans politicians would stop lying to Republican voters (to be fair, the real problem is that voters believe their lies, repeatedly), then pro-freedom voters could vote Libertarian or something, with the anti-freedom people splitting between the Democrats and Republicans. Then we could have a government of say, 25% D, 25% R, 50% L which would be less unified and more gridlocked, advancing the cause of fascism much more slowly or maybe even not at all. When only 50% of the population believes in fascism buts 100% votes for it, you can't have a fairly representative government. And it's Republicans' fault.
Khanna was just trying to get a key to the revolving door.
that he though they were logical. Also that they are opposed to bribery. Or that they make any sense whatsoever. Half the time they say one thing one week, then something totally contrdictory the next week. All depends who they are talking to, and how many votes or how much money they think they can get from it.
In otherwards, politics probably isn't for you anyway... :)
The memo was widely hailed by tech policy scholars and public interests advocates. However, it raised the ire of content industry lobbyists, who applied pressure on the RSC to retract the memo. The organization did so within 24 hours of its release. Khanna's firing will only further raise the memo's profile. OK
... but with clowns like these in charge, "enlightened democracy" is a long way off.
Obviously, this was all over arstechnica, slashdot, reddit, huffington post, cnet. So, obviously this is news. Copyright stuff itself probably not mainstream, but getting censored should be. Lets see what the mainstream news media says about it:
(Typing "Copyright reform" and "Derek Khanna" to relevant search boxes on mainstream news sites)
CNN.com: Nothing
CNNmoney: Nothing
Wall Street Journal: Nothing
USA Today: Nothing
NBC News: Nothing
Fortune: Nothing
CNBC: Nothing
Business Wire: Nothing
The New York Times: Nothing
Al Jazeera: Nothing (Maybe not that relevant in Middle East)
Financial Times: Nothing (Well, they are in Europe)
Washington Post: Nothing (Kind of thought that these guys were whistle blowers somewhere in history)
The Onion: Nothing (Not even The Onion!)
The American Conservative: Several articles refer to event, including text of original paper. Not mainstream, maybe?
Interestingly, copyrightalliance,org mentions it, but does not say what was the controversial proposal, just says "it should have been left there". (True, removing it started some Streisand effect, it it had just been left there there might have been some discussion but it would not have been such a major thing, just some controversial proposal from young politician).
This is worrying as we are not seeing full Streisand effect - most Americans will not see this at all, as they only consume mainstream news. With SOPA google, Wikipedia, and other mainstream sites protested, so mainstream media could not really ignore the event.
That's like the Obots that insist that their Dear Leader has no intentions of cutting Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid because he hasn't said the words "I want to cut SS or M/M". Nevermind the Catfood Commission, nevermind talk of "strengthening" the programs for future retires - which means cutting - nevermind him being the only Senator to attend the founding of the Pete Peterson Commission.
And that's from a Democrat - the Republicans have been at this a lot longer. From Cato's "Leninist Strategy", to Bush's attempt to privatize SS, to slashing welfare along with Clinton, to calling SS benefits a "hammock" or proposing a deductible on Medicare. Then, of course, there's the constant demonization of anyone collecting food stamps, unemployment benefits, or housing assistance as being lazy bastards who could pay for it themselves if they'd just get a job. Nevermind there's six unemployed people for every open job or that full time work at minimum wage keeps you in poverty.
Snort. Michael Moore self-proclaiming himself to be a conservative would have more credibility than Davis, a neoliberal neocon hack who would love to slash earned benefits right along with Republicans.
Maybe he's hearing not just what they say but what they mean. Give it a try sometime.....
I haven't heard anyone call SS a "hammock," but I have heard more than one report of low-income housing being built with luxuries such as granite countertops, which most of the taxpayers paying for it don't have themselves. Do you condone that? That truly is getting into "hammock" territory.
If SS had been privatized a few decades ago, it would stand on a foundation of solid assets, as opposed to its current $20.5 trillion unfunded liability. What would be so horrible about that?
Now, back to my original question that you haven't addressed:
It would be possible to improve delivery of safety-net services even while absorbing the 1% cuts of the "Penny Plan." Given that the Republicans are too timid to endorse even those tiny cuts, how can an accusation of wanting to "take away the safety net" have any credibility whatsoever?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.