President Obama To Nominate Cable and Wireless Lobbyist To Head FCC

symbolset writes "The Wall Street Journal and others are reporting that longtime telecomm lobbyist Tom Wheeler will be nominated to head the Federal Communications Commission. According to the LA Times: 'Wheeler is a former president of the National Cable Television Assn. and the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Assn. Despite his close ties to industries he will soon regulate, some media watchdogs are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. "As someone who has known Tom for years, I believe that he will be an independent, proactive chairman," said Gigi B. Sohn, president and chief executive of Public Knowledge, adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."'"

Comments

Yep, typical

[i kan reed]

I really wish the alternatives in the recent elections weren't more in bed with corporate interests.

Re:Yep, typical

[JackieBrown]

What do you expect? This is the same party that gave us the DMCA.

Re:Yep, typical

[interkin3tic]

Back up further: what do you expect of politics in general? Money buys influence in any government, no matter what form it takes. The only time that is not true is when enough people oppose the money. You can argue about this party or that party, or the number of parties, or term limits, or democracy even, but in any organization where the citizens don't care, you'll get money buying rules. Parties aren't going to do the job of the public for the public.

Actually, you can generalize that last part as well. No one is going to do any job you want them to do unless you keep on them or they have their own interests in doing it. Politicians aren't going to have our interests at heart unless you threaten to kick them out if they don't. And we're not doing that.

Re:Yep, typical

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please. Like the other dipschtick would have been any better.

Re:Yep, typical

[Anonymous Coward]

And every other disease known to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the people of the several united states; THE REPUBMOCRAT dictatorship.
Face it, you're owned by the Repubmocrats, even if you think you have a choice and can change things, you can't. There has been only one party running this show for around a century now. So who could be surprised that Omama gives exactly the wrong person the job. Is it still nepotism if he's not related to you , just blowing your knob? Just as good a friend as money can buy. Looks like Omama sold us again. Who cares, after all, he'll retire wealthy and we'll still be ruled by Repubmocrats, picking our flesh.

Re:Yep, typical

[slick7]

What do you expect? This is the same party that gave us the DMCA.

The best bought mongrel dogs taxpayer money can buy.
All politicians should serve three terms, two in office and one really long term in prison.

Re:Yep, typical

[flayzernax]

Revolution won't fix anything as it stands now, it would be a peasants revolt and no one would be left running the show, we'd be left squabbling over how and who to run it so rule that out until you see a succession and leadership make a lawful stand with a declaration of their sovereignty. I don't see anyone volunteering for that one any time soon.

Otherwise were left with voting and we all know thats a rigged game. So enjoy the show while it lasts. No Andrew Jacksons around to save our asses at the moment.

Re:Yep, typical

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for Ron Paul (primary) and Gary Johnson (general). There were green/socialist alternatives too.

Despite being an atheist, I don't complain about having had Ron Paul as a choice. Nor do I complain that Gary isn't a real libertarian (Ron Paul is more so a true libertarian and Libertarian).

What "alternatives" are you lacking? It is your job to vote in the primaries and make sure the right people win. I don't expect to be hand-delivered an anarcho-capitalist society. We have to work to get it and work to keep it.

Re:Yep, typical

[twotailakitsune]

Succession has one more trouble. Obama has talked about how he wanted to follow Lincoln's ideals.
(Insert joke about Obama plans to shipping white people back to Europe)
So any succession would follow by Obama declaring war on who left, and removing habeas corpus.

Re:Yep, typical

[thomasw_lrd]

That's what I've been preaching for the last few months. Politicians listen to money, because the people don't take the time to make them listen.

My own state is an example of this. We contacted a democrat and had him vote against the recent gun control legislation. Did he do this because we asked him to? Did he do this because the NRA promised him big checks? Only time will tell. But at least in this instance, he voted what I can only assume is the will of the loudest people. (I also believe in my southern state, they are the largest voting block put together) Write your Senators, your Reps, your President. You may not have voted for them, but they still need to listen to your concerns.

Corporations have money, yes, but they can't vote. Only the people can vote, and if they do, politicians will listen.

Re:Yep, typical

[Jane Q. Public]

"I really wish the alternatives in the recent elections weren't more in bed with corporate interests."

Your wish was granted the moment Obama was elected President.

Re:Yep, typical

[davester666]

All politicians should serve three terms, two in office and one really long term in prison.

...with the prison term in the middle...

Re:Yep, typical

[emaname]

Well said, interkin3tic!!! Well said!!!

That is one of the most succinct descriptions of our current political system that I've read to date (other than "politicians suck"). In fact, all we have left is "political theater."

I've been suggesting that we start an "abstain campaign(TM)" (Note I TM'd that). Make a point of going to the polls, but write in your nomination/vote. However, write in something like "These candidates are not worthy of my vote. My vote is too precious to throw away. I abstain." This is primarily meant for the state or national elections, not necessarily local stuff.

I would like to think if enough people did this, the politicians would get a clear vote of "no confidence" from the population. It's another way of saying, "We know you guys don't represent us anymore. We know you're going to do whatever your corporate owners want you to do. So we see no point in wasting our votes on you."

Even the threat of something like this happening might bring greater focus to the big money corruption in politics. If we choose not to participate, it suggests we don't need politicians anymore. It says to the whole world that "we the people" know our system has been hijacked; the US "democracy" is broken/perverted. At least we as citizens won't appear ignorant and gullible to the rest of the world.

The fact a person takes the time to go to the polls and submit a vote demonstrates their desire/willingness to participate in the political process. But the write-in expresses the sense of futility.

Maybe another approach would be to write in your own nominee. Let's all write in TJ Max, or Sears, or McDonalds. Now I think of this, I do kind of like Culver's butter burgers. They would be my write in. After all, corporations are people, too. So let's elect one to be president.

Re:Yep, typical

[Dripdry]

Read up on Fisher Ames. He is surprisingly absent from the history books even though he is the one who penned the final draft of the first amendment. He pointed out that while democracy is a nice idea, not enough people would ever take enough interest to make it work (that's the short version. he called Thomas Jefferson "Jeffs" and thought him a deluded and naive individual).

What we have happening is the practicality of the system completely overturning the applecart of the spirit of the system.

Re:Yep, typical

[slick7]

...with the prison term in the middle...

Are felons allowed to rerun? If they are, after the second term, should execution be mandatory?

The revolving door continues to spin

[Anonymous Coward]

adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

Seriously?

Re:The revolving door continues to spin

[PPH]

Trouble is, we are the ones that get hit in the ass by it.

Re:The revolving door continues to spin

[rwa2]

They said exactly what they could say to dispel any concerns that he might be a biased industry shill so they could assuage fears of the populace?

DIABOLICAL!

Re:The revolving door continues to spin

[246o1]

adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Of course, he can't help it if his opinions have been formed by working as a professional wheel-greaser for one specific industry. That is, of course, the most insidious danger to a good government - people of good faith who are overwhelmingly biased in favor of economic elite interests (which is why a randomly selected Senate, like juries, might be interesting). Since having jobs like his look like a positive mark for government jobs, and corporations tend to hire people who like corporations or are willing to become sympathetic, it's a tough, systemic problem.

Re:The revolving door continues to spin

[stephanruby]

adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

Seriously?

Of course, her quote is serious. Apparently, she's even able to predict the future (you do not want to mess with such a person, I can tell you that much).

The story hasn't even appeared in the Wall Street Journal yet, so it isn't even public knowledge yet. And yet, she seems to know all about what the Wall Street Journal is about to print before it prints it.

April 30, 2013
The Wall Street Journal and other sources are reporting that the President will nominate Tom Wheeler, Managing Director of Core Capital Partners, to replace outgoing Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Perhaps her blog should just be renamed InsiderKnowledge.org instead, or ControllingTheNarrative.com. It's a well known PR techniques to try to control the narrative of a story before the news in question is actually given out to anyone else. This way, the breadcrumbs they lay out for others to find can be gobbled up by the journalists on tight deadlines who are eager to find relevant quotes for their articles.

Re:The revolving door continues to spin

[TheLongshot]

You know that Public Knowledge are the good guys, right? They are the guys fighting for consumer rights. How do they know about this? They work in Washington. Such news gets around quickly, particularly when news organizations are going to ask around for quotes.

I have a friend of mine who works for them. If they say that they can work with this guy to fight for our rights, I tend to believe them.

wolf in sheep skin shoes

[zlives]

in other news Dr. Kevorkian to head Department of Health and Human Services

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

Death won't stop him from voting, why should it stop him from holding office?

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[operagost]

We STILL have a tax cheat as Secretary of the Treasury. If that wasn't the case, your joke would be a lot funnier.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[operagost]

Wait, excuse me-- I'm an idiot. I forgot Jack Lew replaced him. Well, it only took four years.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[interkin3tic]

How would that be bad? He gave his patients what they wanted. People trying to force their religious beliefs on everyone else, with their strange notions of your life not being yours to end when you feel like it, that's not who I would want in charge of health services.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[at_slashdot]

What is wrong with Dr. Kevorkian, let's hope you won't get into the situation to beg doctors to end your life...

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Yakasha]

in other news Dr. Kevorkian to head Department of Health and Human Services

Humor aside,
Dr. Kevorkian's belief in a person's ultimate control over their own lives & bodies from birth until death, regardless of the wishes or views of any other person on this planet, makes him the perfect candidate for such a position.

Suicide, abortion, plastic surgery, drug use... none of that going on in my body due to my own decisions is any of your fucking business.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[I'm New Around Here]

"Suicide, abortion, plastic surgery, drug use... none of that going on in my body due to my own decisions is any of your fucking business."

I'd let you have that, if you agreed the government should have no financial obligation over any of it either. Once you ask for my tax money, you have decided to make it my business.

So, go do drugs, I honestly don't care, and believe you have that right. But you are not getting a dime from me without pissing in a cup.

Get a cheap lipo job, or implants, or whatever. If you die from complications, I won't bother investigating the doctor's methods or sanitation.

Is that fair in your view?

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

So, go do drugs, I honestly don't care, and believe you have that right. But you are not getting a dime from me without pissing in a cup.

So go eat tasty food, I honestly don't care, and believe you have that right. But you aren't getting a dime from me if you have a BMI over 24%.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[I'm New Around Here]

Jah-Wren, you're finally saying things that make sense. I'm glad you saw the light, and I welcome you to the land of personal freedom.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Haha, I guess I am a victim of Poe's Law.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[jedidiah]

Forget PCP.

Let's talk about prescription drugs that are 90% subsidized and trigger a cascade of side effects that mean you need to pop 5 or 6 of them regularly while they do who knows what to your insides.

"Just say No" isn't just for the drugs that the establishment likes to demonize.

Widespread and perfectly respectable middle class drug abuse is probably older than you are.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[I'm New Around Here]

What?? I totally thought you were serious. :^P

Seriously though, admit it that it felt right when you typed that line. I won't tell anyone, honest.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[WGFCrafty]

in other news Dr. Kevorkian to head Department of Health and Human Services

I wonder at the characterization of Dr. Kevorkian. He was an empathetic man, who's belief correctly compelled him to help relieve suffering for people with terminal illness. One day we will all see the bravery in going to jail for what he believed, and he will ultimately be judged as a man who stood tall and delivered people from the sentence of abject misery - an angel of mercy rather than death.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[cheekyjohnson]

Once you ask for my tax money, you have decided to make it my business.

I'll gladly pay some extra money in taxes if it would keep control freaks out of people's business to some extent.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Anonymous Coward]

I find the biggest if ironies is that most of those who oppose assisted suicide would consider euthanizing a pet that was suffering over an expensive surgery unlikely to help.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It felt right in that libertarian black-and-white only worked for me in my teens and 20s. Since then I've come to realize there are a lot more shades of grey.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[I'm New Around Here]

It felt right in that libertarian black-and-white only worked for me in my teens and 20s. Since then I've come to realize there are a lot more shades of grey.

Yeah, I agree. More or less, anyway. I've said in other threads, I vote for candidates, not parties, and principal is more important than ideology. Although I like the Libertarian concept, I haven't voted for one yet, for various reasons. Maybe if they didn't come across as whiny tax-dodgers, as someone once called them.

And now, re-reading Yakasha's original post above of "You can't tell me what to do!", I can't tell if it is a more strictly libertarian or liberal rant. I'll have to read some of his other comments to get the context.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[I'm New Around Here]

Sorry you experienced complete failure of reading comprehension. I never stated I follow the Libertarian cause, and have said why above.

The comment I replied to was bounded by "none of that going on in my body due to my own decisions is any of your fucking business."

Why you think public roads comes into that equation is a mystery.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Yakasha]

You'd better qualify that one, buddy boy, because your drug use becomes all of our business when you go on a PCP-induced homicidal rampage or when we end up taking care of your useless, inert body due to how addled your brain has become from years of substance abuse.

Not going to qualify shit. My body. My life. My choices. End of discussion. If some people want to use drugs stupidly and do stupid things, they'll be punished for those stupid things. Those stupid people should not and cannot dictate what *I* do with *my* body.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Yakasha]

"Suicide, abortion, plastic surgery, drug use... none of that going on in my body due to my own decisions is any of your fucking business."

I'd let you have that, if you agreed the government should have no financial obligation over any of it either. Once you ask for my tax money, you have decided to make it my business.

So, go do drugs, I honestly don't care, and believe you have that right. But you are not getting a dime from me without pissing in a cup.

Get a cheap lipo job, or implants, or whatever. If you die from complications, I won't bother investigating the doctor's methods or sanitation.

Is that fair in your view?

As long as you're including prescription drugs, homeopathic remedies, alcohol, cigarettes, sky diving, driving, chiropractic care, pregnancy, religion, and absolutely every other personal choice that includes personal risk that I don't like as well, sure, sounds fair. If you're only including the choices that YOU disagree with, then no, it is quite obviously not fair.

There are far more self-harming personal choices that are covered by "your taxes" than drug use. Many of which *you* enjoy. Any choice you make carries some risk of harm. Choosing one option at random just because you yourself don't choose it, calling it evil, and excluding it from benefiting from "your" taxes (I pay sales tax on my pot, btw, and pay more income tax than most people make in a year as well), is something only bigots and tyrants do.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Yakasha]

I can't tell if it is a more strictly libertarian or liberal rant. I'll have to read some of his other comments to get the context.

You won't get much context from my other posts. Most are jokes. Of the rest, many are just opposing seemingly stupid comments.

Neither of those labels works for me. Perhaps "enlightened libertarian", but that sounds pretentious. Personal freedom should be, imo, the #1 priority of the government. It is why we have a government. I know people will make bad choices if given freedom. You can't ever stop that. But as Franklin said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". I'd have a 3-way with him and Mencken... and I'm not even slightly gay.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[Yakasha]

Is that fair in your view?

As long you apply in totality - so that would include all those libertarians screaming for no interference get exactly what they ask for - no interference (or 'help') from police, or fire rescue, or ambulances/ER. Not allowed to use public roads, pavements or other structures etc.

Basically what you're suggesting is that we just don't have public infrastructure anymore - or that we do have public infrastructure but that we accept massive infringments of our privacy on order to get it?

Is that still fair for you? Or were you just looking for a crappy excuse to rant?

You're confused twice. First you raged on somebody for what you thought were my beliefs. Second, you're confusing libertarian with anarchist. There is a difference between "minimal", and "no" interference. Get it?

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[I'm New Around Here]

I agree with this, more or less. As long your arguments are consistent on 'personal choice' issues, you have my support.

Re:wolf in sheep skin shoes

[DiEx-15]

in other news Dr. Kevorkian to head Department of Health and Human Services

The real news of that headline would be the fact Dr. Kevorkian managed to come back from the dead.

Third parties

[betterunixthanunix]

You must not have been paying attention. There were many third party candidates who were not on the corporate payroll.

Re:Third parties

[i kan reed]

The most viable third party, the libertarians, really really really are pro-corporate in their actual published platform. The lack of money in that regard seems to just be and artifact of their lack of electoral potential.

Re:Third parties

[claytongulick]

This is a common misunderstanding/misperception. The Libertarians vehemently oppose corporate welfare and public/private partnerships. What you're calling "pro-corporate" is really not true - they believe that in general, the market should be left alone, regulation minimized and clear separation between companies and government should exist. They are deeply suspicious of things like the military-industrial complex.

The Libertarians believe that a person has a right to the fruit of their own labors, and that people should be free from burdensome regulation and oppressive government manipulation of markets. This is not "pro corporate" this is "pro human". They also believe that just as a person should be free to succeed, they should be free to fail. The libertarians are passionately opposed to "bail outs" and "stimulus" government corporate welfare programs.

Any Libertarian who tried to pull the sort of shenanigans that we're seeing here would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail by his/her own party.

Re:Third parties

[jcr]

the libertarians, really really really are pro-corporate in their actual published platform.

Nope. Libertarians are pro-market. The Ruling Party is pro-corporations, and does all it can to help their cronies exclude competition.

-jcr

Re:Third parties

[MaskedSlacker]

Is it hard to talk while fellating that straw man?

Re:Third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

What facts?

No Libertarian has ever had power in any national arena. Therefore, there are no, and can be no, facts of the kind you imagine.

Re:Third parties

[JDAustin]

If you want to be modded up, you should always remind slashdotters about the libertarian stance on drugs...

Re:Third parties

[frank_adrian314159]

Any Libertarian who tried to pull the sort of shenanigans that we're seeing here would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail by his/her own party.

And then the Libertarian would rebrand himself a Republican and run as that.

Plus, it wouldn't matter anyway - after killing off regulations, the large corporations would have an even larger stranglehold on the marketplace, as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.

Re:Third parties

[Arker]

Believing each individual has an inalienable right to the fruit of their own labour does not equal believing that capitalists have the right to the lions share of the fruits of others' labour. The difference should be obvious to anyone that can read English.

Re:Third parties

[BorisSkratchunkov]

Spoken like a true Scotsman amidst many imitators.

Re:Third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

In practice, "Libertarians" in government act exactly as you demonize here. They're all corporate whores that protect their pork and business ties, with perhaps a handful of exceptions.

It's nothing more than a schtick to keep fiscal conservatives from jumping ship from the Republican party. So far, it seems to be working.

And they wonder why nobody takes them seriously.

Re:Third parties

[BorisSkratchunkov]

Although if you really do believe in ending the shitshow that is the military-industrial complex as it is today, you have my support.

Re:Third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it "pro human" to let someone die of an easily-treatable health condition just because they previously depleted their savings and can't work while disabled?

Re:Third parties

[Yakasha]

as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.

You're confusing "minimal" with "no" regulation. Very different words.

Re:Third parties

[Archangel Michael]

But that doesn't fit the Leftwing view that anything different from their limited view is 100% wrong, therefore deserves to be mocked and exaggerated.

I've started parroting their techniques back at them. They make exaggerated claims about things they don't understand, I make exaggerated claims about what they believe. "All Liberals believe government should tell people how much they should make, and should pick the winners and losers through the body politic. And government should punish the successful and reward failue. Fair share is 'code' for punish the rich."

You can see hints of this in the GP post "The Libertarians' believe that capitalists have a right to the lion's share of the fruit of others' labours." Punish the wealthy, because they stole it all from the poor. If they only realized how ridiculous their view actually comes across. They make Sarah Palin look like a genius. (another technique, equate them with being more stupid than those they mock)

Re:Third parties

[Intropy]

No true Scotsman is a form of begging the question where a person redefines his terms to mean the thing he needs it to mean to exclude counterexample to his claim. That doesn't mean that any time someone points that a term excludes a given example they are committing that fallacy. In particular GP pointed out that the general characteristics of libertarian thought are counter to GGP's claims. That's not fallacious. Further, when discussing large heterogeneous groups like political parties you should expect that many pertinent claims will not be universal and instead be only a significant majority.

Re:Third parties

[Archangel Michael]

I am a libertarian and I don't support the military, industrial, media complex. I support proper accountability for corporations by holding their senior officers and corporate boards personally liable for corporate sponsored crimes. Additionally, I support being able to pull ill gotten gains from private trusts as well. Change the laws so that those running these non-person entities are held responsible for corporate sponsored crimes, and you'll see a change in corporate culture. You don't have to destroy corporations to keep them accountable, you just have to change who is accountable for when corporations do illegal acts. Right now, nobody is accountable.

Re:Third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

Large corporations know the regulations and like them. They SAY that don't, but they use the regulations to run Smaller corporation our of the marketplace. Without many of the regulations, they would have to waste money buying up the small guys to keep their marketshare.

Re:Third parties

[flayzernax]

I think libertarian ideals are far to under-represented to make such sweeping generalizations. But the argument stems from without regulation corporations would rape us. It doesn't matter as it stands now the corporations are raping us all through regulation.

Now the FCC has had some positive effects and I cannot sit here and throw rotten tomatoes at their past actions. But reading the summary makes me think we just got shat on one more time. The cable and cellular industry does not inspire non-biased for the people (proles) warm fuzzies in my heart.

Again I do not know the person nominated or his policies, I have not done any research or heard anything particularly ill over main stream media or throughout the "other media" about this individual. So here I am browsing through comments looking for a reason I should support this or possibly not and chalk it up to a for sure were fucked again bit of news.

Re:Third parties

[Anonymous Coward]

the libertarians, really really really are pro-corporate in their actual published platform. Nope. Libertarians are pro-market. The Ruling Party is pro-corporations, and does all it can to help their cronies exclude competition. -jcr

You really need to make a distinction as most Libertarians are not pro-market and are anti-capitalists. This is why your bastardization of "Libertarianism" is seen as pro-corporate because you believe that corporations have the right to property. You fail to see that corporations no longer need to pay for political influence, but can simply threaten and strong arm an entire state or region. This is what free-market capitalism gives you. That is why your stance is seen as pro-corporate; you believe strongly in wage-slavery and place corporate interest above human freedom.

Re:Third parties

[ClioCJS]

Where do you get this bullshit you spout? I've bee following lib politics for 20 years and this is the first time anybody's made the ridiculous claims you've been making. Either your head is so far up your ass it's come back out and gone back into your ass a second time, or the people you talk to have had that happen to them.

Re:Third parties

[ClioCJS]

....such as?

Re:Third parties

[I'm New Around Here]

Oh my god, that sounds like a helluva lot of fun.

Have you made anyone's head explode yet?

Re:Third parties

[CrimsonAvenger]

after killing off regulations, the large corporations would have an even larger stranglehold on the marketplace, as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc.

Corporations are creations of the government, giving limited legal liabilities to large companies.

The so-called "libertarian paradise" would NOT include corporations, and so no limited legal liability for the officers/owners of those large companies.

Which would mean that most of them would dissolve and the rest would be moderately paralyzed by fear of lawsuits.

Note that a lawsuit against Ballmer would be a lot more likely to induce reasonable behaviour than a lawsuit against Microsoft - it's a lot more...personal...when it's YOUR money and potential jailtime, as opposed to a legal fiction's money....

Re:Third parties

[I'm New Around Here]

That's why last fall I voted for the candidate who was arrested for daring to force the "presidential debate" to actually have the national presidential candidates.

Of course she couldn't win, and most of her policies are horrible ideas that I would oppose. But her chances and my political leanings are not the most important considerations I had to go by.

Re:Third parties

[gman003]

Yet.

Re:Third parties

[Arker]

The thing is, while your techniques should be good for entertainment, they arent going to work to get these people on our side. And (some of) them should be, and we need them desperately. A lot of people on the left, I have found, are coming from a deeply libertarian place. They simply dont have the most basic grasp of economics, and have absorbed the long-obsolete labour theory of value subconsciously. To be brought on board, they have to first have their conscious attention brought to how much of their world view does indeed rest on this theory, then shown why this theory doesnt work, and finally given a decent grasp of the alternative. Economics in one lesson is the best tool for this I have found, but unfortunately it's still long enough some people wont read it.

Mocking them may make you feel better for a few minutes but in the end it does our nation no good.

Re:Third parties

[flayzernax]

It goes for understanding that things are never usually black and white, libertarian or not. So what party do you recommend following? Ron wouldn't have destroyed everything we've worked for. The picture you you paint is one of extremism untempered by a working republic. Which is what were heading towards, just in a socialist fascist sense instead of a libertarian form.

Re:Third parties

[khallow]

yet the Republicans are goose-steppers par excellence

Just about everyone in government is - no matter the party.

now glaring irrationalist white Christian male identity

I guess small-minded bigotry is ok, if it's the right sort of small-minded bigotry.

Re:Third parties

[khallow]

Then you look at the facts...

No, all I see it a baseless insinuation.

Re:Third parties

[khallow]

"Pro-corporate" compared to what? The developed world isn't in its current mess due to any sort of libertarian policy.

Re:Third parties

[claytongulick]

The wonderful thing about a free society is that no one works by force (unlike statist governements).

If a consenting adult chooses to engage in a mutually beneficial contract and sell his time and service to another for an agreed upon compensation, that hardly fits your example of "capitalists have the right to the lions share of the fruits of others' labor".

The fact that a voluntary system of rewards, employment, creation, production and business opportunity is a superior system to leftist/statist "work for the common good" scheme should be obvious to anyone that can read English - because those that can read English should have read Animal Farm at some point.

Re:Third parties

[SolitaryMan]

OK. How do you define or find "minimum" then?

Pretty sure different people will define that differently, so no point in using that word at all.

Re:Third parties

[Arker]

First libertarians havent 'chosen' the Republican party - it was the only one where we appeared to have a chance last election. Historically since 1970 we have had caucuses in both Republicratic parties and a third party as well. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich worked well together on several issues. We are ultimately working for the Republic not for a party.

Second, the "deregulated capitalism" you talk about has nothing whatsoever to do with libertarianism, nothing. It's corporate capitalism, crony capitialism, or just plain corruption.

Thirdly, I dont know how you expect libertarianism to protect the environment without being in power. You appear to be unaware that libertarians advocate a return to strict liability in regards to pollution, a much more strict level of environmental protection than either major party would even consider implementing.

Fourthly, where on earth do you get the idea that multinational corporations would even exist under a libertarian regime? Really?

Fifthly and finally, how old are you, and why do you bring that into the discussion? Is it your intention to plead excessive age or youth as an excuse for a post that fired shots off in all directions without hitting a single target?

Re:Third parties

[SolitaryMan]

The market is always controlled by ruling elite, be it government, corporations or whatever.

But yeah, you can't take politics out of the market, because market *is* politics. Economics is just the tool for the ruling elite to push their agenda. Again, whatever that elite is.

Re:Third parties

[amiga3D]

This is why Libertarians are hated so much by both sides. The corps run both the R's and D's and use social issues to divide the population into these two camps. Divide and conquer works today as it always has. Blacks against Whites, Gay against Straight, Religious versus Atheists, etc. You'll notice shit like the patriot act gets full bipartisan support though. When will people wake up? I think only when they get hungry. As long as the bread and circus acts keep going it will never change.

Re:Third parties

[amiga3D]

You fail to see that corporations use government regulations to control the market to their exclusive benefit and kill any competition. There is no free market capitalism and has not been for decades.

Re:Third parties

[amiga3D]

A lie doesn't care who tells it. I must say you tell it well but it's still a lie. The market is controlled by regulations put in place by the government that the corporations payed for. They bought both Democrats and Republicans to pass their laws they wanted and then bought and payed for the executive branch that enforces them. This is the two party shaft in action.

Re:Third parties

[jd2112]

You must not have been paying attention. There were many third party candidates who were not on the corporate payroll.

I demand an end to corruption or a chance to participate!

Re:Third parties

[magamiako1]

Indeed they would.

Re:Third parties

[khallow]

I know you'll hide this as fast as you can, but every "libertarian" out there would basically set up a kingdom of corporate power.

So no facts, huh? I can't hide what doesn't exist.

Re:Third parties

[jcr]

every "libertarian" out there would basically set up a kingdom of corporate power.

Dude, we're already living in a kingdom of corporate power. The Libertarians are the party that's trying to end that.

-jcr

Re:Third parties

[jcr]

Anytime you try to tell me what I believe, you're on very thin ice.

you believe strongly in wage-slavery

Oh, please.

-jcr

Re:Third parties

[BoberFett]

Do you believe easily treatable conditions would cost as much as they do in a libertarian society with no government enforced monopolies, compared to what we have right now in a world run by drug patents and with the AMA artificially limiting the number of doctors we have?

Re:Third parties

[BoberFett]

Regulation to big corporations is like the briar patch to Brer Rabbit.

"Oh no Mr Government! Don't pass any more regulations!"

http://washingtonexaminer.com/timothy-p.-carney-mattel-exempted-from-toy-safety-law-it-helped-write/article/36618

Oh look, one of the biggest players exempted from toy safety laws that they wanted implemented. Of course, small companies need to spend a fortune to comply.

Re:Third parties

[TapeCutter]

I'm a bit of a "lefty", I see the libitarians in the same light as the flower power crowd of my youth, the libitarians and not all free love and peace but their core philosophical assumption stated in its simplest from is the same as that of a "flower child", ie: people will "play nice"if you remove the umpire. The problem of course, is that all available evidence from the last few millenia points to the opposite outcome.

Re:Third parties

[flayzernax]

It is likely that better competition would drive cost down. The argument I have heard in response to that is the market would be flooded with snake oil salesmen which would harm far more then the extreme cost of of certain medicines. I disagree with that but I felt it was worth pointing out. There are plenty of "bad drugs" on the market now.

Re:Third parties

[flayzernax]

Then again as an after thought, certain conditions do not have the demand to create a large supply. Take for example the recent discontinuation of a certain antidote for a certain spider or snake bite, I cannot remember the details, but stuff like that would be largely ignored by research or manufacturers if there was no demand.

Re:Third parties

[Arker]

You misunderstand. No one thinks people will play nice if you remove the umpire.

We think that if the umpires job is very strictly and tightly defined and if he does his own job and lets the players do theirs, then the game will work out better all around.

Re:Third parties

[saleenS281]

They also believe that corporations wouldn't pollute the water supply because it's bad for everyone to have polluted water, so we don't need the EPA. Or that companies won't create things like the mortgage bubble because bad investments are bad for the entire market - a la Alan Greenspan, so we don't need banking oversite.

Reality has shown their beliefs are absolute trash when put into practice. Greedy assholes will always be greedy assholes and they tend not to care what happens to anyone that isn't them, right at this moment.

Re:Third parties

[Weezul]

Yes, ordinary libertarians oppose oppose corporate welfare, etc., but so do most ordinary people, be they republicans, democrats, NRA members, union members, environmentalists, Keynesian economists, etc. at least most instances. In practice, an electable libertarian would support an awful lot of corporate welfare because that's how you win elections in the U.S. Ron Paul differs somewhat but he is anomalous.

The real question is what kind of campaign finance reform do they support? Will it be effective? etc.

Re:Third parties

[_anomaly_]

Like the minimal regulations of the housing and mortgage industry prior to 2010 or so?

Re:Third parties

[dywolf]

another /. who thinks he knows something about libertarians while being completely wrong.

Re:Third parties

[dywolf]

Simple: you don't define it.
That's was discussion and compromise is for.
You can't reduce everything to a single scientific factoid that will be true always and forever.
Too much regulation is as bad as too little.

The airline industry is a perfect example: heavily regulated for years, it started to stagnate and companies to struggle...then they eased a lot of the regulations...business boomed for a while...and then they eased some more...and some more...and now, due to too little regulation, from the point of view of the traveller/customer is pretty much back where they were during the too much regulation. There's only a handful of carriers left, very very little competition, and airlines are seen as some of hte worst companies in the country (topped only by Electronic Arts and cables companies).

Re:Third parties

[dywolf]

no, that's just using the tools at hand to achieve a goal.
they may not like the regulations, but that wont ever stop them from using them as an effective strategic tool to hamper competition.

Re:Third parties

[dywolf]

Troll is troll.

Re:Third parties

[dywolf]

You're an idiot.
You know nothing about anything that you speak of.
You should be fired from a cannon into a horde of rabid Justin Bieber fans...with a sign saying "Beiber Sucks"

Re:Third parties

[i kan reed]

That ignores the fact that the corporate team has developed thousands of sneaky ways to cheat that we've spent years developing rules to protect against. When you tell the ump to stop watching for that, the corporates will start winning, and the regular people will end up "accidentally" beaned in the face with the ball a few too many times.

Re:Third parties

[i kan reed]

Which makes sense, as long as you're talking about the libertarian platform as it exists in libertarian fantasy land, instead of the actual published one. Corporations will continue to exist, and be provided with laxer regulations.

Re:Third parties

[DarthVain]

"as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold."

LOL! (wipes away tear). Funniest thing I have heard all day. I think you are being overly optimistic that this isn't already your reality.

Re:Third parties

[Arker]

You're ignoring the fact that the corporate team's 'thousands of sneaky ways' boils down almost entirely to one single trick - bribe the umpire.

The more power the umpire has, the more the incentive for that game. The ideal is an umpire with no power at all - one who enforces the rules but makes no judgements and treats everyone equally. It may not be perfectly achievable at present but that's no excuse not to move in the right direction.

Re:Third parties

[Yakasha]

OK. How do you define or find "minimum" then?

Pretty sure different people will define that differently, so no point in using that word at all.

I think we can agree that "minimal" means more than "none", which is what I was disputing.

Re:Third parties

[bill_mcgonigle]

Tell me - why do you not donate to one of the charities that helps these people? (who, of course, deserve help as our brothers)

Re:Third parties

[Archangel Michael]

Wow, Soros Propaganda straight from Huffington Post. I've seen this posted on several sites already.

See how easy it is?

Re:Third parties

[Archangel Michael]

No, the Umpire is a necessary evil, just like police, army etc. Umpires are supposed to keep the game fair by ensuring all play by the exact same rules. As it is now, we've excused certain players of certain rules, and paid off the umpires to fix the game. Nobody plays by the same rules, there is no penalty for violating the rules, so people don't play fair.

Libertarians want fair equal application of all rules. For example, this would require congress to play by the same rules they foist upon everyone else.

Re:Third parties

[i kan reed]

No they fucking don't boil down to "bribe the umpire." It includes shit like dumping chemical waste out back because "Who's going to know?" That needs to be explicitly illegal because it doesn't result in immediate, identifiable harm, but still fuck-tons of net harm. Cooking the books, ponzi schemes, company stores, racketeering, and other things that represent ways to abuse a libertarian paradise also apply. We could be here all day listing the regulations that are good ideas.

Re:Third parties

[Archangel Michael]

The problem is, rules don't protect us from bad behavior. Rules unenforced are even worse, because they make it appear that people care (pass law) when they have no intention of ever enforcing them. And from worse to awful, many rules have the complete opposite effect of their intentions, for example, the whole entire "war on drugs" thing. Once upon a time, all those drugs were legal, and addiction was rare. Now they are illegal, addiction is common and the underground economy and armies have taken over. Exactly opposite of what was intended. Make drugs legal, there will still be addiction, but you remove the taboo incitement, and the war against the populace.

Re:Third parties

[i kan reed]

See, there being bad rules is not the same as all rules being bad. We can fix the broken ones that do harm. Pretending that the free market just automatically works in everyone's best interests before doing so is crazy.

The answer to every problem isn't freedom, just many.

Re:Third parties

[Arker]

No they fucking don't boil down to "bribe the umpire." It includes shit like dumping chemical waste out back because "Who's going to know?"

And when they are found out, who protects them? The state does. The regulatory system which we oppose does. Knowing that they will be protected from harm alters their risk/benefit equation and encourages them to take the risk. Once you see the forest instead of the trees it's obvious that they do, indeed, boil down almost exclusively to variations on bribe the umpire. Get the rules changed in your favour, get them interpreted in your favour, set up a web of relationships with high officials that allow you to use the umpire as a tool against the other players. Take long-shots freely, if they hit you walk away rich, if they miss the state will cover your losses. That's not a free market, that's the furthest thing from a free market.

That needs to be explicitly illegal because it doesn't result in immediate, identifiable harm, but still fuck-tons of net harm.

There is no requirement whatsoever that harm be immediate in order for it to be actionable.

Cooking the books, ponzi schemes, company stores, racketeering, and other things that represent ways to abuse a libertarian paradise also apply.

The point is that they would not apply any more in a 'libertarian paradise' than they already do today. The only difference is that today these folks are normally able to get away scot free (occasionally a particularly egregious or simply poorly connected individual may be sacrificed to public opinion, but it's the exception not the rule) with these activities through regulatory capture and lobbying activities, while in a 'libertarian paradise' those currently socially acceptable methods of bribery would be cut off. You cant bribe regulators that dont exist. Your only option along those lines would be to bribe a judge. Which also can certainly happen, but it opens you up for some pretty good criminal sanctions at that point.

Re:Third parties

[VisceralLogic]

Is it "pro human" to let someone die of an easily-treatable health condition just because they previously depleted their savings and can't work while disabled?

What if it's a health condition that would cost $10,000 to treat? Or $100,000? Or $1,000,000? Or $10,000,000? Or $100,000,000? etc...

Re:Third parties

[Archangel Michael]

can you prove to me that you can fix bad rules every time? If a rule is bad, we should re-evaluate the whole concept, from the beginning. Making drugs illegal, did it help or hurt? I'll suggest to you it didn't help and has hurt more. But tweaking drug laws isn't going to fix the problem with bad drug laws.

Re:Third parties

[Yakasha]

OK. How do you define or find "minimum" then?

Pretty sure different people will define that differently, so no point in using that word at all.

How do you define "adequate" regulation? "Excessive"? I'm pretty sure different people will define those differently so there is no point in using those words either. :|

Re:Third parties

[Yakasha]

Like the minimal regulations of the housing and mortgage industry prior to 2010 or so?

Lol if you want to talk about failed policies, you're only talking about Democrats and Republicans as they're the only ones in power. Enjoy your examples.

Re:Third parties

[SolitaryMan]

I wasn't the one trying to define any of those words.

Re:Third parties

[Yakasha]

No, you weren't. Neither was I. You appear to just be a pedantic shit by feigning ignorance of what "minimal" means here though. Minimal regulation doesn't mean "no anti-trust laws" any more than it means "no x, y, or z laws"... unless you are one of the ones arguing against anti-trust laws in your version of minimal regulation. But since you didn't present an argument, that is not the case.

frank_adrian314159 offered a wild, ignorant, incorrect, extremist interpretation of the libertarian platform equating minimal regulation to no regulation and basically claiming all commerce would grind to a halt under the boot of a single mega-corporate monopoly squashing all competition before it starts. I don't need to precisely and clearly define minimal in a way to satisfy you or anybody else's personal definition to make the point that it is different from any of the millions of possible "no regulation" examples.

They're the Libertarian party... not Anarchist.

Re:Third parties

[Burz]

This is a common misunderstanding/misperception.

Libertarians keep having to explain their ideology because they have chosen the Republican party to express their desires, yet the Republicans are goose-steppers par excellence. And not only has there been high conformity, but the now glaring irrationalist white Christian male identity that accounts for what popularity the Republican party has left. The rest of the political spectrum now call you the Libertarian Right.

In any case, your ideology has no crediblity after 1) the overt transformation of deregulated capitalism into oligarchy (with accompanying economic meltdown, no less), and 2) failure to protect the environment in any sense beyond NIMBY-ism. Libertarians will forever deny they were providing rhetorical cover in the advancement these maladies, because absolute purity was never attained (hence, no 'free market' existed); this is really a religious faith.

The Libertarians believe that a person has a right to the fruit of their own labors...

And that an individual can only negotiate the amount of fruit *strictly* as an individual against the multitudinous corporation and business consortia. No thanks.

Any Libertarian who tried to pull the sort of shenanigans that we're seeing here would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail by his/her own party.

I gotta ask... How old are you??

Looks like the moderator could only settle on 'Overrated'... I feel honored to accept such grudging disapproval from this set.

Re:Third parties

[SolitaryMan]

No, you weren't. Neither was I. You appear to just be a pedantic shit .

Don't know why I'm even replying to this, but just to give you an (obvious) idea how far I read through you post.

Re:Third parties

[Yakasha]

No, you weren't. Neither was I. You appear to just be a pedantic shit .

Don't know why I'm even replying to this, but just to give you an (obvious) idea how far I read through you post.

If you don't want to discuss things, why even respond in the first place... unless I was right on the money. fine with me.

I believe that he will be an independent

[googleplex 1]

I want to believe.

Re:I believe that he will be an independent

[zlives]

This bridge here is yours for the low low price of 3.50

Re:I believe that he will be an independent

[chromas]

Goddammit, Loch Ness monster; I ain't gonna give you no tree fiddy!

Re:I believe that he will be an independent

[zlives]

foiled, again :)

Conflict of interest

[onyxruby]

This doesn't even pass the sniff test with regards to conflict of interest. Obama is as much of a tool of industry as W ever was, his entire populist election campaign of 2008 was one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public. Seriously, look at industry after industry and you will see Obama acting fundamentally the same. How many bankers are in jail for the collapse of the economy, etc, etc?

Re:Conflict of interest

[zlives]

hey at least the republicans will filibuster this

Re:Conflict of interest

[Krojack]

Every President that gets elected to a second term stop giving a shit. It's the home stretch to pad their pockets and spend paradise on a beach.

Re:Conflict of interest

[symbolset]

Neil Macbride, former Business Software Alliance general counsel and vice president was appointed US Attorney shortly after President Obama's first inauguration - probably at the behest of his former boss Vice President Joe Biden. Since then he has been a tireless bulldog as the US Government's enforcement arm of the MPAA and RIAA - notably in the case of Kim Dotcom's Megaupload in New Zealand, which is now bordering on an international incident.

Darned right it doesn't pass the sniff test.

Re:Conflict of interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if the lobbyists yank the choke chain.

"Down, boy. He's one of us. Get down. Shut up. Sit. Shake. Goooood boy, here's your treat." (brown envelope stuffed with $100s)

Re:Conflict of interest

[I'm New Around Here]

White chicks don't really need to tan on the beach either.

I prefer the fish-belly white look, myself.

Re:Conflict of interest

[readingaccount]

But hey, at least he makes people laugh at his witty jokes written by his staffers!

Re:Conflict of interest

[WGFCrafty]

You would probably stick up your nose at Alexander Graham Bell if he was nominated - as an industry insider. See the guy's blog about SOPA and other stuff of importance on the wayback machine. Not only is he eloquent, he is supporting the right side.

Re:Conflict of interest

[WGFCrafty]

Really? Every one? Must have missed FDRs slacking the second time round cause he got a third.

Re:Conflict of interest

[VortexCortex]

White chicks don't really need to tan on the beach either.

I prefer the fish-belly white look, myself.

Sashimi is okay, but I wouldn't make a habit of it -- it's unsanitary. I prefer mine slow cooked over decades in a global warming convection oven. The tricky part is convincing them to cook themselves! Fortunately, you can get humans to do anything with enough wealth tokens... as this story proves.

Re:Conflict of interest

[VortexCortex]

Darned right it doesn't pass the sniff test.

SnnnnnooooooooOORT!
ahhhhhhh... Woo!

Maybe you're just doing the wrong kind?

Re:Conflict of interest

[symbolset]

My first impulse was to disagree, but, no. You're right. Hork. Snort. Hack. We're good. Woohoo! Wanna play Liars Dice until it kicks in?

Re:Conflict of interest

[cdrudge]

Every president since the 22nd amendment was passed at least, post FDR.

And FDR also had a 4th, but decided to slack a little too much early on during that term.

The lobbyist connection

[jonfr]

I think this needs to be investigated. Seriously. This is not normal. Now the lobbyist with power can now do what he was unable to do when he was powerless (but just placing bribes) lobbyist.

Some shit is going to happen following this and it is going to be bad.

Re:The lobbyist connection

[mcl630]

Not normal? Industry insiders being appointed to gov't positions that regulate said industry? That's unfortuately very normal. The Treasury Department is full of ex-Goldman Sachs people, the Department of Justice is full of ex-RIAA and MPAA lawyers, etc.

Re:The lobbyist connection

[Yakasha]

I think this needs to be investigated. Seriously. This is not normal. Now the lobbyist with power can now do what he was unable to do when he was powerless (but just placing bribes) lobbyist.

Some shit is going to happen following this and it is going to be bad.

They have already re-labeled his paychecks as "campaign contributions". What isn't normal?

This is good news

[idontgno]

I keep getting questions from people asking me to give them an example of regulatory capture. Now I have one.

More of the same...

[superdave80]

Good thing we didn't elect that mean ol' corporate guy, Romney, eh? Keep electing Democrats hoping that they will be different than Republicans, and don't you DARE 'waste' your vote on anything other than an (R) or a (D)!

Re:More of the same...

[Randle_Revar]

I voted for the the Green...much good it did, but there it is.

Re:More of the same...

[Anonymous Coward]

The more votes a third party gets, the more the Rs and Ds try to copy their policies in order to win those votes back. Better to change position on a few topics then let another party gain good media attention. The third parties see that someone cares about them and they keep on fighting for their principles. Your vote does more than you think it did.

Thank you for voting for a different party.

Re:More of the same...

[alexo]

Out of mod points, but would like to thank the AC for his synopsis.

Re:More of the same...

[alexo]

I voted for the the Green...much good it did, but there it is.

That's your problem right here. Should have voted for the Purple.

Re:More of the same...

[I'm New Around Here]

I also voted for Dr. Stein. May I ask what were the reasons you chose that candidate?

Re:More of the same...

[DoctorBit]

I'm registered Green and donate monthly to the Green party but vote Green only when the Green candidate has a good chance of winning, or when the least objectionable major party candidate doesn't need my vote. If half of voters did like this, the Green party could have a larger budget and larger registered-voter count that the major parties, eventually leading to big electoral wins, but without sacrificing any elections along the way.

Re:More of the same...

[WGFCrafty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk12ALX9fz8

Re:More of the same...

[Randle_Revar]

Ha, nice! I guessed what it was before clicking the link :-)

Re:More of the same...

[Randle_Revar]

The environment, especially global warming, are really my top priorities right now. If we continue as we have, in a few decades to a century we will likely be looking at a situation where the current economic troubles look like good times. Aside from that basic premise, the Greens tend towards the socialist side of things, which I happen to agree with most of the time. As far as Dr Stein specifically, checking into things starting with the "I Side With" website, I agreed with her stated policy positions rather more than with Obama's, and much more than with others. I have voted for Greens before (local and national), and even been registered at times.

On the flip side, Obama has broken too many important promises, and generally has had pattern of behavior surprisingly (well, maybe it shouldn't be) like Bush and others I strongly disagree with. Drone strikes, Gitmo, privacy issues, general executive power grabs or holding on to Bush era ones...

mmmm

[HPHatecraft]

Wheeler is a former president of the F.F.R.H.H. (Foxes For the Raiding of Hen Houses) Assn. Despite his close ties to industries he will soon regulate, some media watchdogs are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. "As someone who has known Tom for years, I believe that he will be an independent, proactive chairman," said Gigi B. Sohn, president and chief executive of Public Knowledge, adding that she has "no doubt that Tom will have an open door and an open mind, and that ultimately his decisions will be based on what he genuinely believes is best for the public interest, not any particular industry."

Re:mmmm

[preaction]

I vote to put a bell on him! Who's with me?!

C&W?

[Nethead]

Where does it say that Wheeler worked for Cable & Wireless? Gotta watch those titles.

Shouldn't this be posted under humor?

[solosaint]

Shouldn't this be posted under humor? #justsayin

Democracy

[mvar]

By the people, for the people in other news, corporations rule the western world

The end of Google Fiber?

[symbolset]

No doubt he can be counted upon to be reasonable with this startup that's challenging his former employers.

Getting real tired of your sh*t Obama

[sl4shd0rk]

First we have the SOPA loveboat heading up NSF funding, and now Cable lobbyists in charge of the FCC? Whats next, putting Prenda lawyers in charge of the US Patent Office?

Re:Getting real tired of your sh*t Obama

[Randle_Revar]

I am sure Salt Marsh would be a great public servant

Sigh.

[eddy]

Oh, Obama. You're no President Bartlet, that's for sure.

Re:Sigh.

[cffrost]

Oh, Obama. You're no President Bartlet, that's for sure.

Pear-shaped national policy's gotta count for something.

This is nothing new

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite the promises made by President Obama, there are plenty of lobbyists with jobs in government, hired on his watch. What's one more? What difference does it make?

http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-the-lobbyists-inside-the-obamas-administration?op=1

Thanks for nothing, yet again

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time Obama does something corrupt like this, I regret voting for him.

Conversely I don't know why Republicans hate him; Obama is just as corrupt as Bush ever was. You'd think they'd love the idea that a true business criminal like Obama got into office under the "guise" of a Democrat.

I wonder how many more inappropriate and irresponsible nominations we'll see during the rest of his term. Maybe he'll put a Monsanto shill in charge of the FDA, or an Exxon executive in charge of the EPA. Let's just let big business and the billionaires regulate everything. It certainly worked out terribly for Texas.

Every party sucks. Democarts are corrupt potheads, Libertarians are unrealistic potheads, Republicans are business crooks. Frustrating as hell when there's no normal people left to vote for.

Re:Thanks for nothing, yet again

[kwbauer]

Hardly. He is pushing way too much crap to be considered a conservative. I think you are seeing his similarity to John McCain but forgetting that McCain is a progressive (by his own words).

Re:Thanks for nothing, yet again

[Rideak]

Cognitive Dissonance. People don't mind it as much when it's "their guy" doing it, or they simply ignore it and put it out of mind.

Regulatory Capture

[englishknnigits]

Regulatory capture in action, news at 11.

This is to help combat global warming

[erroneus]

The fast that revolving door spins, the more circulation of air we get. Okay, so maybe that'll just make the ice caps melt faster, but I'm sure their hearts are in the right place.

Well, technically....

[goldspider]

"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years."

If he hasn't been a lobbyist within the past two years, I suppose we ought to give him a pass. Right?

Re:Well, technically....

[WGFCrafty]

I think the problem is if you're not a politician, you're a lobbyist or work at a think tank. If that said for life, instead of two years, then the people you hire have no idea what to do in that area. The statement you quoted is not about merely lobbyist. It is more far reaching. People who worked in the pharmaceutical industry, but were never.lobbyist, still have the same prohibition.

I'm not sure what you're whining about, surely some restriction is better than the former "hire whomever you please."

This is nothing new

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

Remember Merdith Attwell Baker? She approved the NBC/COMCAST merger. Then she started working for NBC right after The way the US government stands now is that politicians get elected by gathering the most money through campaign contributions. They then do everything in their power to help those who gave them money. Some people say the corporations interest is the people. But most know this isn't always true.

Re:Wow...

[kwbauer]

Probably but it isn't conflicting with any of his interests so why should he care?

Bring back Teddy

[Spy Handler]

The only time that is not true is when enough people oppose the money.

Or when you have an honest man for a president who truly does place the public good above his own greed. The only two examples I can think of offhand are George Washington and Teddy Roosevelt.

Obama is just as corrupt as Bush, he is a team player.

Re:Bring back Teddy

[amiga3D]

I don't believe anyone genuinely believes President Washington was perfect. It is just that the modern examples we have make him seem so.

Re:Bring back Teddy

[amiga3D]

Hogwash. President Bush was part of the power elite. He is responsible for his actions as is President Obama. I can not say that the current administration is worse than the former although they seem to be making a special effort.

Re:Bring back Teddy

[Anonymous Coward]

So reality is Obama betrayed everything he stood for as well as his own heritage and his wife's family heritage, making him far, far worse than the Bush.

If you understood Obama's heritage, you'd understand that he is actually remaining very true to it in everything he does. If you don't understand his heritage, the movie "2016" is a good starting point. Go watch that movie, then fact check every claim it makes. Maybe then you'll understand where Obama is coming from, and where he is going to (while dragging the rest of the country with him).

Re:Bring back Teddy

[sconeu]

I enjoy reading Revolutionary War history, and apparently, he was held in incredibly high esteem by his contemporaries. He may not have been perfect, but he was certainly principled, and took his *CONSTITUTIONAL* responsibilities seriously.

Re:Bring back Teddy

[ElectricTurtle]

He made mistakes in his youth. Everybody does. His selflessness was damn clear in the way he conducted himself commanding the Continental Army. Throughout the early years of the war he was undersupplied and outgunned, suffered defeat after defeat, wintered in brutal conditions, and yet stood firm with his men through every grueling trial year after year at the constant risk of his own life. It was this record that enabled him to bring the entire Newburgh Conspiracy to an end with one sentence and move an entire room full of bitter military veterans to tears.

He was as human as any, but his near-saint status is not unearned, and those would claim it was are likely oblivious to what he really did with his life.

Re:Bring back Teddy

[znrt]

i doubt any president has more real power than any mcdonalds employee, so it wouldn't make much difference if they actually were honest ...

but the idea of an honest man makin it all the way up through it's political career, not to mention a presidential race, is a funny one! would be first time in history, i guess.

Re:Bring back Teddy

[dwye]

Herbert Hoover served for $1 per year. Of course, if you blame him for the Great Depression, he was probably overpaid, but...
JFK supposedly gave all his salary to charity (of course, with his money, the salary was relatively chump change).
I also doubt that Buchanan got much out of his support for slavery, living in a Free state.

Not greedy does not mean that they agree with you.

Don't worry

[gmuslera]

There is nothing you can do about it anyway. So enjoy the trip.

Oh come on

[symbolset]

He did raise half a million dollars for the President's reelection campaign. You need a million to be made ambassador. For lower tiers there has to be a bone somewhere in the executive branch to throw your boosters and the Justice Department is already full of Hollywood lackeys, so the FCC is the natural next spot for the meatpuppet of our copyright maximalist entertainment industry overlords.

Re:So, Obama voters...

[ClioCJS]

...Because it's true.

All is not lost

[symbolset]

Part of the vetting process for this means taking down your blog. Fortunately the Wayback Machine is our friend. I haven't read the whole blog yet, but this article about SOPA seems to indicate Mr. Wheeler might not be entirely clueless.

Hat tip to Slate's Emma Roller, who found it.

Re:All is not lost

[flayzernax]

Awesome link =) He seems to indeed have a brain.

Re:All is not lost

[WGFCrafty]

I was a part of the battle for network change in the 1970's. It was a long and bloody uphill battle that ultimately prevailed. Watching the Netroots organizing around SOPA, I could only stand in awe - if only such a capability for the people to speak out had existed in the 1970s! My sense, however, is that there was a lot more to the SOPA action than SOPA itself. Centrally structured and controlled political grassroots have become distributed and open Netroots. The results echo the reaction of the 1838 congressman to seeing his first electronic network. Things will never be the same again.

He seems well informed, and he's on the right side of the debate. Despite the cynics, it could be far worse. I could see Republicans (hell even the "liberal" Obama) privatizing the FCC to News Corp or the like.

Re:All is not lost

[symbolset]

The Internet Archive slashdotted. Now that is funny stuff right there.

Fucking hell...

[FuzzNugget]

Privately run prisons, rubber stamping patent office, one-sided antagonistic copyright, violent take downs of non-violent civil offenders who pissed off corporations, multi-million dollar salaried revolving door jobs for politicians who fucked the public in the ass to do their corporate buddies a favor, hiring former corporate cronies as regulators so they can continue doing corporate favors... Why don't we just save ourselves the trouble by dropping the pretenses and officially handing all government duties to private corporations?

With one difference...

[Burz]

Obama is not a war monger like 'W'. He is more like Bush Sr.

With that said, I reject the "wasted vote" doctrine of bipartisan purity as you do. Esp. if one lives in a state that is comfortably R or D, there is no excuse to not make your conscience felt at the polls.

Re:With one difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

>Obama is not a war monger
BWAHAHAHAHA

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/04/11/obama-is-lying-through-his-teeth-about-the-drone-war/
etc etc

Re:With one difference...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about.. the Obama administration (Obama/Biden) authorized more missile/drone strikes than the past 4 presidents before him combined, in his first term of office. His policy is on record of approving such methods domestically... I don't know what cloud you are living in, but it certainly isn't the real world.

Re:With one difference...

[Legion303]

"Esp. if one lives in a state that is comfortably R or D, there is no excuse to not make your conscience felt at the polls."

There's no excuse regardless of whether that state leans far to one side or another. Many of those republicans are holding their noses and voting for their party just like many of the democrats are. If every one of them voted their conscience, those heavily-leaning states would shift toward other parties pretty fast.

Re:With one difference...

[drinkypoo]

Obama is not a war monger like 'W'. He is more like Bush Sr.

What, precisely, makes you think that CIA Death Squad manager George Herbert Walker Bush is not a war monger?

Re:So, Obama voters...

[flayzernax]

The universal health-care is overwhelmingly in favor of health care corporations and not nearly as much in favor of actually providing a really good social health care system for everyone to participate in equally. Meanwhile the ultra-rich can still pay for the best private medicine known to man.

Re:So, Obama voters...

[Obfuscant]

Meanwhile the ultra-rich can still pay for the best private medicine known to man.

The ultra-rich will always be able to pay for the best private medicine known to man. They do this in the USA, they do this in Canada, and they even do it in Great Britain. They will always be able to buy better cars than you, bigger boats, and bigger airplanes. What's your point, that all of that stuff should be free?

What if there were no anti-trust laws?

[steveha]

after killing off regulations, the large corporations would have an even larger stranglehold on the marketplace, as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.

This sounds scary, but the reality is that a burdensome regulatory system favors large entrenched companies over start-ups. Back when Microsoft was smaller, they didn't like government, but these days they have a ton of lobbyists in D.C. just like every other major company.

Do you remember the days when IBM was "the evil empire" and ruled computing with an iron fist? Tell me, which anti-trust law was used to take them down? Oh wait, that didn't happen. IBM fought the anti-trust courts to a stand-still until the Reagan administration just gave up on it, and then the rapid evolution of desktop computers took away IBM's monopoly position. Whatever you think of Microsoft and IBM now, back then Microsoft did us all a service by helping yank the rug out from under IBM. (Microsoft now lives in fear that mobile computing and/or browser-based apps will do to Windows what Windows did to IBM mainframes.)

Market forces can allow a nimble start-up to take market away from an entrenched monopoly. But if that monopoly is cemented in place by laws, it's basically impossible for the start-ups to even get off the ground. Imagine if IBM had been able to get a law passed that payrolls could only be computed on a computer "certified" by a government agency, and the certification was a morass of red tape and fees. IBM would have just tasked a few of their full-time lawyers to navigating the red tape, would have coughed up a few fees they could easily afford, and would have relaxed knowing that no little uncertified desktop computers could undercut their monopoly.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/10/19/lift-the-regulatory-burden-on-small-businesses

And I'm not convinced that anti-trust laws are well-written or completely beneficial to the economy.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-against-antitrust

Re:What if there were no anti-trust laws?

[flayzernax]

IBM is still a very large part of the evil empire ;p

Re:What if there were no anti-trust laws?

[flayzernax]

Perhaps. If you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_IBM and look at the time line you will see:

2007: Patent power
        IBM has been granted more US patents than any other company. From 1993 to 2007, IBM was awarded over 38,000 US patents and has invested about $5 billion a year in research, development and engineering since 1996. IBM's current active portfolio is about 26,000 patents in the US and over 40,000 patents worldwide is a direct result of that investment.[238]
2008: IBM Roadrunner No.1 Supercomputer
        For a record-setting ninth consecutive time, IBM takes the No.1 spot in the ranking of the world's most powerful supercomputers. The IBM computer built for the Roadrunner project at Los Alamos National Laboratory: the first in the world to operate at speeds faster than one quadrillion calculations per second: remains the world speed champion. The Los Alamos system is twice as energy efficient as the No. 2 computer, using about half the electricity to maintain the same level of computing power.[239]

They are still major players as far as DoD or government projects go. I wager they have a lot of involvement in classified projects that I couldn't really begin to guess at. Because I have no clue about those types of things =)

So I guess it depends on your definition of evil empire ;p or whether you liked Mr Eisenhower's opinions or not. Needless to say corporations are fronts and IBM has been given a lot of power in the form of patents and contracts over the years. In IBM's defense, they did help us lead in Aerospace for a very long time and earned their place in the world.

Re:What if there were no anti-trust laws?

[flayzernax]

In other words, buying power and market influence are not the #1 measure of power in the world. It may appear to be so, but that is divided up among many corporations and institutions. Rightly so, you don't want one group to hold all of the cards.

Redhat is a small segment of a larger Linux community which is a smaller segment of a yet larger community of OS's, yet they are both very influential without owning the markets.

Two heads of the same hydra

[Beeftopia]

"No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind." -- Thomas Sowell

With that in mind: "President Obama is expected on Wednesday to nominate Tom Wheeler, a venture capital investor and fund-raiser in Mr. Obama’s presidential campaigns, as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, two administration officials said Tuesday."

Getting an agency chairmanship is probably quite an expensive proposition, but ultimately very, very good for the bank account. More expensive than an ambassadorship.

Re:So, Obama voters...

[flayzernax]

To above and below, the idea of this healthcare bill is to provide the working class with health care better or more on par with what the ultra rich get by doing it communally, socialist. Because teamwork is better then doing it by yourself. Because groups are stronger then individuals.

But I don't get why you guys are ragin so hard, you have your utopian nightmare. I'm just pointing out that its not so damn utopian as you might think.

Re:So, Obama voters...

[flayzernax]

It's called a meme generator and I would think someone with a 5k UID would be on board with that one... maybe it did not exist on Usenet so I can't help you there.

No more lobbyists and lawyers!

[kilodelta]

The FCC should be lead by technical people, not fucking attorneys. Nominate me - please. The first thing I will do is classify ALL broadband and wireless as COMMON CARRIER! It would change the telecom and data market in the United States immensely.

Why Keep an Open Mind?

[jodido]

Gigi Sohn is an... I'm afraid to say it for fear of a libel suit. Let's just say, in my humble opinion, she's at best naive.

It is time to choose your party

[Spykk]

This event is the punctuation mark on a diatribe that should have convinced you to vote third party. Voting for a Democrat or a Republican is WASTING your vote. The published views of a party are meaningless when their actions are entirely self-serving. If you don't think that your countries laws should be dictated by corporations that view you as a commodity then it is your patriotic duty to vote for someone, ANYONE, who is not beholden to one side of the corporate coin or the other.

Re:It is time to choose your party

[jasper160]

The main parties do agree to choke the life out of any other party that may take away their trough.

News like this

[th3rmite]

This is why I drink.

Re:did you notice?

[symbolset]

He was an advocate. We knew that since he is the dominant evangelist / lobbyist for the Comcast / AT&T / TimeWarner Cable / Verizon for the last quarter century. He was quite a successful advocate, and those companies became an oligopoly, which is like a monopoly - but legal. See The first honest cable company.

I'm not very hopeful that this guy can shake off his roots and do the right thing, especially knowing the soft bed that awaits after he's done his public service. But reading the words he's writ in his own name and published on the Internet for all to see, I think there is hope. It is a faint hope, but it is there - that he will be a man, step up and do the Right thing. He's at least bright and well informed about the issues. I'm not sure any alternative will give us that.

Look, I'm really an Obama fan. Constitutional scholar, Harvard law review, law professor and all that. Voted for him twice. After the whole Neil Macbride thing where a US Attorney violated not only his own jurisdiction but the sovereignty of a nation half a world away I was starting to get a little worried. I'm not a fan of his solution for medicine that escapes to infinity: I'd have cross trained the unemployed and nonviolent felons to provide care, and done away with patent medicine. I'd also not have been reelected, as the medical/insurance ecoplex has more than enough money to prevent that. He did what he could. Obama doesn't have to be reelected now, but if he wants his policies to sustain and achieve long-term goals he must support a same-party platform that can be elected to replace him. He is more trapped than anybody. That is the nature of the US presidency: you have the power to push the red button that kills all the world, but no actual control.

Re:So, Obama voters...

[Obfuscant]

To above and below, the idea of this healthcare bill is to provide the working class with health care better or more on par with what the ultra rich get by doing it communally, socialist.

Huh? "To above and below"? That's the false promise of socialism, that the poor people will get the same stuff as the rich. "The idea of this bill" is failure since the rich will always be able to afford better health care, boats, jets, cars, etc, than the poor can.

Even when the natural result of trying to hand out free health care to everyone is a scarcity of that health care. The rich will be paying for it, so there will be people who will provide. This is true even in Great Britain where socialist medicine is the norm. The ultra-rich have created a market for grey market medicine by doctors who think their services are worth something. The poor are stuck in waiting lines because there isn't enough free healthcare for everyone who wants it.

Florida swampland for sale, cheap

[Legion303]

"Despite his close ties to industries he will soon regulate, some media watchdogs are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Chumps.

One example

[moeinvt]

This is one example of why the people who believe we need more and bigger government to protect us from the evil corporations are terribly misguided. Government isn't protecting the little people from the corporations, it's doing exactly the opposite. The bigger and more powerful the government becomes, the more corrupt it becomes. The corporations use government power to further consolidate their own positions, to grant themselves more special privileges and to crush smaller competitors.
If you really want to diminish the power of corporations, cut the size of government by about 2/3. Get rid of ALL the government bailouts, handouts, subsidies, special privileges, etc. and enforce the rule of law uniformly.
Granting the government more power is practically the same as granting corporations more power.

Re:did you notice?

[dywolf]

and the cable companies back then, being the little guy that was getting trampled by the Big Boadcast Networks, were supposed to do what exactly to fight back?

Not hire lobbyists and partisans to fight for them?

If someone is shooting at me, i'm not going to refuse to use a gun to shoot back with and try gentlemanly fisticuffs instead because i dislike guns....I'm gonna get the biggest damn gun I can and blow his arse away.

In 50 years, when the 800lb gorilla Internet tries to defend itself from the next young upstart tech that threatens it, should all of us who helped fight SOPA now be discounted as evil because we helped fight for the internet when it was young and under attack? That's what your logic would imply....

Re:So, Obama voters...

[flayzernax]

I agree, but I think when people get together to create a common good without being forcibly made to act in this way groups and socialism can work on smaller scales. The premise is not bad. It works in MMO's were a group can hold a spawn and keep individuals from accessing certain content. It works when people form corporations and invest their assets mutually towards an end result etc...

Telecom lobbyist to be head of FCC

[KRondum]

Sure he will act in the best interest of the consumer. And I'm the Duke of Earl!

The freedom to own slaves

[Burz]

Or at least the freedom to be indifferent to them.

Is it your intention to plead excessive age or youth as an excuse for a post that fired shots off in all directions without hitting a single target?

You know what they say about denial.

Its no surprise that the only Libertarian politician you referenced is a Christian fundamentalist who would not object to slavery. His legacy in politics is a marriage with John Birchers that produced a seething mass of irrationalist bigotry and financial/institutional sabotage known as the Tea Party.

Now that's a fine albatross you have there around your neck.

Bullspittle

[Arker]

So if you cant make a point you accuse me (and many others) of supporting slavery? Without even making the slightest attempt to give any evidence. On the face of it the adjective 'libelous' would appear to apply.

"Its no surprise that the only Libertarian politician you referenced is a Christian fundamentalist who would not object to slavery."

Ron Paul would be the only one I referred to and your statement is absolutely and absurdly untrue. He is not a fundamentalist (I'll grant he manages to rally supporters who are, but if you listen to him or read his book he's clearly is not) first off. And slaves? Really? Is this really the closest thing to an argument you have? Because he is on the record over and over and over again throughout his life, not just denouncing slavery by rote as is required to be socially acceptable, but denouncing it to it's very core and root, with passion and conviction and based on deep principles, understanding, and yes his Christian belief in the golden rule.

If you are not flat out trolling you are so monumentally misinformed you should never open your mouth on the subject again out of shame.