Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

There Are Ajit Pai 'Verizon Puppet' Jokes That the FCC Doesn't Want You To Read (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the exchange-of-ideas dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The Federal Communications Commission is refusing to release the draft versions of jokes told by Chairman Ajit Pai at a recent dinner, claiming that releasing the drafts would "impede the candid exchange of ideas" within the commission. In December, Pai gave a speech at the annual FCC Chairman's Dinner and played a video that attempts to lampoon critics who accuse Pai of doing the bidding of Verizon, his former employer. The video was shown less than a week before the FCC voted to repeal net neutrality rules, a favorable move for the broadband industry requested by Verizon and other ISPs. The satirical skit shows Pai planning his future ascension to the FCC chairmanship with Verizon executive Kathleen Grillo in 2003, the last year Pai worked as a Verizon lawyer. The video shows Pai and the Verizon executive plotting to install a "Verizon puppet" as FCC chair. In response, Gizmodo filed a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request for "any communications records from within the chairman's office referencing the event or the Verizon executive," the news site wrote yesterday. "Nearly a dozen pages worth of emails were located, including draft versions of the video's script and various edits," Gizmodo wrote. "The agency is refusing to release them, however; it is 'reasonably foreseeable,' it said, that doing so would injure the 'quality of agency decisions.'" The FCC searched for the records in response to Gizmodo's request and "returned no communications whatsoever with Kathy Grillo," the article said.

97 comments

  1. In the interested of National Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (or Verizon, AT&T etc delete as appropriate) these will not be released any time short of a Trump election for a 3rd Term.
    In otherwords, never.

    1. Re:In the interested of National Security by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Seriously? People are so pathetic that they care about this guys draft jokes? Is there a 'get a life' tag to put on this story?

    2. Re: In the interested of National Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they aren't jokes. They are propaganda.

    3. Re: In the interested of National Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get a life

    4. Re: In the interested of National Security by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      It's not their level of patheticism; it's his.

    5. Re: In the interested of National Security by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you care about his draft jokes, then that is YOUR patheticism IMHO.

    6. Re: In the interested of National Security by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Show me on the doll where net neutrality touched you.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re: In the interested of National Security by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Get a life

      Oooooo, good comeback, dude!

    8. Re: In the interested of National Security by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      You're the one calling them "draft jokes."
      But it's "truth in humor." As in, Ajit Pai is an industry puppet, a perfect example of the industry capture of a regulatory body that Republicans love to complain about until they're the ones who benefit from it. Then Pai jokes about making the FCC an industry tool is salt on the wound. Sure, maybe people should have thicker skin, that's ALWAYS true, but when you dick people over and then LAUGH about it, it's a demonstration of pride and hubris and people in the US have always yearned for people like that to be taken down a peg or two.

      You call it 'draft jokes,' I call it telling a private audience what he really thinks, and it's pretty ugly.

    9. Re: In the interested of National Security by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      You're the one calling them "draft jokes."

      RTFA, it specifically calls them 'draft' versions. Justify it all you want, but simply giving a crap about someone's draft jokes, much less making a big deal out of it, is pathetic. You seem to be one of those just looking for stuff to be mad at. You are part of a big group who thinks likewise.

    10. Re: In the interested of National Security by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Given the actions of the ISPs and the FCC, people have a good reason to be angry. This isn't making mountains out of molehills.

    11. Re: In the interested of National Security by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Getting upset about policy is fine. Fretting over draft jokes is pathetic.

    12. Re: In the interested of National Security by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Getting upset about policy is fine. Fretting over draft jokes is pathetic.

      I don't think anyone would care about "draft jokes" if they didn't have the policy to back them up.
      When you create policies that screw people over, people get even more upset when you joke that you screwed them over. Maybe they shouldn't, but that's human nature.

    13. Re: In the interested of National Security by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you are talking about. Policy backed up by jokes? Makes no sense.

      Whatever turns you on, getting mad a draft jokes if that's your bowl of soup.

  2. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    While you youngsters are going on about this meaningless subject, your government managed to return to the days of Obama's trillion dollar deficits.

    Anyone under the age of 40 is generally fucked - you will never receive any SS or medicare unless you're poor and destitute, and probably not even then.

    1. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      I don't care, I don't have kids. I say spend it all now and let the next generation figure out their own way rather than rely on our hard work. You only live once and you take what you can get. When the country is controlled by no-holds-barred capitalists and nobody is willing to vote them out, you either play their game or perish, and I intend to outplay them at their own game because most of them appear to be idiots and if your only weapon is lack of morals, I can certainly go ahead and lose mine too.

    2. Re:Meanwhile by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The money shot: nobody is willing to vote them out

      Nothing else counts until that issue is acknowledged and addressed.

        WE are the chairman of the FCC!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Meanwhile by rotorbudd · · Score: 1

      New hashtag
      # Blank Check Republicans

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    4. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you got down-modded by capitalist pigs. Not surprising on this shit site.

    5. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Obama never had trillion dollar deficits, the deficits during his presidency were holdovers from when the Bush administration was charging things to the national credit card without including them in the budget. Exclude the spending that Obama was obligated to make because of the wars and the economy that Bush crashed and he'd be nowhere near trillions in budget dollars.

      Face it, the GOP never cared about the budget, they just get upset whenever people who aren't already massively wealthy get something from the government. The GOP hasn't had a President that left office without debt since Eisenhower. It's always the Democrats that get stuck balancing the budget and paying off the debt while the GOP throws stones and tries to blow it up as best they can.

    6. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sure a good thing you spent trillions on welfare for the rich and corporates. That'll totally make your healthcare and education systems great again! Topkek.

    7. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit trashing Obama's accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

      1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

      2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

      3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

      4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

      5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

      6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

      7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

      8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.

      9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

      10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

      11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

      12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

      13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.

      14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

      15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

      16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

      17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

      18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

      19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

      20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

      21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

      22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

      23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

      24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

      25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

      26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

      27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

      28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

      29. First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.

      30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

      31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

      32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

      33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

      34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

      35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

      36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."

    8. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's trillion dollar deficits.

      Thank God George W. Bush didn't run up any trillion dollar deficits or we'd be fucked, right? And we can all thank our lucky stars Donald Trump would never sing a bill which would add to our deficits because only Obama would do that.

      Partisan much?

    9. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot "First president to unit the racists across the country together to spread lies and distortions of the truth about him", which is odd because you're doing just that.

      Obama isn't in office, so stop trying to use his presidency to defend the GOP's attempts to impose a neo-nazi regime on the country.

    10. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation Needed

    11. Re:Meanwhile by Teun · · Score: 1

      Uhh, you (USofA) have already overspent and now you and Trump want to shift more burden onto the next generations...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    12. Re:Meanwhile by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Essentially all governments overspend. At some point this stops working and there's a currency collapse. Sometimes a major one, sometimes a minor one.

      The thing to notice is that it's the Republicans, who talk about small government, who are worst at managing the budget. Occasionally a Democrat will even manage to reduce the deficit. There are two reasons for this (that I know of and believe):
      1) The Republicans are less willing to tax the rich, so the income to the government decreases.
      2) The Republicans are more tied to those who benefit from the government owing them money. Holders of Treasury bonds, etc.

      These two reasons don't seem sufficient, so I'm rather certain that there are other causes. For one thing, the Democrats are much more willing to spend money on social projects, and yet they are the party that has repeatedly decreased the deficit. So something unobserved is going on.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Meanwhile by Plus1Entropy · · Score: 1

      Congress passes budgets, not the President. Read the Constitution.

      --
      Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
    14. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Klonopin needed

    15. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is silly. Of course the GOP cares about deficits. They always cause them to increase so they can use it as an excuse to slash social programs.

      I know that sounds like a joke, but this is actually a technique which is openly discussed amongst Republican strategists.

    16. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe "The boy who cried wolf" effect: Republicans overspend in unnecessary things (Giving money to militia buys their protection) and make most people happy for a time, then when Democrats are in charge is time to pay for it and they start crying for overspending, this makes them reduce the spending, but because most of the things they bought have a crippling rent nature (war and espionage programs, giving public businesses to some private owners for free, etc) anyone in charge still have those obligations, then when things starts to go in recuperation they get elected and start the cycle again.

      I know some people can explain it in a better way, but summering up is like if the Republicans are the guy who uses other person's credit card to give tons of gifts to his friends to be liked and keeps making other people to pay for what he spent, all while telling others to be more responsible with everyone's money.

    17. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is world capital increasing by $30 trillion according to Bain & Company's estimate (see their Macrotrends report, "A World Awash in Money") a year, well on its way to $1 quadrillion?

      Money is made artificially scarce for governments while wanton credit creation by the world private financial sector is backstopped in times of crisis by the Fed. And the dollar got stronger as the Fed printed money. Now that the ECB and Japan are printing even more money, and the Fed is tightening, the dollar is going down because markets want more printing.

    18. Re:Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "there's a currency collapse"

      Why should change in price of an abstract thing like money affect the provisioning of essential goods and services to individuals?

      The collapse, if it occurs, is arbitrary, a product of labile traders making bets on rumors and having a hugely oversized effect, dwarfing the traditional explanatory variables, supply and demand. Psychology affects prices more than supply and demand.

      The world central bank unlimited currency swap network works as a proxy for one world central bank. The Fed loaned the ECB an aggregated $8 trillion after 2008 at away-from-market, policy-set rates. When there is one bank, there is no run on the bank because it has the best money.

    19. Re:Meanwhile by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Found the Baby Boomer.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    20. Re: Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We never voted Ajit Pai in in the first place.

    21. Re:Meanwhile by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      I say spend it all now and let the next generation figure out their own way rather than rely on our hard work

      That's not how debt works. We're not talking about refusing to leave an inheritance for the next generation to benefit from, we're talking about spending THEIR money before they get it because we like to spend far more than we make.

      When the country is controlled by no-holds-barred capitalists and nobody is willing to vote them out, you either play their game or perish, and I intend to outplay them at their own game because most of them appear to be idiots and if your only weapon is lack of morals, I can certainly go ahead and lose mine too.

      In other words, "I am happy to be the problem rather than the solution. I am the one who causes the problems."

    22. Re:Meanwhile by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The thing to notice is that it's the Republicans, who talk about small government, who are worst at managing the budget. Occasionally a Democrat will even manage to reduce the deficit. There are two reasons for this (that I know of and believe):
      1) The Republicans are less willing to tax the rich, so the income to the government decreases.
      2) The Republicans are more tied to those who benefit from the government owing them money. Holders of Treasury bonds, etc.

      3) I think Republicans really do want smaller government, but large, large portions of their base directly benefit from larger government and want government spending that benefits them. The seniors who need Social Security and Medicare. The defense contractors and technology companies who rely on military expenditures. Folks scared of the big bad world outside their borders and want to "kill them over there before they kill us over here." All of these things are incredibly expensive.

      Never underestimate the over-55 crowd and how much influence they wield because they actually vote, while immature 20-somethings prattle about how only suckers vote and the system being rigged, etcetc.

    23. Re:Meanwhile by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The collapse, if it occurs, is arbitrary, a product of labile traders making bets on rumors and having a hugely oversized effect, dwarfing the traditional explanatory variables, supply and demand. Psychology affects prices more than supply and demand.

      I wouldn't have used 'currency collapse,' more 'economic collapse often brought on by austerity' when you run out of money, your country's credit rating goes into the dumpster, causing investors in government bonds to not invest which reduces government income even more. The resulting sharp reduction in central spending does not result in a private sector boom and a roaring economy, just an overall economic malaise.

  3. Famous last words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never say never

    1. Re:Famous last words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      never say never

      Does not compute. Error. Error!

  4. FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fucking Corporate Cunts

    1. Re:FCC by Bobrick · · Score: 1

      The one case where an AC comment contributing little of value to the conversation should actually be modded up Insightful.

  5. Please don't refer to your readership in headlines by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Funny

    There Are Ajit Pai 'Verizon Puppet' Jokes That the FCC Doesn't Want You To Read

    The real question is: will #4 shock me?

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  6. "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Governmental agencies have rued the day the FOIA was implemented. Over the years, there have been many attempts to subvert the legislation's intent, from slow response times & outrageous fees per page of document, to redaction of nearly an entire requested page.

    This excuse smells like, "We don't even think enough of your request to give it thoughtful rejection."

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re: "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by chispito · · Score: 1

      This excuse smells like, "We don't even think enough of your request to give it thoughtful rejection."

      To be fair, it's a pretty stupid request designed to make Ars look clever, not serve the national interest.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    2. Re: "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by pots · · Score: 1

      It's Gizmodo, not Ars, but yes: this was dumb, and rejecting the request is appropriate.

    3. Re: "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Rejecting it isn't clearly appropriate. I suspect the reason is to avoid self-defamation, but that's just a suspicion. Since FCC chairman is a political post, it is clearly appropriate for the public to know how he comports himself at official events.

      OTOH, rejecting is was probably the expected reaction. Gizmodo gets a story out of it, anyway, and the FCC chairman gets to partially conceal what a bastard he is. But it would (probably) have been a better story if Gizmodo had gotten the jokes, and when "grab them by the pussy" can get elected president, it's hard to imagine what jokes would so defame the FCC chair that he couldn't function.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re: "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by chispito · · Score: 1

      It's Gizmodo, not Ars, but yes: this was dumb, and rejecting the request is appropriate.

      My bad. That's what I get for replying on my phone.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    5. Re: "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      If it's such a stupid request, what are they afraid of?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    6. Re: "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Can you explain in detail why it would be appropriate to reject a request for the words and conduct of a government official at an official government event host by same said government official which have been reported by others to indicate an inappropriate and unethical relationship by said same official and his ex-employer which is in the industry whose regulation same said official now oversees?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    7. Re: "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      How exactly is it innappropriate to request records of semi-public statements by an unelected member of the executive branch that reflect heavily on the growing evidence that he's unsuitable and hopelessly corrupt at the role? FOI excemption rules only protect personal information, national security secrets and certain deliberative exchanges (Ie discussions between work collegues). This fits none of those criteria and I doubt it would survive a court challenge

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    8. Re: "impede the candid exchange of ideas" by pots · · Score: 1

      These certainly are deliberative exchanges. There is nothing semi-public about drafts, drafts are private by their nature - they have to be in order to serve their function. We saw the public part of what resulted from those exchanges.

      This is just fishing. The only motivation for this is public anger over what the FCC is doing, it's basically harassment: hit them up with pointless requests in the hope that you'll get some tidbit of juicy gossip. It's exactly the sort of behavior that I'd expect from Gizmodo, but that's no reason to humor them.

      Also: your claim that there's evidence that he's unsuitable and hopelessly corrupt is not valid. He's doing exactly what congress put him there to do, there's never been any question about what course he would take if he were put in charge. The FCC is functioning as intended.

      Someone is hopelessly corrupt, and he may be as well, but that someone is not him.

  7. Ego over truth? by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 0

    It's a good thing there aren't other people in power positions like that in our government! ;) #ShowUsTheGirthCertificate

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  8. Why not model him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's pretty well photographed, they could simply 3D model him and get a weight and height estimate.

    1. Re:Why not model him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Time for some Deep Fakes with Ajit Pai 69'ing Kal Penn with their faces swapped. Fap!

  9. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nut nutrality is dead, get over it snowflakes.

  10. Worse than that: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To quote Gizmodo. "The agency is refusing to release them, however; it is 'reasonably foreseeable,' it said, that doing so would injure the 'quality of agency decisions.'"

    ^ That implies that Ajit Pai should step down as his conduct has resulted in a situation which has already injured the quality of agency decisions.

    1. Re:Worse than that: by lucm · · Score: 2

      ^ That implies that Ajit Pai should step down as his conduct has resulted in a situation which has already injured the quality of agency decisions.

      ^ That implies that you don't know what "implies" mean

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Worse than that: by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's not strict implication in the sense of symbolic logic, but symbolic logic borrowed the term from normal English, and the use of implies in the G.P. post follows the rules of usage in normal English. You may disagree with the conclusion (I don't), but it is within the scope of normal usage.

      OTOH, it does indicate that there is an unspoken, perhaps unverbalized, chain of reasoning between the two statements. I could construct one, though it would have flaws, but I have no idea whether my chain would match that that the G.P. poster would construct.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  11. Re:Please don't refer to your readership in headli by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    The real question is: will #4 shock me?

    You wont believe what happens next!

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  12. Conservative "humor" is the BEST! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Especially when its an admission of huilt to felonny corption and treason! Yay Republicans!!

  13. Switch From Verizon! by BrendaEM · · Score: 2

    People get a 2nd vote with their Dollars

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Switch From Verizon! by sound+vision · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pointing out that there is no alternative who wouldn't do exactly the same thing feels so very passé, but still I feel it must be said, since it's just as true today as it was 10 years ago, and 20 years ago, and so on. You're proposing a free-market solution where there is and can be no free market. You're proposing that we switch to AT&T to punish Verizon when Pai's policies benefit both. What do you say about fixing the actual problem - corporate stooges being put in charge of our government? Or do you think the stooge from Comcast would be a bit nicer?

    2. Re:Switch From Verizon! by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Or do you think the stooge from Comcast would be a bit nicer?

      The stooge who originally worked for Comcast, Tom Wheeler, actually was a bit nicer.
      Not that that was the intention, everyone thought he would just be the Comcast exec in charge of making things great for Comcast. No one thought he'd actually try to be serious at the job -- it's unlikely he'd have gotten the job if the they did.

  14. Business opportunity by jenningsthecat · · Score: 2

    Somebody could make quite a bit of money selling 'Ajit Pai' string puppets, along with recordings of the advertising jingles of the big ISP's. "Make the FCC dance just like Verizon does" is one possible advertising slogan for the next fad toy. I'll bet Amazon could sell truckloads of them - especially if the toy comes with instructions for making the puppet bend over and spread its cheeks.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Business opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially if the toy comes with instructions for making the puppet bend over and spread its cheeks.

      I wonder how much something like that would go for 100 years from now

    2. Re:Business opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll bet Amazon could sell truckloads of them - especially if the toy comes with instructions for making the puppet bend over and spread its cheeks.

      Like this? (don't worry - SFW)

    3. Re:Business opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Safe... http://paranoidechochamber.com...

    4. Re:Business opportunity by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      don't worry - SFW

      Oh God, that means it's almost certainly a goatse link!

  15. What do you call 1000 lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What do you call 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

    A good start!

    1. Re:What do you call 1000 lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only 1000 lawyers?
      Not enough

      Try making in 1,000,000 and I'll support you.

      Lawyers are leeches on society. They contribute nothing yet make up the majority of people running the Government (both Federal and States).

    2. Re:What do you call 1000 lawyers by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      Only 1000 lawyers? Not enough

      If you plan to dump more than 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea in a single location, you have to fill out an environmental impact statement. It's better to do it in small groups and spread them out.

    3. Re:What do you call 1000 lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd call it food for bottom feeders.

    4. Re:What do you call 1000 lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? All they are full of is Hot Air and bullshit.

    5. Re: What do you call 1000 lawyers by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Compost them anaerobically; you'll get a useful stream of methane and the leftovers should be fairly nitrogen-rich...

  16. Re:Please don't refer to your readership in headli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #5 Only CNN approved Democrats are allowed to joke around. Republicans can suck it.

  17. Martin Ajit Shkreli Pai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Needs to just quit.

  18. Re:Please don't refer to your readership in headli by burtosis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congrats! Looked like you used one simple trick to reap karma the mods don't want you to know about!!1!

  19. Re: Please don't refer to your readership in headl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can tell whatever jokes they want, but if they want to do it on the clock at an official function then we get to read them.

  20. Imaginations of Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government officials shouldn't even joke publicly about their potential biases. What if a Verizon competitor would suddenly lose their sense of humor and sue the US government for apparent bias? Do US senators and congressmen regularly joke about ongoing or potentially coming bribery investigations too?

    1. Re: Imaginations of Bias by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mostly just their "wide stances".

  21. He probably thinks his jokes are Ajit!!! (Get it?) by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    [...] it is 'reasonably foreseeable,' it said, that doing so would injure the 'quality of agency decisions.'"

    Know what else could “injure” the “quality” of agency “decisions”?!? Putting Ajit Pai in charge of the FCC, predictably, and sure-enough... when will the incompetent/evil/vicious/stupid/bad-governance-on-purpose/corrupt nightmare END?

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  22. Cant wait for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This admin to be over. White House Down is much worse in real life.

  23. Re:He probably thinks his jokes are Ajit!!! (Get i by HiThere · · Score: 1

    That's not only predictable, it was predicted.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  24. They must be terrible jokes, because ... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

    refusing to release the draft versions of jokes told by Chairman Ajit Pai ... claiming that ... would "impede the candid exchange of ideas" ...

    ... jokes *are* a candid exchange of ideas.

    (I thought the only bad joke at the FCC *was* Ajit Pai.)

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  25. If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchn by Subm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ajit Pai: If you don't want people to characterize you as an industry puppet, don't be an industry puppet.

    It's not that complicated.

  26. FOIA Act Category by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you'd read any summary of the law instead of just quote shit frmo Gizmodo,, you'd know that draft manuscripts are specifically exempted as the release of drafts would "impede the candid exchange of ideas." ... that's the phrase they're required, by law, to put on their rejection, as they're not allowed to release draft documents for specifically that reason.

    But go ahead, take a quote out of context because the puppeteers told you to.

  27. Re: Please don't refer to your readership in headl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh cool when do I get to read 20k in emails about weddings and yoga?!

  28. Re: Please don't refer to your readership in headl by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    It's more like Louis CK joking onstage about jerking off in people's faces then the next day he invites women into his office to... Jerk off in their faces.

  29. Ajit Pai can't be a sock puppet by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    A sock puppet can be turned back into a sock and put to good use. Ajit Pai has no use.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  30. Re:If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kit by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Ajit Pai: If you don't want people to characterize you as an industry puppet, don't be an industry puppet.

    It's not that complicated.

    You're assuming he has a spine. Or gives a damn about anyone who's not paying him to do their bidding.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  31. Lord what a Gish Gallop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was garbage when it was written, and it hasn't aged well. Literally every item on the list is either false, a flagrant lie, a mischaracterization, or an irrelvancy.

    1. So what?

    2. False

    3. So what?

    4. False. The President doesn't control the purse-strings, Congress does.

    5. Oh, you're just precious.

    6. President Obama is not in his own person the Federal Government, and was not held in contempt.

    7. Bzzt. Feel free not to pay.

    8. Bizarrely false.

    9. That was Bush.

    10. That would be a lawful executive fiat.

    11. See above

    12. Uh huh

    13. So what?

    14. Apparently you don't remember when Apollo ended.

    15. America has never been a Christian nation.

    16. So what?

    17. Lol no.

    18. Lies.

    19. So what?

    20. No, the Feds have sued various states before.

    21. It's a permit, not a mandate.

    22. Not true, but you say that like it's a bad thing.

    23. And yet no one was indicted. Really, the Dems need to step up their corruption game, it's like 200 to 3.

    24. So what?

    25. Idiotic lies.

    26. Five years? Hmm. Maybe you want to update your stats. Ask Trump how he's doing on that record.

    27. No, you just didn't believe that he's an American. Because you're a racist fuck.

    28. Carter? Wilson? The warmonger T. Roosevelt? Have you seen any of the other people that prize goes to?

    29. Obama had a shockingly high global approval rating, and you find some fictional reason to dislike that.

    30. Hahaha, oh boy has this not aged well.

    31. You did no research on this, it seems.

    32. You think the other presidential pooches were upkeep-free? And you somehow give a shit about some other shmuck getting a moderate (for DC) salary? Why are you only a budget hardliner when it comes to trivia?

    33. So what?

    34. Knee-jerk Islamophobia doesn't even deserve a response.

    35. You don't even know what those words mean.

    36. False.

    1. Re:Lord what a Gish Gallop by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      One pointless correction to the above #14: The Apollo program is about putting a man on the moon, while the OP talked about putting a man in space. He's likely talking about there being no replacement for the shuttle program, but given that he's frothing-at-the-mouth right-winger, you'd think he would be happy that we're moving a Big Government program to the private sector. If Trump did it, it'd be Trump's economic genius, but since Obama did it, it's another sign of how evil Obama was.

  32. Why does this guy still head the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is obvious he is corrupt

    1. Re: Why does this guy still head the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Americans are now pacified. You've got a thousand channels of bull-shit to watch, so just relax. If you need to, do some name calling on the internet, but make it anonymous so that your words carry no weight and your noise drowns out any possibility of real conversation.

  33. Who gives a flying F by InvalidsYnc · · Score: 1

    Seriously? I couldn't give a rats ass what his "rejected" jokes look like. Is it in our best interest to know what jokes didn't make the cut? Do we ask for all 319 revisions of his speech as well so that we can make fun of the poor grammar and spelling mistakes? Seriously, this shit needs to not even make it on any new sites, legitimate or not. This kind of thing is meant for ONE reason only, and that is to cause more division between people. Just political bullshit.

  34. Re: He probably thinks his jokes are Ajit!!! (Get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When stupid people stop being a majority.