Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Republican Staffer Khanna Axed Over Copyright Memo

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the don't-mistake-the-gop-for-free-marketeers dept.

Republicans 506

Bob9113 writes "Ars Technica reports that Derek Khanna is getting axed over his memo detailing the conflict between laissez-faire-oriented free market ideals and the regulatory monopoly that is copyright. 'The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives, has told staffer Derek Khanna that he will be out of a job when Congress re-convenes in January. The incoming chairman of the RSC, Steve Scalise (R-LA) was approached by several Republican members of Congress who were upset about a memo Khanna wrote advocating reform of copyright law. They asked that Khanna not be retained, and Scalise agreed to their request.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Anonymous FP Baby! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206751)

Yeah!

He Should Be (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206753)

Who in the adult world is surprised when a low level employee is canned for upstagin and blindsiding the higher up leadership??

This is not the least bit surprising and shocking. Anybody who does this in an other venue would have gotten the boot, and rightfully so.

Re:He Should Be (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206821)

Yeah, heavens forbid that elected officials ever be given information that they might disagree with. Shame on this person for thinking that law makers should be exposed to a wide variety of ideas and opinions. Next thing you know they will have to try to justify claims of wanting less government while at the same time pushing for laws limiting marriage laws or privacy laws. What was he thinking?

Re:He Should Be (5, Insightful)

Applekid (993327) | about 2 years ago | (#42207055)

I don't know what he was thinking, but I think we all can correctly guess what he learned about Washington and politics in general.

It's an old boys' club, the yes man gets ahead, and messengers get shot when exposing contradictions.

Re:He Should Be (5, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 2 years ago | (#42207133)

Sheesh....

Scalise is one of my representatives, I actually kinda know the guy.

Dunno if a letter will help...but, I'll sure send one...this move sucks.

I don't think this is just a R problem...I think both R's and D's up there are so bought and paid for that no reform will likely happen that will benefit you and I, but I'll certainly send a letter about this....

Re:He Should Be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207593)

I don't think this is just a R problem...I think both R's and D's up there are so bought and paid for that no reform will likely happen that will benefit you and I, but I'll certainly send a letter about this....

It's more of an R problem, because they scream loud and wide about being for free markets without government influence. And they vote to increase the influence all the time for things like copyrights, patents, and a dozen other pet issues. The D's do go around saying the government is evil and then forcing it one everyone.

Re:He Should Be (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207441)

Next thing you know they will have to try to justify claims of wanting less government while at the same time pushing for laws limiting marriage laws

Am I reading you right? Allowing same sex marriages is an example of big government interference? That's incoherent.

Re:He Should Be (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207499)

yes, you read it correctly, but you did not read it. Try this:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sarcasm [lmgtfy.com]

Re:He Should Be (2, Insightful)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about 2 years ago | (#42206875)

I was with you until "rightfully". Fuck you.

Re:He Should Be (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207297)

I was with you until the loud "WOOOOOOOSH" drowned out what you were saying.

Re:He Should Be (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207421)

You have too much faith in humanity. He wasn't making a joke.

Re:He Should Be (1)

chris.alex.thomas (1718644) | about 2 years ago | (#42206901)

I'm not 100% sure whether you're just trolling or being serious....

Re:He Should Be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207063)

Not surprised, no... but considering that this is akin to firing your janitor for suggesting that you actually place your trash in the trash can (i.e.: he was doing his job), it seems a little childish -- again, not surprising given the people involved.

Re:He Should Be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207459)

I've actually BEEN that janitor. Got yelled at (literally yelled at) because I threw away an umbrella that was in a trash can. Apparently, the office worker just liked to keep it there, and got angry when I suggested that trash cans- should be, you know, for TRASH.

Re:He Should Be (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207131)

I'm surprised by the number of posts that think this is kidding, trolling or outrageous. Just like soldiers, civil staff like this have an obligation to, while they're on duty, keep their professional, official standpoints impartial. Personal political views don't mesh with civil service. As agreeable as his point might be, it's unprofessional to do it while representing his job, and it's not the least bit surprising or wrong that said job dismisses him for officially disagreeing with where they stand.

Re:He Should Be (5, Interesting)

ereuter (30764) | about 2 years ago | (#42207237)

It wasn't just something he posted on his blog. His memo was approved by the committee. It just happened that the committee quickly retracted the memo after their true masters (their largest campaign contributors) expressed their disapproval.

Re:He Should Be (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207269)

Quite simply, you are an idiot. It is the responsibility of every civil servant to advance the greater good of society rather than the whims of their managers and other bureaucrats.

Open Comment to Derek Khanna (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207535)

Dear Derek Khanna,

You have made more friends than enemies. You may have been canned today, but you could easily replace your boss. RUN FOR OFFICE!

Sincerely,

Someone who actually votes.

He had to expect this (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42206771)

He had to know this would cost him his job.

He could not have expected anything else.

Points to consider (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206949)

There are at least two important points we can take away from this:

1. The republican party lies about having free market ideals.

2. The current IP regime is NOT an example of free market economics, even though it is widely touted as so.

Re:Points to consider (2, Insightful)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42207003)

1. The republican party lies about having free market ideals.

You just realized that politicians lie?

Re:Points to consider (1)

imnotanumber (1712006) | about 2 years ago | (#42207343)

Everybody lies. Not just politicians.

Absolute statements like this are true and meaningless.

You should not equate everyone using statements like those.

Re:Points to consider (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about 2 years ago | (#42207429)

Everybody lies. Not just politicians. Absolute statements like this are true and meaningless.

Are they always meaningless?

Re:Points to consider (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207435)

I do not believe you and think that you are being less than honest here.

Re:Points to consider (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207119)

I've got some bad news for you chum. They all lie. Not just the republicans.

Re:Points to consider (2)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#42207157)

Are their lips moving? Then they're lying.

Re:Points to consider (2)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | about 2 years ago | (#42207541)

1. The republican party lies about having free market ideals.

They are pro-business, not necessrily pro-market. Subsidies, tax loopholes, monopolies, cartels and all kinds of other corporate welfare are just fine and dandy when its their own that have their snouts in the trough..

Another Young Idealist Casualty (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42207029)

He had to know this would cost him his job.

He could not have expected anything else.

He's 24 and probably still believes that United States politics offer an open and free forum where you can put forth ideas no matter what side you're on and the change that follows can be a good thing if the logic behind it is sound. Surely the worst that could happen is that your party would have to explain again logically why your brief was incorrect and unsound?

Boy it sure was hard typing that with a straight face.

Re:Another Young Idealist Casualty (2)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#42207155)

If he still believes that he made it far longer than I did, I think I was about twenty before I realized that the USA doesn't live up to the Hype. Sure we were founded on some great stuff, freedom of speech is a big one but if our government ever lived up to the ideals set out in it's founding documents it wasn't in my life time.

Re:Another Young Idealist Casualty (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42207247)

That is mighty naive for 24 year old.
At 19 one might expect such a thing, but by 24 he should have known better.

At least he learned a valuable lesson I guess.

Re:Another Young Idealist Casualty (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207471)

Especially a 24 year old working in politics. I spent time working on a state level campaigns. It took a day to realize I was amongst the animal filth of humanity, people who will rape your children with a serrated kitchen knife until they bleed out if they thought it would gain them some money or power without getting caught. The complete and utter scum of the planet, and they are in control. Republican or Democrat, the candidates or their sycophants- all the same. Absolute monsters.

Re:Another Young Idealist Casualty (3, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | about 2 years ago | (#42207403)

They don't have to explain anything. Nobody will cover this in the media. His words will never reach the ears of the average voter who thinks artists will starve if copyright is in any way affected. Slashdot will cover it. Ars will cover it. Libertarian and leaning publications will publish it. But this is all a very small fraction of the voting population. Neither major party is interested at all in copyright reform. His actions were futile and he pointlessly lost his job. Furthermore, nobody will want to hire him in the future regardless of whether they agree with him for fear he might pull something similar should he ever change his mind. Idealists are fucking dangerous loose cannons.

Re:He had to expect this (1)

Lashat (1041424) | about 2 years ago | (#42207625)

Maybe he has been sitting on this and when time came and he was ready to leave he released it.

Brilliant move if true and really the best way to exit.

Just another case (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206807)

Just another case of someone forgetting who's really running this country.

Re:Just another case (-1, Troll)

landofcleve (1959610) | about 2 years ago | (#42206877)

Why do the Jews want this country so bad anymore now that they have their own now anyways?!!?

Re:Just another case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207203)

It's nimwits like you that detract from the real issues. If you don't have anything of substance to contribute why don't you just refrain?

Re:Just another case (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207327)

It is people like you that are working with the Jewish lobby who trying to distract people on focus on the true master. I have proof. You should have figured it out already unless you are lying or in a mental institution.

Re:Just another case (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207433)

The same reason that Israel hates the idea of the Palestinian state. The victim mentality has been honed to an art form by the Jews. Hitler was a bastard, in more ways than the obvious, because he failed in everything he attempted: failed artist, failed genocidist. Today, it is the Indians, not to be confused with First Nations, whom want Amerika because it fits their corrupt culture but the elite are all goo-goo over India. Canada will have to invade Amerika and push the Indians into the ocean.

highest bidder! (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206833)

Highest bidder wins all! The US political system in a nutshell...

Principled conservatism (4, Insightful)

nbauman (624611) | about 2 years ago | (#42206835)

You younger Slashdotters may not believe this, but at one time we had conservatives (and Republicans) with principles.

(Not that the Democrats are all that great.)

Thank Newt if you like the new style (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206931)

He pretty much is responsible.

Re:Thank Newt if you like the new style (2)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#42207137)

and Limbaugh, shirley?

And St. Reagan (pbuh) for bringing in the religious loons.

Re:Thank Newt if you like the new style (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207245)

don't call me Shirley

Re:Principled conservatism (5, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42206951)

You younger Slashdotters may not believe this, but at one time we had conservatives (and Republicans) with principles.

There are still; we're just not Republicans (or, more accurately, Republicans are no longer conservative).

Re:Principled conservatism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207257)

Quite the contrary. Those republicans do want to conserve copyright exactly just like it is right now.

Re:Principled conservatism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206983)

So which principles are we talking about? The racism that brought forth segregation and Jom Crow laws? The sexism that denied women educational opportunities and sought to make them nothing but homemakers? The homophobia that lead to laws being passed that tried to criminalize consenting adults from having sex? Or maybe their attempts to use the government to force their protestant beliefs on everyone else? I could go on and on about this.

Nah, I think we are doing just fine without those "principled conservatives". At least as long as you're a non-WASP, woman, minority or gay.

Re:Principled conservatism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207123)

Yup, that horrible Republican Abraham Lincoln sure was racist!

You might want to wipe the foam from your mouth and actually read about the history of civil rights and see who's consistently been on the side of those who want to work hard and be a member of society and those who just say they're the only ones on their side.

Re:Principled conservatism (5, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#42207209)

You might want to wipe the foam from your mouth and actually read about the history of civil rights and see who's consistently been on the side of those who want to work hard and be a member of society

Yup - they were usually called "liberals" and "progressives", same as they are today. It just so happens that Republicans were a liberal/progressive party since pretty much forever (already during the Civil War), until they were turned around at the end of the Civil Rights era.

Re:Principled conservatism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207341)

And everything the GP mentioned occurred in the intervening 150 years. Physician, heal thyself...

Re:Principled conservatism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207355)

Yup, that horrible Republican Abraham Lincoln sure was racist!

I made not a single mention of Republicans in my post. I was strictly referring to the "proncipled conservative" part. Also, Lincoln was a progressive.

Re:Principled conservatism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207529)

You might want to wipe the foam from your mouth and actually read about the history of civil rights and see who's consistently been on the side of those who want to work hard and be a member of society and those who just say they're the only ones on their side.

That would be "nobody" and "everybody", respectively.

Re:Principled conservatism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207177)

Well, I'm not sure about the Jom Crow laws, but the Jim Crow laws originated with the "conservative, white, Democratic Redeemer governments" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws).

Conservatism used to be a more moderate affair. Fundamentalism has hijacked the conservative party.
Both parties have had more than their share of racism. Both parties have had more than their share of sexism.

Racism, Sexism, Homophobia, and anti-Science views are rampant in the current Republican party (but aren't shared by all members), but that's not what the OP was talking about. You may be too young to remember the Republican party before the rise of the Religious Right, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. It wasn't a perfect party, but it wasn't the cesspool it is today, either.

Re:Principled conservatism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207439)

Yes the Jim Crow laws came from the conservative Democrats. And? Your attempt at some sort of gotcha fails pretty hard. As I said to the other retard, I made no mentions about political party in my post. I'm referring only to the policies and attitudes that have come from the people calling themselves "conservatives".

Re:Principled conservatism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207361)

So which principles are we talking about? The racism that brought forth segregation and Jom Crow laws? The sexism that denied women educational opportunities and sought to make them nothing but homemakers? The homophobia that lead to laws being passed that tried to criminalize consenting adults from having sex? Or maybe their attempts to use the government to force their protestant beliefs on everyone else? I could go on and on about this.

Nah, I think we are doing just fine without those "principled conservatives". At least as long as you're a non-WASP, woman, minority or gay.

Fail. Jim Crow laws were a tenet of the (then) largely Democratic south. Look up Sen Robert Byrd.
As to "homophobia" (an exaggerated term) I don't recall democrats voting against banning same sex marriage 10 years ago. They wouldn't have even dreamed of legalizing it then. Nor would they have dreamed of allowing illegals to remain in the country with benefits. Progressives are fond of citing how far right the right wing has shifted without at all acknowledging how much the left wing has shifted left at the same time.

Re:Principled conservatism (1)

Shark (78448) | about 2 years ago | (#42207385)

FYI, one of those are in line with conservative ideas. Real conservatives are about these things: respect of the constitution, limited government powers, increased individual liberties.

The things you are referring to are more in line with what we call neo-conservatives, which, ironically is a movement started by liberals who were not satisfied with the Democrats with regards to foreing intervention and US military supremacy. Conservatives = Jefferson. Neo-Cons are more in line with Hamilton's view of the US though they're a much much younger movement.

Basically, a real conservative would pretty much never want the government to have more powers, be that military, social or financial. Enforcing some sort of ideal on people (being one that you agree with or not) is not a conservative value. A real conservative considers that the government has no business in your wallet, bedroom, mind or church. Most republicans fail that test, despite all their hollow posturing on taxes.

Re:Principled conservatism (1)

Osiris Ani (230116) | about 2 years ago | (#42207581)

So which principles are we talking about? The racism that brought forth segregation and Jom Crow laws?

You forget your history, son. Jim Crow laws were quite specifically a product of southern Democrats.

Re:Principled conservatism (4, Funny)

TBedsaul (95979) | about 2 years ago | (#42207071)

at one time we had conservatives (and Republicans) with principles.

Then John Wilkes Booth killed him and it's been downhill ever since.

Re:Principled conservatism (4, Insightful)

chill (34294) | about 2 years ago | (#42207199)

Uh...Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower were both after Lincoln and both principled conservatives.

Re:Principled conservatism (4, Interesting)

phayes (202222) | about 2 years ago | (#42207275)

Not that great? Ont the subject of being bought by Hollywood, The Dems are demonstrably worse. Hollywood, & all the IAAs give much more to the Dems & you'll never see a similar paper from an equivalent Dem study committee as they clearly know who their owners are.

Re:Principled conservatism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207281)

Well, the "republican" party nearly solely consists of mentally ill neocon enemy combatant traitors nowadays.
There are hardly and left.

Oh, and from a German standpoint, the "democrats" are conservative extreme-right-wing (to the point of being borderline illegal) industrial-theocratic extremists. The neocons are the same, except faaaaar over that border.

Re:Principled conservatism (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 2 years ago | (#42207517)

They are all blind and aggressive. A simple response to the 3,3 invasion behind hoshi... just extend, and push back, then walk the third line. They continue to push from behind along the third line, depriving you of side territory... and thus you build too much influence, and they cannot hope to win.

This is the result. All they see is the great and important benefit of copyright protection--the large value of the corner and side territory. They push and push, taking more and more, allowing a wall to be built outside. But that wall unbalances the position much more than the small territory taken; too much power is given up, and now there is no way to approach, and the position may only grow. All attacks brought against the rest of the board have strong support; the media companies now have the freedom to abusively overplay, taking down anything that they can vaguely argue some form of claim to, and even things they can't at all, simply because of the power they have. Growth is stifled; with all that power there is attack, reduction, and that brings greater control of not just the center, but also of portions of the sides and other corners.

So much is lost by taking what both is valuable and can be taken without considering the costs.

Money wins, real analysis loses (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206843)

Anyone wonder why the political process does not serve the people?

Re:Money wins, real analysis loses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206947)

Real Analysis - n. - a : an examination of a complex, its elements, and their relations in a manner that agrees with the audience's preconceived notions b : a statement of such an analysis

Have They Addressed and Refuted It? (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42206879)

They've publicly disowned the brief and now it looks like they're cutting off the hand that wrote it ... but have they actually put forth a logical and rationale rebuttal that explains why Khanna was so wrong that his termination was necessary?

If my employer came to me and said, "Pack it up, you don't have a job tomorrow." I'd be very interested in knowing why and being completely fine with my termination if they were just batshit insane in their reasoning. I'm sure I'm not the only one that suspects this came as an order from an industry lobbyist or at least in the form of "This is very interesting work by Khanna. On an unrelated note *cough* *cough* you might be hard pressed for campaign donations next election cycle."

Oh, and I am absolutely relishing the goodwill and lip service paid to the Republicans in the initial Slashdot comments [slashdot.org] .

Re:Have They Addressed and Refuted It? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#42207039)

If one of my workers told the whole country why he thought I was stupid, I'd fire him too, regardless the merit

Fear Will Keep Them in Line! (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 2 years ago | (#42207107)

If one of my workers told the whole country why he thought I was stupid, I'd fire him too, regardless the merit

HA! "Fear will keep them in line"? Well, I'm sure the rest of the country has great faith in you if your response to a challenge of your position is to just get rid of the guy. Oh my god that's funny! Did you know that in my software development team, we challenge each other all the time and, no, we don't have our coworkers offed if we are wrong. Is Derek Khanna on his way to the gulags? Perhaps a Republican Rehabilitation camp in Fairbanks, AK?

Re:Fear Will Keep Them in Line! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207337)

Wow. Did the parent hit some kind of a nerve there? He didn't say anything about "keeping people in line with fear!!!". Regardless of your anecdotal experience - which isn't happening between you and your boss in the national public's eye, and therefore isn't comparable on any level - most people would be in a bad spot if they were publicly calling out their employer's policies. A staffer doesn't get involved in politics - just like government employees and the military, they're supposed to keep that separate from their jobs. It's basic professionalism. It has nothing to do with how much we agree with him. It has nothing to do with whether or not he's right. It's got to do with making that point on the job, publicly tearing apart his employers' platform.

Re:Fear Will Keep Them in Line! (3, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#42207373)

You are thinking small scale, sir. A software development team throwing shit at each other is a completely different scenario. Imagine, however, that you run the development team and one of your underlings published an article in The Washington Post/New York Times illustrating what a moron you are. Throw away your ideas of "what is fair". Neither business nor the government (or even life for that matter) is fair. He played the asshole, so he got served by an asshole.

Re:Fear Will Keep Them in Line! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207511)

Imagine, however, that you run the development team and one of your underlings published an article in The Washington Post/New York Times illustrating what a moron you are.

Believe it or not, since we actually listen to each other and work together to come to an agreement on which "shit" is right it never comes to this ... Also, that's how the business of politics work. Your customers are the entire nation. They pay your paycheck. They should be able to see your work. Nowhere did Khanna call anyone a "moron" as you put it. Instead, he thought he was on to a logical and valid point. Instead of refuting it, they had him removed.

Re:Have They Addressed and Refuted It? (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about 2 years ago | (#42207213)

If one of my workers told the whole country why he thought I was stupid

If you're so touchy that someone writing an article that doesn't exactly line up with your beliefs 100% makes you feel stupid, then I'd be glad to be told so, so that we can all avoid working with you.

Incidentally, this is why the Republicans can currently only get 30% of the country to identify themselves as Republican, they "purified" out everyone else who was only mostly conservative.

Re:Have They Addressed and Refuted It? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#42207125)

It would be rather stupid of them to rebut the argument they made. The biggest reason would be that it would call more attention to an issue they don't want to see debated. After all, "They gave us a lot of money to shut up about it" isn't a compelling argument. A secondary reason would be that would be all the more embarrassing: to explain why they were wrong in the first place.

Or maybe the bigger reason is that they know the only people who will care that matter are the IP holders who are lining their pockets with cash. You don't really need to explain your reasoning to the public when the public is totally apathetic about it. Aside from us, and what is congress going to tell us about IP that we don't know already to change our minds?

Re:Have They Addressed and Refuted It? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207405)

They've publicly disowned the brief and now it looks like they're cutting off the hand that wrote it ... but have they actually put forth a logical and rationale rebuttal that explains why Khanna was so wrong that his termination was necessary?
 

Yes, they have. According to the article, their rebuttal goes something along the lines of, "Shut up, that's why!"

It's because Republicans love 'free market' (2)

fredrated (639554) | about 2 years ago | (#42206927)

except when they don't!

Re:It's because Republicans love 'free market' (1)

RichMan (8097) | about 2 years ago | (#42206985)

'free market' as in for sale to the highest bidder. Makes it really nice for the pockets of those who make the rules.

Re:It's because Republicans love 'free market' (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 2 years ago | (#42207185)

The irony of the "Free Market" is that it's not free. In fact, selling to the highest bidder makes it quite expensive.

Surprised? (5, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#42206937)

You shouldn't be - after all, this is the same political organization that had a report banned from the LoC, [slashdot.org] because the facts contained within did not mesh with their party philosophy.

Re:Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207425)

You shouldn't be - after all, this is the same political organization that had a report banned from the LoC, [slashdot.org] because the facts contained within did not mesh with their party philosophy.

Reality does not mesh with their party philosophy.

This is why the Republicans lost the election (5, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#42206943)

If you're not echoing the echo chamber's talking points, you're not allowed to talk to other Republicans.

That's it in a nutshell. And so we have Romney condemning 47% of the population because some idiot in the WSJ did the calculations, found 50% of the country weren't paying one type of tax, ignored the fact that most of these people weren't paying it because their employers were too cheap to pay them a decent wage, and called them "Lucky Duckies". And he, and others, refused to hear the counter arguments, and he ended up making a fool of himself.

Indeed, we have the entire Republican party convinced that the way to win an election in a recession is to say "Yeah, we know you're feeling really insecure at the moment, so we're going to take your safety net away. Because anyone receiving UI is a moocher."

We have Rove and others absolutely convinced they were going to win the election, because they refused to read the polls.

There's been a lot of discussion after the 6th about the Republicans and why they lost. Sure, they lost because of their policies (well, duh.) But the question remains: how did the Republicans end up with such an absurd ticket, and how did they drag along 47% (interesting co-incidence) of the country to vote for them anyway?

Answer: because they built an echo chamber. If it didn't fit the interests of those funding the Republicans, it wasn't said. People who said the Republicans might be going in the wrong direction were purged. Fox News, the WSJ, and some blogs and radio stations were pretty much seen by Republicans as the only media to read, and because those outlets insisted that anything that wasn't them was "liberal biased" they didn't see the truth, they didn't see what was going on out there, they totally missed the boat.

This firing suggests they still haven't "gotten it", no matter what was said after November 6th.

Re:This is why the Republicans lost the election (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207065)

But they didn't lose, they were just given 4 more years of control of one house of congress, a mandate by the people to prove how bad obama is for america!

Or, at least that's what this memo i have says...

Re:This is why the Republicans lost the election (4, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about 2 years ago | (#42207295)

Your on the right track, the Tea Party led a purge of the moderates from the party a couple years back. The result was that the shifted even further to the right and lost a bunch of moderates in the middle of the political spectrum. The result was to also chase away a lot of the moderates / independent voters as well.

Since there are more independents in the US than there are Democrats or Republicans this is what cost them the election. Independents /always/ decide the winner of the presidential election.

They need to have a hard look at their internal hard line on political issues. Even Reagan would fail to meet most of the current Republican agenda and would be cast out (as would a number of other historically significant Republicans). The net effect is to ostracize younger voters and the result is costing them future voters. It's not that moderates were voting for Obama and the Democrats nearly as much as they were voting against Romney and the Republicans.

The Republicans need to go back to giving the general population something to believe in. Study Reagan and you will see that he did that so well the term "Reagan Democrats" was coined to describe the effect. People can't believe in tax cuts for corporates and the rich, it's too abstract for their day to day life. Unless they regain the moderates and start giving people something to believe they will continue to lose more and more voters.

Re:This is why the Republicans lost the election (3, Interesting)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#42207323)

We have Rove and others absolutely convinced they were going to win the election, because they refused to read the polls.

Exactly this. I read the polls in Summer 2011, saw that only one candidate in the Republican field could beat Obama in any polling match up, so I worked for that candidate (as a County Chair, even though I'm a registered Democrat) and we did OK (he got 2nd place in my State, in both parties' primaries).

But he did not fit the mold of what the Party Bosses were looking for, so their media lapdogs did as they were instructed, and pretty soon it was clear that Romney was the anointed candidate (by March at the latest). Not once since then did I not say that Obama was guaranteed re-election.

And it turns out in retrospect that all the quality polls were :dead on:. The Republicans could have had the Whitehouse if the fake "Republican values" really represented the ideas of the party (vs. being Corporatist puppets in reality).

Funny thing is, my candidate would agree with this report almost in its entirety. If there's a silver lining it's that Khanna's generation will be in charge in 30 years.

Re:This is why the Republicans lost the election (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#42207335)

Most of the 47% are children and seniors. One set used to pay that tax and the rest will pay it one day.

The republican party I do not believe can be saved. They are now controlled by the fringe nuts and basically kicked out their rational conservatives. The current party will never get anything, they operate on faith alone.

Whew! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42206961)

I was worried there that the GOP was going to stare into the face of their 2012 defeat and make a sincere effort to move forward. Looks like I can rest easy that the tired old hypocritical ideologies are still firmly in place.

In today's episode (3, Funny)

medcalf (68293) | about 2 years ago | (#42207021)

of why I'm not a Republican....

do77 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207047)

a popular 'nEws

Continuing trend... (4, Insightful)

Shoten (260439) | about 2 years ago | (#42207061)

From the article:

His firing is a surprising move for a party that has been looking for ways to attract younger voters.

Many things the Republican Party is doing are surprising moves, for a party that is looking for ways to attract...well, anyone. It almost seems like the party forgot that the point of democracy is to represent your own people, not try to tell them that you know better than they do what would be good for them.

republicans love corporate entitlements (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#42207073)

at this point it seems that they are unable to do anything unless it benefits the ultra rich at the expense of everyone else.

Re:republicans love corporate entitlements (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#42207321)

This means they can't ever do anything because when you benefit the working class they make the rich richer. "Trickle down" economics don't work; However, capitalism's is at it's foundation an "up yours" economy...

Re:republicans love corporate entitlements (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#42207589)

the gop never does anything to help the working class so I am not sure what your point is?

Memo taken down. But there's a backup copy. (5, Informative)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#42207195)

Backup copy. [keionline.org] (And because the document was created by a Congressional employee, it's not copyrightable. So there.)

Here's the proposal:

  • A. Free 12-year copyright term for all new works - subject to registration, and all existing works are renewed as of the passage of the reform legislation. If passed today this would mean that new works have a copyright until 2024.
  • B. Elective-12 year renewal (cost 1% of all United States revenue from first 12 years -- which equals all sales).
  • C. Elective-6 year renewal (cost 3% of revenue from the previous 12 years).
  • D. Elective-6 year renewal (cost 5% of revenue in previous 6 years).
  • E. Elective-10 year renewal (10% of ALL overall revenue - fees paid so far).

This is a good proposal. Start circulating it around. For only a very small number of copyrighted items is there revenue beyond 12 years, and that's covered.

Re:Memo taken down. But there's a backup copy. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207543)

Thanks for providing the link. I found it an interesting paper to read.

Simple (1)

no-body (127863) | about 2 years ago | (#42207255)

subtle mind control in the land of the free.

Happens nowadays on all levels in the corporate or political ladder.

US mainstream journalism in particular.

The real problem (4, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#42207353)

Politicians are not just corrupt, politicians have been raised, grown up, got their experience in a system where the truth is told, more or less. In the real world, we know evil exist but politicians are shielded from the real world pretty early on. They are in a rare world where meetings and negotiation "work". As you learn the world of politics in high school and university were your adversary are at worst teachers or fellow students and then ONLY those students who are interested in politics. They are surrounded and protected by people who share the same world view, not just left or right wing but the idea and knowledge that money is never an issue, you can always find another job, multiple at the same time, hard work is having a long meeting and there is always a deal to be made with the other side and the other side is never ever really just out to screw you over.

In Holland, when the rail system was privatized, a contract was drawn up that allowed the rail company to do its own customer survey reports and ignore user reviews that scored to low. Choose its own lines to ignore for judging its punctuality, not have to count canceled trains as delayed and a lot more stuff that any sane person would NEVER have allowed in a performance contract. So... were the people who signed it bought off? To stupid to be allowed to live?

Yes... and not exactly. The parties responsible BELIEVE in privatization, all their models, all their advisers say it must work and surely business wouldn't lie to them because they don't lie, they just present facts that exist in their mind and not in the real world. Their was a parliamentary investigation on whether privatization in the last two decades had a positive effect and the answer was NO and the two parties (CDA VVD) STILL said what was needed was MORE privatization.

They can't do anything else because it has become their identity, it is what they are, their faith, their gospel. And any evidence to the contrary isn't going to shake a faith they grew up on. The left isn't much better, the multi cultural society is falling apart and the best the left can manage is "we shouldn't want that"... Groen Links (Green Left) was decimated in Holland when it became clear the party had lost all touch with reality in supporting several right wing measures, forgettin they were supposed to be a LEFT wing party. CDA has been recudeced to a fraction of itself and still doesn't know why. SP scored big in the polls but lost it all during the actual election and still is wondering what happened.

The arstechnica article expresses suprise at this move because it thought the republican party was trying to appeal young voters. WRONG. Oh it wants to attract more voters but it is NOT going to change itself, it can't. It is what it is. To change itself, it would first have to admit it was wrong, ALL if it, ALL of them, ALL they ever believed to be true. WRONG. People don't do that. Especially people who live in an ivory towers removed from all reality. Romney wasn't a particular evil guy, he just really believed his fantasy land, the made up world of Fox News.

And people living in made up worlds are easily manipulated by people good at telling stories. The Lobbyist know how to bend the world of make believe to reflect their wishes. The ordinary voter doesn't. Not only is the average voter barely coherent but everyone one of them has an endless amount of conflicting wishes so any politician who tries to actually listen will quickly realise that if you can't please them all, why bother. In the mean time, the lobbyist gives a clear simple and therefor sensible and achievable story.

Basically, we are screwed. We need more REAL people in politics but the only way to get anywhere in politics is to grow up in it and become part of the system. Any real person will either quit in disgust, be torn apart by the pack for daring to rock the boat (any outcast public figure like Assange) or become part of the system.

You could try an experiment if you got the time. Write down your ideals, get involved in politics, then re-read them when you have been capable of achieving any chance for 20 years and see if you actually done anything to realize your ideals.

No, of course you weren't corrupted by the system, you just grew up and realized that to make deals, you have to compromise, scratch backs, see the other point of view.

In Holland, with many small parties, the process is called "showing you are ready for responsibility".

Repent, Khanna, said the Ticktockman (1)

daboochmeister (914039) | about 2 years ago | (#42207369)

Can't fight the machine, can you?

amazed at who votes for them (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207475)

I'm always stunned at the people who vote for republicans. All of the lower/middle class white guys that vote republican no matter what are the people who the republicans care about the least. Shocking how all those people are willing to vote on the three G's - guns, god, and gays. Hooray for immigrants finally breaking the hold of rednecks on the presidential ticket. A lot more work to do to break the republican control of the house, though, because they have redistricted themselves into permanent positions of power.

This is news!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42207507)

I read an artical that analized his report and the republican response, and I agree with him on every point. The republican response came only after their corporate masters threw a temper tantrum! So they published his report, got called on the carpet, and tried (badly and non-sensically) to reverse themselves, and now are being ordered to fire him for doing what he was asked to do. Typical.

It's the perfect time for them to do this (2)

morgauxo (974071) | about 2 years ago | (#42207533)

It will be completely forgotten by the next election.

Good Editing, Timothy (2)

Bob9113 (14996) | about 2 years ago | (#42207573)

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 06, @02:15PM

What got posted is an edited version of my submission, and the editing is a distinct improvement. Thanks, Timothy!

"Pro-business" = Pro-Already-Rich-People (4, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#42207585)

I think most of us realized long ago that when politicians claim to be "pro-business" they are referring not to some abstract ideal of free markets, but rather to being in favor of the incumbent players getting richer and more powerful. But just in case anyone on Slashdot hadn't figured this out yet, hopefully after this event they will have.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?