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!

Democrats Appoint RIAA Shill For Convention

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the what-were-they-thinking dept.

Democrats 698

An anonymous reader sends us to Boing Boing for a report that "the Director of Communications for the RIAA, Jenni Engebretsen, has been appointed Deputy CEO for Public Affairs for the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver." The DNC site has the official press release. Cory Doctorow notes that the RIAA is the most hated "corporation" in America, having beaten out Halliburton and Wal-Mart for the honor, and writes for the DNC's attention, "This represents a potential shear with the left-wing blogosphere."

cancel ×

698 comments

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

So does this mean (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720805)

That when I vote Republican, they'll sue my neighbor and her kids?

Re:So does this mean (4, Funny)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721015)

That when I vote Republican, they'll sue my neighbor and her kids?
No, but I'd avoid trying to distribute pictures or videos of the convention. Of course, I'd probably avoid these things anyway.

I just entered a maddox-like rage... (5, Funny)

Jeian (409916) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720817)

... at the mention of the term "blogosphere".

Re:I just entered a maddox-like rage... (4, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720985)

I agree. "Blogosphere" is one of those awful dot-bomb era buzzwords, bandied about by marketdroids and the press to make them look cool and informed about the Internet. There seems to be an inverse relationship between the amount of times someone mentions "the blogosphere" and their understanding of how the internet actually works.

What did you expect? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720819)

Birds of a feather...

Re:What did you expect? (5, Insightful)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721237)

Birds of a feather...
No doubt. And all we ever hear from the democrats is "Bush is syping ... Bush is eavesdropping .. Bush is monitoring financial transactions ..," ad nauseum. And now, when the democrats sell out to the RIAA -- who want the legal right to impersonate people to obtain personal information in order to extort money, the RIAA that spies on people and whose members condone the use of rootkits to bug personal computers, the RIAA that wants to control all means of distributing any audio content in any form -- what will we hear from the two-faced hypocrites that claim to be the defenders of free speech and personal privacy?

Not a fucking thing.

Re:What did you expect? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721279)

Too bad the truth gets modded down. Senator Fritz Hollings, aka Senator Disney, is a Democrat.

The DMCA was signed into law by Bill Clinton, a Democrat.

There's a tax on blank CD media in Canada - passed by liberals.

You'd think the self-professed "smart people"* who vote for "smart candidates"** would realize this. But they don't, because they're nothing more than sheep being led to slaughter.



* who are actually just stupid liberals who have less intelligence than a mildly retarded squirrel
** dumbasses like John Kerry (C+!) and Al Gore (flunked out)

They suck, yeah. (0, Troll)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720841)

This sucks, but what are we going to do? Vote Republican?
No thanks.

Re:They suck, yeah. (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720963)

This sucks, but what are we going to do? Vote Republican?
No thanks.


It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States [wikipedia.org] .

Re:They suck, yeah. (4, Insightful)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721061)

It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States.

And exactly two of them have a chance in hell of actually being elected.
Voting against the worst-possible-outcome (i.e. a Republican being elected) isn't ideal, but it's the reality of American electoral politics for a lot of people.

Re:They suck, yeah. (2, Insightful)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721155)

Maybe in the Federal elections, but State and Local elections are less popular (even though they're more important since they dictate the policy that affects you most where you actually live) and are thus more influential to third parties.

Re:They suck, yeah. (5, Insightful)

fossa (212602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721161)

And yet, you control but a single, insignificant vote. What have you got to lose? We can't even count accurately enough for a single vote to be significant should a large election come down to it.

Re:They suck, yeah. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721287)

> And exactly two of them have a chance in hell of actually being elected.

And exactly one of them has a chance in hell of actually being elected. Just because the Government party has a Jackass wing and an Elephant wing, doesn't mean they stand for anything fundamentally different. The Party knows all, sees all, and rules all.

Re:They suck, yeah. (5, Insightful)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721323)

Guess what? They won't ever have a chance of winning if nobody votes for them.

Thanks for being part of the problem.

Re:They suck, yeah. (1, Interesting)

maniac/dev/null (170211) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721339)

Considering that McCain and Guilani are the front runners, how is electing a Republican the "worst-possible-outcome"? If the choices were a third Bush term, or Cheney, or Jeb, or Rice, you might have a point, but do you really feel that McCain or Guilani would be as bad as the current Republican admin?

Considering how McCain and Bush smashed each other going for the nomination in 2000, McCain can almost run as the challenger, instead of the incumbent party.

Re:They suck, yeah. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721067)

It might interest you to know that there are more than 70 political parties in the United States.

And until our voting system is completely overhauled, only two of them are electable. That's the reality of it. If you don't like it (and I don't), press your congresscritter for reform of our voting laws. Even then, why do they want to change the system that keeps them in power?

Re:They suck, yeah. (3, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721111)

And until our voting system is completely overhauled, only two of them are electable. That's the reality of it. If you don't like it (and I don't), press your congresscritter for reform of our voting laws. Even then, why do they want to change the system that keeps them in power?
Which is why you need to vote for a minor party. I can guarantee to you that they'll get to changing things.

So only 2 parties are electable and neither will fix the problem. I submit to you that you must vote for an unelectable party in order to get things changed.

Re:They suck, yeah. (0)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721219)

No thank you, a vote for a minor party is a vote for a Republican.

Not to mention that the minor parties are worse than the 2 major alternatives.

Re:They suck, yeah. (2, Insightful)

hiroller (994761) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721277)

Which is why you need to vote for a minor party. I can guarantee to you that they'll get to changing things.
I agree but I want to slightly elaborate on you point.

Even if you don't get the minor party official elected, if they get enough votes, either a Republican or Democrat could pick up the driving issue and pursue it to their own means. It may not ideal, certainly, but it can be effective to get us what we want. So when the major two parties notice, the vote is not wasted.

Re:They suck, yeah. (1)

masdog (794316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721191)

The voting system doesn't need to be changed because those parties can get on the ballot. What needs to change is people actually looking at their local candidates and selecting the best one for the job or who matches their beliefs the best, not the one that gets the most time in the media.

The problem is that it requires people to be anything but sheep.

IOW, there are 67+ ways to WASTE A VOTE in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721273)

Thanks, I did not know that.

Re:They suck, yeah. (4, Insightful)

captainjaroslav (893479) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721345)

The sad thing is that the Democrats, instead of actually listening to all the voters they've disenfranchised, seem to treat "What are you going to do, vote Republican?" as a policy platform.

I hope this doesn't turn me into a target for the army of Nader-Haters out there, but I voted for Nader in 2000 and I would do it again. (FWIW, I was registered in Washington state at the time, and given the (absurd) Electoral College system, my vote did not actually play into the final outcome of that election.) When Democrats tried to convince me I should vote with them, nobody ever tried to make the "we support those issues also" or "actual progress requires more compromise" arguments. All I ever heard was, in essence, "Yeah, but the Republicans are worse." That just seems pathetic.

Re:They suck, yeah. (1, Redundant)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721041)

This sucks, but what are we going to do? Vote Republican?
No thanks


      How about considering some of the _other_ parties out there? Yeah, you may not win, but if you get enough seats guess who holds the balance of power?

Re:They suck, yeah. (2, Insightful)

EveryNickIsTaken (1054794) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721295)

Who would've thought that it would've been the Democrats that crack down on free speech (Imus) and then pick this assclown to work their convention? Are they shifting to the right, or are they just stupid?

Article is flamebait (4, Insightful)

cheebie (459397) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720877)

They used the words "shill", "left-wing" and "blogosphere". Then they mentioend the RIAA. That's as close as you can come to a Godwin violation without mentioning Historical German leaders.

Re:Article is flamebait (5, Funny)

twd (167101) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720939)

Hitler would have said that, if he had had a blog.

Re:Article is flamebait (1)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721051)

Yeah, I thought I was reading the Daily Kos or an RMS/FSF article when I loaded Slashdot and this was on top.

At least "left-wing" and "blogosphere" are in a quote from someone else...but the editor still chose to use those words.

Oh well, it wasn't exactly going to make me happy no matter how it was phrased, so maybe it's better this way!

Re:Article is flamebait (1)

theStorminMormon (883615) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721291)

Godwin's law is a joke. It's an *observation*. It's descriptive. I'm frustrated with people who use it as some kind of normative tool. Ah-hah! You mentioned Hitler! Therefore clearly *all* of your arguments are invalid!

While it is true that the vast majority of the time when someone resorts to a Hitler/NAZI comparison they are probably exaggerating, it doesn't follow that you can then automatically assume any Hiter/NAZI comparison is invalid.

To then further expand upon this law to also start invalidating any argument that uses potentially volatile language at all is simply unacceptable.

I'm going to put this in the file with all those people that think "ad hominem" is Latin for "insult" and therefore invalidate any argument that hurts their feelings.

I stopped reading (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720879)

I stopped reading when I saw "blogosphere"...

Re:I stopped reading (5, Funny)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720969)

I stopped reading when I saw "blogosphere"...
"Blogosphere" was the last word in the writeup, so you stopped reading at the last word.

Way to stick it to the man.

Re:I stopped reading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721085)

I stopped reading your post after the subject line. I'm not even sure what your full comment says.

Wow (5, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720889)

Can you say, "I'M DUMB AS A STUMP" (Yes; in all caps)

I'm a political party needing the general population to vote for me, but I'm going to have the most hated company by the general population represent my party by letting them running the show.

Lets just tattoo a giant "L" on their forehead...

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

lord_mike (567148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721147)

Well, the reality is that there are four branches of government... The Legislative, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Entertainment Industry. For all the complaining and hand-wringing about Hollywood, the Republicans have consistently rolled out the red carpet for their big corporate entertainment friends, and the Democrats are going to be no better. In fact, I'm sad to say, that the Democrats, in their zeal to "protect" artists probably will be worse in this regard. Although the entertainment industry rules both parties with an iron fist, people who work in the industry themselves tend to have more liberal sentimentalities, so they would be more likely to work for the DNC than the RNC as a personal preference. Both parties are equally awful in regards to entertainment and consumer rights.

Although I would hope that there would be more democrats than republicans who would support consumer rights over corporate profits, I don't expect to see any progressive entertainment legislation anytime soon, if ever. There is just too much influence in our fourth branch of government to enact any meaningful change. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss.

I hope I'm wrong... perhaps the people-powered, grassroots politics that is beginning to influence politics may eventually bear some fruit in that regard, but I am not getting my hopes up.

Thanks,

Mike

Re:Wow (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721189)

This is an organization hiring as a temporary press agent the press agent of another organization. It doesn't represent a strategic alliance at all, merely acknowledgement of the fact that this RIAA press guy is good. Which should be pretty obvious when you figure that the RIAA sues children, but half the country just knows them from sales certifications.

I'm getting jaded with gov't and politics... (5, Insightful)

Astro Dr Dave (787433) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720897)

Unsurprising; both parties are in the pockets of corporate interests, anyway. I hope there is a backlash over this.

When will people learn (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720899)

It's always amazed me that people seem to think liberals can do no evil. Maybe this will help you all learn the truth.

Re:When will people learn (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720949)

It's not so much that they do no evil, rather than that they do less evil.

Re:When will people learn (5, Informative)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720997)

Democrats!=liberal. The sooner everybody realizes this, the sooner we can actually have a liberal party in the US.

Re:When will people learn (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721355)

That's just what we need; a party that steals even more money and personal liberty from us.

Liberal? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721365)

Democrats!=liberal.

What is your definition of "liberal"?

It's not a slam against you. It's just that, especially in the last few years, "liberal" has become a derogatory term for anyone the disagrees with the "right wing" folks. There, I did it myself. And I can't give a definition of "right wing" myself - these days - other than to say, "someone who still supports the Republican party after all of these years of corruption and complete mishandling of international affairs." - IMHO

Back to liberal. I was once talking to a friend of mine and she was complaining about all of the "liberals" who wanted to ban lawn signs on people's yards. How wanting to ban signs on people's yards makes one a "liberal" is beyond me.

DNCC is just worried... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720903)

...about rampant trading of dem speeches on p2p networks and the potential for remixes and mash-ups without compensation to the original artists like Lincoln and Roosevelt.

They plan on flooding p2p networks with podcasts that are just bogus loops during the convention.

Lincoln? (1)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720965)

Seriously, it's not that hard - Lincoln was a Republican.

Re:Lincoln? (1)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721133)

Seriously, it's not that hard - Lincoln was a Republican.

Yeah, 150 years ago.

What have they done for us lately?

Re:Lincoln? (2, Funny)

dreddnott (555950) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721167)

Yes - that's why scientists have been able to extract limitless energy from his sepulchral rotation since Richard Nixon became president.

Re:Lincoln? (1)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721341)

I imagine that would make for an excellent animated GIF.

Re:Lincoln? (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721209)

Yeah, but his views on the whole "states' rights" issue render him currently unelectable as one.

Re:Lincoln? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721251)

moron, the party lincoln was attached to no longer exists

Re:Lincoln? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721303)

Um,I'm pretty sure it does. [wikipedia.org]

Shill? (5, Interesting)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720913)

I do not think that word means what the author of that blurb thinks it means.

They didn't hire a shill. They just hired someone who used to work for the RIAA. Big deal. The Pope used to work for Hitler too, but it's not relevant work experience.

Re:Shill? (5, Interesting)

Swift Kick (240510) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721223)

What a delightfully interesting comment.

Using that line of reasoning, one could then say the same about Cheney and Haliburton's past relationship when he became a part of the administration:

"He's not a Haliburton guy. He just used to work for them. Big Deal."

Your comment is actually not that uncommon. You will see similar comments whenever there's any hint that a person affiliated with a political organization has a less-than-acceptable prior 'relationship record'.
However, you'll see a lot more leniency when the comments are being made about someone in the democrat/leftist/liberal camp.

Now you understand the double standard that exists in general when reporting political relationships depending on which political party you're referring to at the time.

Re:Shill? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721239)

Pope used to work for Hitler too
I guess...maybe in the same way a mail carrier "works for" George Dubya. But here's something that will blow your mind: Hitler was also a catholic in good standing (he was excommunicated, but only posthumously). So it's like he was working for the Pope... weird.

Re:Shill? (1)

Bassman59 (519820) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721337)

Pope used to work for Hitler too
I guess...maybe in the same way a mail carrier "works for" George Dubya. But here's something that will blow your mind: Hitler was also a catholic in good standing (he was excommunicated, but only posthumously). So it's like he was working for the Pope... weird.

Hey, it's not like Pope Pius XII did anything to stop the Holocaust [timelineindex.com] ... he just remained silent on the sidelines.

Re:Shill? (1)

OctoberSky (888619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721253)

I don't get it either. If I were running for President of the United States, I would do everything in my power to get the team that got Bush elected in 2004 to run my campaign.

Those are probably some of the best campaign managers (if not the best) to ever do the job. There would be reports that "Democratic (my party) candidate Octoberus McSky has hired former Republican campaign managers..." Sure they used to be the enemy, but they're the best.

I mean, they got Bush elected... again!

Re:Shill? (1)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721317)

They didn't hire a shill. They just hired someone who used to work for the RIAA.
Except that people often use "shill" a a convenient pejorative for PR flacks, regardless of whose misinformation they're pumping. I agree with your point in general, though...too many people on this thread seem to confuse this news with a RIAA takeover of the Democratic Party.

I love that line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720915)

"This represents a potential shear with the left-wing blogosphere."

Is that from The Big Lebowski? If it isn't, it shoul'dve been in there somewhere.

Re:I love that line (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721101)

Is that from The Big Lebowski?
No. That would have been:

"This fucking represents a fucking potential fuck with the fucking left-fuck blogosphuck."

not to late (5, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720917)

to vote libertarian.

you know the Lib party is pretty sound once you get past the "smoke pot" platform. and honestly I firmly believe that because they push that platform so hard is why nobody even thinks of jumping ship from republican or democrat to Libertarian.

I personally like their ideals and goals, and for the most part they do make sense in every aspect if you sit and listen to them.

too bad 90% of americans are baying sheep that are to cowardly to vote for a 3rd party.

Re:not to late (3, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720951)

Thats the way to get people to listen to your ideas and get them to vote with you. Call them sheep...

Re:not to late (1)

Johnny5000 (451029) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720999)

too bad 90% of americans are baying sheep that are to cowardly to vote for a 3rd party.

Nothing says "vote for us" like insulting 90% of the voting population!

Re:not to late (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721087)

to hell with "insulting" most of the voting public goes foaming at the mouth the second any Libertarian starts into his "legalize all drugs" rants. They actually have far better platforms to stand on that will get the attention of voters but they ALWAYS use the "free the pot! we must legalize POT!" stance first and that instantly turns off almost all of the voting public.

In reality, simply get the low income and minorities to actually vote, that will overwhelm the fixing of the elections taht is going on and actually make change happen. But again as a guy that tried to help get people to vote 8 years ago, most amercians (I.E. poor americans) have zero interest in voting.

Re:not to late (1)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721127)

Dude, you must be on drugs... ;)

Oblig. Kang quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721023)

Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
              it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
                [murmurs]
  Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
  Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
  Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

Wait... What? (4, Insightful)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721033)

you know the Lib party is pretty sound once you get past the "smoke pot" platform.

Wait, so you're advocating the libertarian party... and you don't even believe people have the right to use whatever recreational drugs they want?

It just seems like if you're going to be pro-personal freedom, the War on Drugs would be the first thing you'd want to get rid of, not the last.

Re:Wait... What? (5, Insightful)

Deagol (323173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721329)

Wait, so you're advocating the libertarian party... and you don't even believe people have the right to use whatever recreational drugs they want? It just seems like if you're going to be pro-personal freedom, the War on Drugs would be the first thing you'd want to get rid of, not the last.

Yes, but the poster's point was that a pro-drug stance shouldn't be the first thing to tout while on the stump. There are many more "pro-personal freedom" stances that are far more palatable to liberals and conservatives alike than "free the weed, dude".

Re:not to late (4, Insightful)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721045)

Read my journal. The reason why Libertarians are not more popular is that the don't effectively frame their message. They speak only in analytical terms and fail to differentiate their own moral values. They do have them, they just fail to speak in terms of them. Instead, the Republicans, who are masters of the art of framing, usurp the Libertarian watchwords for their own purposes which are contrary to libertarian morality. Thus, many Libertarians vote for Republicans against their own interests, and they don't realize it.

Example: calling people cowards is a conservative frame. Call them slaves instead - that's a libertarian frame. If you want a liberal frame, call them selfish bullies.

Re:not to late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721047)

You really want to know why everyone thinks the Libertarians are a joke? Look no further [std.com] . I have absolutely no problem with decriminalizing drug use, as you seem to. I do have quite a big problem with, say, abolishing the FDA, FEMA, child labor laws, etc.

Re:not to late (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721049)

Yes, but does that accomplish anything. Vote for the least of the evils that stands a chance to win.

I like liberals. I think everyone should own one to as a reminder of the liberal failure of society.
Then have them shot.

Re:not to late (1)

7Prime (871679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721151)

That's great... except for, ya know, the stuff about cutting government social programs, environmental apathy, handgun deregulation, not to mention, embracing social darwinism as the new religion...

...no thanks. Keep your party off my lawn!

Re:not to late (2, Interesting)

masdog (794316) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721285)

So its bad that the libertarians want you to have more of the money you earn. Its bad that they believe that you should be responsible for yourself, not some monolithic entity that takes from some to give to others?

And there is nothing wrong with handgun deregulation. You have a right to own one. Its the second most important amendment to the constitution. That some people misuse them for illegal activities is no reason to take my gun away from me.

Scum always gathers and rise to the top (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720919)

This is just proof that the scum gathers and rises to the top. As I send my dollars to the least of the evils that stand to win (republican).

Sue me, I'm conservative.

Re:Scum always gathers and rise to the top (1)

jZnat (793348) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721247)

Sue me, I'm conservative.
That can be arranged.

- Deputy CEO for Public Affairs, DNC

Re:Scum always gathers and rise to the top (1)

antireverser (1088017) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721297)

You really think the Republicans are the least of the evils?

I mean this was a bullshit move, but no-one died when they appointed this person, unlike what happened when Bush and the Republican Party mislead the people of the United States over the Iraq war. But hey, if war under false pretenses is the "least evil" for you, who am I to tell you who to vote for?

Just Ask Howard Dean (5, Insightful)

Slashdot Parent (995749) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720923)

Just ask Howard Dean how much influence the "left-wing blogosphere" wields in terms of getting their darling elected.

could this affect the /. crowd? (1)

darth_linux (778182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720929)

will will all run from the Democrat banner now? ESR says Libertarian is OK. :)

Re:could this affect the /. crowd? (5, Funny)

GMFTatsujin (239569) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721083)

I'd say, "Let's have a Slashdot poll," but I'm afraid I'd wake up in 2009 to find Cowboy Neal laughing his ass off from behind the podium ...

How many butterflies would I have to stomp on to keep that from happening?

Unfortumate choice (2, Insightful)

surfingmarmot (858550) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720935)

While she might have public sector skills the Democrats could certainly gain from having on their side, given her organization's (and no doubt her own) agenda, I would be very concerned about the back-channel influence she is going to have on the DNC, the candidates, and their supporters from the executvie and legislative branches. They will be 'rubbing shoulders
  a lot in the preparation and at the event and one would have to be naive to think she won't be lobbying for the RIAA.

The Democrats rightly chastized Dick Cheney for his closed-door energy policy meetings with his energy industry cronies and then they turn around and act similarly by allowing a corporate special interest inside access to candiates--before they are even in office. Why don't they pick someone from a non-profit? Sure there will always be some agenda with any person they choose, but why choose someone frm an organization that is so blatant, so hated, and so mercenary?

Have they given leave of their sense?

Re:Unfortumate choice (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720993)

Why don't they pick someone from a non-profit?

      Acording to the RIAA they ARE a non profit, what with all the money they're losing from piracy and all..

Oblig (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720953)

IFOWONRIAAO

Really? (3, Insightful)

Sunburnt (890890) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720967)

"This represents a potential shear with the left-wing blogosphere."
"Shear?" How about "point that will be grumbled about for an entire day, then swiftly forgotten unless this shill commits some egregious fuckup." Given the ready availability of news for the left blogosphere to discuss, this'll hardly register, epsecially since people generally assume that political conventions are as full of shit as PR flacks. It's not like the Democrats did something as contemptuous as, say, appointing a former oil lobbyist [wikipedia.org] to be Secretary of the Interior.

Thats one less (3, Insightful)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720989)

As the democrats are clearly in bed with the RIAA they're not getting my vote any more.

Re:Thats one less (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721221)

If this is the one issue that decides who you vote for, then you seriously need to re-adjust your priorities. Really.

And this is a surprise? (3, Informative)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 7 years ago | (#18720991)

First off: a person who does communications for group 1 is probably going to do a reasonable job of doing communications for group 2. If you're hiring based on merit, how much does it matter if the person is one of satan's catchers?

Secondly: the RIAA is everyone in power's best friend. Republicans love the big companies, Democrats love the film and rock stars, and both parties just absolutely adore lobbyists. They're like groupies only they give money.

Thank God (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18720995)

Thank God.

I used to be worried when the Democrats wanted to overspend, but then Reagan came along to overspend more than everyone else put together, and I relaxed -- then I knew it was unanimous that our two political parties wanted to spend all our money now, to get the most bang for our buck now before our country is entirely in the dump.

I was worrying that only the Republicans want state-sponsored torture, and state-run terror, and secret laws, secret police, and spying on the citizens -- but I'll relax as the Democrats are proven to be just as in favor of the new Improved Soviet America.

As long as all our Good Leaders agree, I know it is ok.

Surprised? (4, Insightful)

cliveholloway (132299) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721009)

money talks.

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"

- Bill Hicks

I refuse to vote Democratic (1)

Todd Fisher (680265) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721013)

Just based off of that terrible red and blue donkey topic image. MS Paint rocks!!

Failure of the people to restrict their government (1)

Shambly (1075137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721071)

Yet you will still vote Democrat because the only option you see is the Republican's. It's good that you have the blinders on so tight that you can't possibly see any other options. You can have all the freedoms you want because most Americans cannot conceive of a different choice. You are free to pick the color of the car as long as you chose black. Rise up and protest, strike don't just post witty comments on forums... but of course you won't, it doesn't bother you enough... Its good to know that they have realized they can take your life away bit by bit since you can only protest when crazy excesses happen.

The world has gotten to large for your version of government to work. Its a good thing your government has already realized this and removed it from your control. Good luck trying to change anything now without a massive uprising.

Follow the money (2, Informative)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721117)

It'll make the trial lawyer and Hollywood/Music Industry contingents of the Democrats very happy. And those groups may be small, but they represent a lot of campaign donation dollars.

This just proves: (1)

oDDmON oUT (231200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721123)

The density of Administratium is second to none.

Both Major Parties need to lurk more. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721143)

OK, this story more proof that neither the Democrats NOR the Republican parties in their present forms are capable of running the US government.

We have two options:

1) Leftists need to take over the Democratic Party. Real leftists - social democrats, reform liberals, etc, not these pretenders to the throne that form the current executive and the grey hairs that live in the senate. Rightists need to take over the Republicans. Real rightists, libertarians, small government conservatives, etc, not the racists, religious right and neoconservatives.

OR

2) We need to make new political parties, and reform the system that encourages a two-party system.

By allying themselves with the MAFIAA, the Democrats have proven themselves just as incapable of serving our interests as the Republicans. "Intellectual Property" cartels cannot be allowed to continue to operate in the digital age.

Thanks,
A Concerned Citizen

It isn't just the blogosphere. (1)

Khaed (544779) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721149)

And it isn't just left-wing.

The RIAA pisses pretty much everyone off. There's enough buzz that people I know that have never visited slashdot, know next to nothing about DRM (other than "this annoys me"), hate the RIAA. Most of them aren't even sure what it is, but they hate the RIAA. I don't understand why the Democrats are cozying up to these assholes. They go all out claiming to represent the very people the RIAA sues.

Not that it matters (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18721153)

Most music thieves are too lazy to vote in the first place.

DRM loses my vote. Period. (2, Insightful)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721157)

Democrats need to be very very careful with DRM and associating with the **AAs. The last 7 years have made me hate the Republican party enough to never vote Red again in my life...and I used to be a Republican (in college when I was clueless about the real world, and didn't have the ability to forsee how the republican party has annihilated the middle class over the last 7 years).

Bottom line, if the Dems go hard with DRM I will go with the independents and libertarians...regardless of whether this gives the Republicans an edge...I will not support a DRM friendly party that puts the rights of corporations over individual human rights. For Christ's sake Democrats are suppost the represent us...the people...corporate interests should always come second to any true Democrat in office.

I'll save you all a lot of time (4, Insightful)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721185)

Politics is politics, dear friends. Partisanship and political discourse are theater whose purpose is to obtain votes. Either of the two parties will say and do anything, and I do mean anything to put their people in power. Ideology, "positions," speeches, platforms, and the like should not be construed as promises or guarantees of future behavior. They are meant for one and only one thing: to obtain votes.

Also, do not believe that we, the voters are their constituents in the sense that they are beholden to our interests. This is not the case. They are beholden to those who can pressure them by providing or withholding money, usually (but not always) through lobbyists. If you are not represented in such a way to your government representatives, then you are not in any practical sense one of their constituents. Your vote was the single act in which you are able to influence the process. In principle, you can write to them once they are in office and attempt to sway them, but unless you are onboard with the money-providing players, or unless you are part of a massive broad-based campaign, you will be ignored and will receive a canned response.

I claim that the above is neither an opinion nor ideology, but an expression of practical facts. Please refute that claim.

Riiiiiight (4, Insightful)

N8F8 (4562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721197)

Wake up. The Democratic party want to regulate the hell out of everything just like the RIAA. Learn from history or repeat it. Time for a real 3rd party. No lawyers or career politicians allowed.

like there's a difference (4, Insightful)

b17bmbr (608864) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721211)

bnetween the two parties. unless it's the Iraq war (which many democrats voted for by the way), name one substantial difference between the two parties. they both favor unlimited immigration, destructive trade policies, won't push to expand more oil drilling and nuclear power, don't give a crap about the social security/medicare atom bombs, and in general are so beholden to large monied interests. the republicans screwed up the war on terror, the democrats won't even fight it. other than that, they are more concerned with consolidating political power.

as for the media, et al., all those hollywood big wigs (like David Geffen), who love the RIAA. they are all HUGE democratic donors. connection? I guess not.

vote libertarian!!

This is a non-issue. (1)

Stanistani (808333) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721311)

She's a flack. They don't create policy. They're like light bulbs. Burn one out, unscrew it, screw another in.
- - - - - - - - - -
Jenni Engebretsen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jenni R. Engebretsen is the Director of Communications for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the Washington, DC-based trade group that represents the U.S. recording industry.

[] Political involvement

Engebretsen spent eight years working in Democratic politics prior to joining the RIAA, most recently as a Regional Communications Director for the Kerry-Edwards for President campaign, where she was responsible for developing campaign communications strategy for top-targeted states including Florida and New Hampshire. During the 2004 presidential cycle, she also served as Deputy Communications Director for the Democratic National Convention in Boston and as Press Secretary for the Edwards for President campaign during the primaries. Before that, she worked on Capitol Hill in the communications offices of Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y.) and in the White House press office during the Clinton Administration. She is a graduate of Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.

First Order of Business is DNC Acronym Change? (4, Funny)

Evil W1zard (832703) | more than 7 years ago | (#18721359)

Jenni Engebretsen has proposed that DNC shall now stand for DO NOT COPY... She also will be instituting a new convention which will be named the Democratic Reform Meeting (DRM) which will be held monthly at a Regional Information Assembly Area (RIAA). She will also be engaging in a heavy handed campaign to support Military Personnel Aid and Assistance (MPAA).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?