Everything that's wrong about politics: latest SOPA and PROTECT-IP outrage

By | December 12, 2011, 5:00am PST

Summary: It’s an honor to work for the American people, not a stepping stone to a bigger score.

“Okay, okay. Breathe. Breathe in, breathe out. Do. Not. Roar at the top of your lungs. Settle down.”

I needed to tell myself that for a good few minutes before I could begin to write this article. To say that I’m outraged is an understatement. When I tell you about what’s got me so ticked off, you’re going to be livid yourself.

So, take a deep breath. You’re going to need it.

Let me cut to the chase. Two of the people responsible for writing these dangerous and un-American bills — the key writer for the House version and the key writer for the Senate version — have just accepted positions for two of the lobbying organizations pushing for the bill.

According to Politico, Allison Halataei, former deputy chief of staff and parliamentarian to House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith and Lauren Pastarnack, a Senate Judiciary Committee senior aide, have accepted gigs with two of the lobbying firms that stand to gain the most from the passage of these regressive, First Amendment squelching, due-process destroying, job-killing bills.

Get this. Now that she helped write the bill and get it into consideration, Halataei is officially the National Music Publisher’s Association chief liaison to Congress. Pasternak scored a juicy gig as the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) director of government relations.

I’ll bet their credit scores just took a big jump. Hey, Allison and Lauren, thanks for selling out the rest of your fellow Americans! Now, as it turns out, Halataei and Pastarnack are both Republicans. But lest you think this sell-out-America and sell-your-soul trend is limited to Republicans, oh no. No way. Case in point: Chris Dodd.

Chris Dodd served as a U.S. Senator from 1981 through 2011, a total of 30 years. Now, despite claiming repeatedly that he would never accept a lobbying position, the esteemed former Democratic Senator from Connecticut is now the Chairman and CEO of the MPAA.

See? Both Democrats and Republicans can be scum.

We’ve talked a lot about the heinous SOPA and PROTECT-IP bills working their way through committee. In fact, after publishing my screed against Congressmen Bill Posey’s noncommittal position on SOPA, I had the chance to talk at length with his team just last Friday. Who, for the record, are not scum. They’re actually quite nice.

See also: Dear Congressman Posey, SOPA is both dangerous and un-American

Actually, just in case you were curious about whether or not the powers-that-be read ZDNet, I got a call from Rep. Posey’s press secretary less than three hours after I pressed “Publish” on the article. Gotta love them Google Alerts!

In any case, the reason Posey’s response about SOPA to his constituent was so noncommittal was because it wasn’t one if his areas of responsibility. Yet. Congress-critters sit on various committees and bills, in their early stages, are crafted in one committee or another. Think of the committee as a development team.

One member of Congress might be on the Judiciary committee, which is working on SOPA. Another might be on the Financial Services committee, which is its own movable feast of nightmares. In any case, it’s like one Google developer working on, say, the spreadsheet Google App and another developer working on Google News. They may discuss each in passing, but they really don’t get into the guts of the other group’s code.

So, until the bill gets out of committee, think of it as if it’s in the alpha stage of development. Once (or if) it gets out of committee, then more legislators will begin to pay more attention to it (sort of like being in beta). Heh, the analogy works! If the law passes, it’s in golden master, on the way to the President. If it gets signed, it’s officially shipped.

Anyway, the letter Posey’s constituent got back was noncommittal because, essentially, Poseys office didn’t know anything much about the bill because it wasn’t on their desks yet. Of course, they wrote their response in typical politician-ese, which meant that no matter which side you might favor, the letter was designed to (hopefully) appeal to you. In this case, it didn’t quite work, the constituent wrote me, I wrote my article, and a Google Alert showed up in their inbox, so they contacted me.

So, now you know a little more about the sausage grinding that occurs as part of the legislative process. That does not excuse Halataei, Pastarnack, and Dodd for trading their responsibilities to the American public for nicer cars and bigger houses.

There are actually two outrages here. One is that they’d essentially sell out to two declared enemies of Internet freedoms. But the second outrage is we don’t really know if they actually sold influence. We don’t know if, for example, the MPAA promised Pasternack a high-paying job if she influenced the bill in just a certain way, while working for the United States Senate.

We just don’t know if they did anything unethical. But we do know it looks mighty fishy. And that’s just plain disappointing.

It’s an honor to work for the American people, not a stepping stone to a bigger score.

You folks working in politics in Washington, remember that now, okay?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

78
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

The real truth about MPAA and Dodd
dblument 17th Jan
This is how the rich(hollywood types and drug and media barons) get richer. The US Government goes after the poor, cuz the rich have jacked up their movies and music, to say nada about pharmaceuticals! patent and copyright laws make the rich richer!
I'm also in Posey's district, and as a supporter of his I hope he does the right thing here. I'm glad that he has also taken steps to get rid of net neutrality which is another backdoor way of more government control from a bunch of un-elected FCC officials.
@SScott721 ...as opposed to allowing the biggest corporations to control the 'net, which is what will happen if net neutrality is crushed? No sale.
0 Votes
+ -
I figure...
John L. Ries Updated - 12th Dec
@P.F. Bruns
...that corporate executives have the same right to petition the politicians for redress as anyone else, but it doesn't have to be done behind closed doors. Historically, petitions were in writing and submitted publicly, which I think was a good thing.
@P.F. Bruns

If what you say is going to happen if we don't pass Net Neutrality is accurate, why isn't it already happening in the absence of Net Neutrality? Why hasn't it ever happened in the entire U.S. history of the Internet?
@P.F. Bruns The biggest corporations surely include Google and Amazon.
@swmace

Were you not paying attention when Comcast started charging Netflix for access to the internet connection YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR!? How about reading Comcast's investor report where they layout their plan for reducing the quality of their service while charging more money in order to approach >30% profit margins? It's been HAPPENING for 15 years.
controlling the content that's delivered.

Charging more for sites that use an inordinate amount of broadband usage, has nothing to do with net neutrality. Net neutrality is still a solution to a non-existent problem.
solve?

Net neutrality is nothing more than the beginning steps towards government control of the content and the delivery methods. So, you have things quite reversed.

Net neutrality regulations or legislation is nothing more than a foot in the door by politicians who want to take internet regulations towards full control by government. Net neutrality is a farce being perpetrated by big government advocates, and which will do the opposite of what the name implies.
0 Votes
+ -
How is it possible
doctordawg Updated - 13th Dec
@P.F. Bruns ...that anyone with basic math skills could oppose net neutrality?
Asides from the math, net neutrality has nothing to do with actual "net neutrality", and it's just a ruse by leftist politicians to start on the way towards real control of the internet, both the delivery methods and the content.

So, if you must, use your math to explain how net neutrality solves anything. Net neutrality is a solution looking for a problem.

If you don't understand what that means, then you need to learn more math. wink
  • Flagged
@SScott721 Why do people assume unelected means wrong, corrupt or stupid? Most political scandals (whether Nixon or the last Governor of Illinois) were elected! As for the FCC it may well be all that stands between us and the lobbyists for companies who would have the Internet run for the corporations, by the corporations - lest profit disappear from their bank accounts!
that businesses could ever conceive of doing. What a business can do, might be illegal or legal, and if illegal, can be undone easily, but, if a government agency undertakes to do something illegal or harmful, it's a lot bigger problem to overcome.

The FCC is one of those agencies which needs to be watched more carefully than most politicians, because, they could end up controlling the media and the internet and the content, which would all be unconstitutional.

Beware of sheep in wolves clothing.
@SScott721
Oh. The slippery slope argument.
http://www.smbc-theater.com/?id=197

Regulation does not automatically lead to greater regulation. I sure as hell hope I don't need to start paying a Youtube fee. Or an "unapproved sites" fee. I never want to see a banner injected into a site that says "Tired of stuttering video? Contact Comcast now to ask about our video streaming combo pack discount!"
and that's why there are laws proposed to solve problems which don't really exist. Why would someone need to legislate to solve problems which don't exist? It's for creating a springboard for more legislation in the same area of the "perceived" or "invented" problem. Create a non-existent problem, then create a phony solution, and that phony solution becomes a precedent for further regulations. It happens all the time, and that's why we have agencies abusing their power after some initial regulation or law got the ball started, such as the FCC and EPA.
@SScott721 Wait, I thought you were keeping up?
It IS happening...selective bandwidth for competitors, lockouts for all VPN's, shutdowns of service for circulating nodes and, oh yes, one-party propaganda 24/7 ON OUR AIRWAVES.
Time for net neutrality AND the Fairness Doctrine.
In my dictatorial dream nation, I place a ban on any government employee working anywhere that has lobbied for something in the past five years. If they're experts at media they can get lots of jobs that don't directly interact with government. Reality is, they're not ... they have friends and contacts that the media empire wants.
@Ididar In a dream nation, why would you even have lobbyists?
0 Votes
+ -
Response above
John L. Ries Updated - 12th Dec
@P.F. Bruns
I put it in the wrong place. I quote:

"I figure that corporate executives have the same right to petition the politicians for redress as anyone else, but it doesn't have to be done behind closed doors. Historically, petitions were in writing and submitted publicly, which I think was a good thing."

Lobbying behind closed doors only serves to make it easier to evade responsibility for one's own actions.
Lobbying behind closed doors only serves to make it easier to evade responsibility for one's own actions.

Which is what most of them do. Hence, they aren't accountable.
You're right in the statement that this isn't a partisan issue. Especially since 9/11, members of both sides of the aisle have been far too willing to throw our constitutional rights out the window in the name of security, or now in the name of combatting child predators.

National security and protecting our children from those who would prey on them are certainly a worthy causes, but our elected officials are either drunk with the power that erosion of our privacy brings or are so terrified about something happening on their watch they don't care about the ramifications. In some cases, I'm sure it's both.
@piousmonk

This one isn't even about child predators. This one is about corporate welfare. The Swiss did an actual STUDY that found piracy does not reduce the public's spending on entertainment, and that it makes it easier for independent artists to compete. However, that threatens the 5 companies which control 80% of the conventional entertainment industry. This is about protecting the corporate profits of companies like Sony Music. If we don't pay $20 for a CD, they won't be able to pay someone to pick all the green skittles out of Mariah's limo!
possible?

SOPA is one thing, profits is quite another matter.

You don't have to pay $20 for a CD, but you also don't have the right to steal IP or copyrighted material.

My solution would be to keep all things related to SOPA related material off the internet. Nobody would be tempted to steal that content, and the creators of the content would suffer major consequences, unless they'd be content with just the off-line profits. The internet brings a lot of exposure to a lot of artists who would otherwise remain in obscurity, and with more artists creating more music, the artists and the record labels stand to gain more than from the SOPA protections.
@tkejlboom : Even without looking at the research, I'm inclined to presume it is so; "Piracy" only affects the bottom line of the holder of the copyright, which in most cases of recording contracts, is not the original artist anyhow. As for the huge publishing multinationals, my heart cries for them. If knock-offs can easily match their "quality" of the "properly" licensed material, then it probably means that the "rightful" owner is charging too much. If they lowered their prices, they could easily crowd the knock-offs right out of the market. Yet they don't. I think there is a reason, and I'm not going to do their work for them.
@piousmonk Yep, beware of those selling 'security' to you. They build fences and put up guard houses and raise flags for you to salute, and while you are doing that, they invariably pick your pockets. "Security" is ultimately imaginary. This does not mean "do nothing" to protect yourself, but whom exactly do you trust to "do it for you" if you do not. I dunno. One thing I DO know is that if you choose badly whom to trust, it is much worse than having done nothing. And as you say, Americans have a long and distinguished history of hiring very self-serving and slimy individuals to be in charge of 'security' when we get scared, which in turn causes us to hemorrhage civil rights that many of our forebears died to earn and keep. May we hear they roll over in their graves, and heed well their warning.
0 Votes
+ -
This article illustrates a very small corner of what is wrong with politics. Politicians have three laws.
1 Do anything needed to ensure re-election as long as it does not cause problems with the lobbyists who look after me.
2 Do what the party wants as long as it does not conflict with the first law.
3 Arrange for government money to be spent in my patch as long as it does not conflict with laws 1 and 2.
0 Votes
+ -
And the biggest problem is...
John L. Ries 12th Dec
@alfred@...
...voters tolerate it by rewarding the behavior.
@alfred@... Just retweeted your point, with the comment "Cynical view of politics but far too common not to be accurate..."
Meanwhile the nearly 40 co-sponsors of the Protect IP Act in the Senate have received more than $13.5 million from various lobbies and companies related to the entertainment industry:

??? Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., $1,996,470
??? Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., $1,465,160
??? Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., $1,295,718
??? Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., $899,366 (sponsor)
??? Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., $890,668
??? Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., $747,491
??? Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mont., $503,291
??? Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., $493,069
??? Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, $492,407
??? Sen. Robert Men??ndez, D-N.J., $445,575
??? Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., $430,500
??? Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., $368,733
??? Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., $365,589
??? Sen. Robert Casey, D-Penn., $343,225
??? Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., $312,320
??? Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., $297,771
??? Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, $291,621
??? Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, $284,225
??? Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., $254,162
??? Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., $237,084
??? Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., $230,569
??? Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., $218,539
??? Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., - $217,847
??? Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., - $171,790
??? Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., $158,066
??? Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., $94,450
@Bodazapha I think you'll find that Roy Blunt is a Senator from Missouri.
0 Votes
+ -
What the heck?!?!
adornoe@... Updated - 12th Dec
Zack made it a point to mention more republicans in the blog than democrats, but, the list above indicates that the democrats have a huge majority in support of SOPA?

What gives Zack? Playing politics again, while pretending to show impartiality?
@adornoe@...
The blog was written by David not Zack.
problem.

However, my post has been corrected to reflect the right name.
twirps and see if they did sell out the American public.
the old adage "show me the money" certainly points to probable cause.
let the congressional investigations flow!!!
(even though they're a colossal waste of time and money)

happy
.
In the interests of fairness, did you try searching "TechAmerica" + "Ron Wyden"?
@rowenacherry

I'm confused. From the article it sounds like you are offering supporting evidence for the fact that congress is broken. Is your contention that they should do this other wrong thing to somehow offset the first wrong thing?
@tkejlboom Do you have any evidence that Ron Wyden has done a "wrong thing"? I can't find a single campaign contribution for him from any tech titan.

Having a massive ego is not a "wrong thing". (Seems reasonable to assume that Wyden may want to protect "safe harbor" because he had something to do with the leaky safe harbor protections.)

Allegedly being a democrat worth 7 million is not a wrong thing.

So, I'm not sure what you are saying. The article seems to suggest that only the supporters of SOPA are susceptible to lobbyists' persuasions. I simply asked if the author of this article had thoroughly checked whether the opponents of COICA, SOPA, IP Protect etc etc were squeaky clean.
(Seems reasonable to assume that Wyden may want to protect "safe harbor" because he had something to do with the leaky safe harbor protections.)

Do you have any evidence of that? Or are you just blathering hot air?

I simply asked if the author of this article had thoroughly checked whether the opponents of COICA, SOPA, IP Protect etc etc were squeaky clean.

Well since you have a vested interest in all this, maybe you can tell us about that.
Emphasis on "free." Capitalism gets a bad rap these days because a lot of people will look at this type of activity and say, "Gee, those capitalist pigs, lining their wallets." But that's not what is going on, here. What has happened in the last 100 years is that certain industries have figured out that a truly free market cuts into their particular interests -- even though free markets produce things in the best interests of all consumers. They have found a way to get protection from competitors (the rest of the market) by enforcing their products and product types by using government. The RIAA, the MPAA, prescription drug companies, telecoms, the auto industry, and a whole host of other businesses use government regulation to PREVENT and IMPAIR competition in their market space.

The more powerful we make our government, the more likely this type of corruption will take place. The more laws, regulations, and oversights we have, the more tempted other industries are to use those methods to break down the benefits of a free market. The result is a colossal government with so many regulations that no one can keep track of all of it. It kills jobs all across the country. Who mourns for the companies that COULD HAVE BEEN? Who knows what technology we COULD INVENT to play music and movies? This sort of behavior can only be stopped by shrinking the power of the government ... and establishment Democrats and Republicans are not likely to want to do that any time soon.
0 Votes
+ -
How about this?
John L. Ries Updated - 12th Dec
@zaq.hack
Replace the regulatory regime with simple, well-understood laws and let the courts (ie. judges and juries) fill in the details using the processes of common law (as has been done in English speaking jurisdictions for over nine centuries). If the technical details are more than ordinary citizens can be expected to handle, maybe we should use juries of credentialed experts in those cases (a panel of structural engineers is probably better equipped to determine if construction was shoddy than a lay jury would be; likewise, a jury of physicians might be better equipped to judge medical malpractice claims).

While we're at it, let's stop allowing lobbying and other political activities to be written off as business expenses, and make corporate officers personally liable for the misdeeds of the corporations they manage.

Reply to Baggins_Z:

Why bother with a voucher system? Why not just abolish public education and mandatory schooling completely. Those who can afford to send their children to school will do so, those who can't would have to rely on charity or simply keep their children home. This does seem to be more in line with your general philosophy.

Public education is a relatively new concept after all.

BTW: Judges have the job of interpreting and applying law now. Why would doing away with most administrative regs and leaving the hairsplitting to the courts who have been doing it for centuries be a bad thing? If elected legislators don't like the decisions that are made, they can always change the law.

Reply to adornoe:

I'm not talking about professional juries; juries would still be composed of citizens who would serve for a limited time and then go back to their normal lives. The only difference would be that in some civil cases, the jury pool would be limited to those with expertise in the area of controversy. Just maybe, for example, those accused of professional malfeasance should be tried by their peers, instead of by members of the general public. I only mentioned it as an alternative to the existing system of adminstrative regulations.
legislation? No thank you. The real solution here is to re-orient the culture. The first big step to making that happen is abolish the public education system and replace it with a voucher system.
0 Votes
+ -
You'd be setting up another body of government, just as corruptible as the current set of government bodies.

Before anything like you suggest can be set up, you'd need to find perfect people, who could not be corrupted, and could never be bought, and who were, basically, unemotional and divorced from human nature.

Know anybody like that?
and there should never be a group of people that are called in, over and over again, to solve problems of major importance. That's the problem with congressional leaders who are in for lifetimes and with a president who might be in for a lifetime (luckily, we don't really have the presidential problem in the U.S.). We need to keep the problem solving as much in the hands of the people as possible, and term limits for government officials and judges and for civil servants, is, in my opinion, is a better way to serve the people.
@zaq.hack The problem is, the free enterprise you're describing is just as big a fantasy as Karl Marx's description of pure communism. Neither will ever happen, for the same reason; both a pure free market and a pure communist society requires everyone to agree not to game the system, and there will always be those that will game the system for themselves regardless of the results.
0 Votes
+ -
VOTE THE POLITICIANS OUT
microface@... 12th Dec
Nothing will be done until we the people VOTE the politicians out. While i am ashamed to admit that I voted for Obama, I AM PROUD that i have never voted for Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, or my districts rep McLintock. These people are beholden to large corporations, and are worth over 50 million each, oops Tom McClintock is reported to have a net worth of only 110K.
You see, he'll write an article like this, and then in the next breath demand government-run health care. As long as people like him thing government is the solution to problems instead of its cause, this sort of nonsense will continue.
This is the kind of behavior that started both the Tea Party and Occupy movements. Our Senators and Congressmen get elected by the people, then go to work for their party, their corporate donors, and themselves. The best course of action for "We The People" is to defeat all incumbents in the House and Senate... Teach them who they really work for.
0 Votes
+ -
If this gets your goat...
What the ...! 12th Dec
pick up a copy of "Throw Them All Out" by Peter Shweizer. This little incident is just the tip of a titanic sized iceberg. We the people are so screwed. Remember NO INCUMBENTS! Ever! Again!
@What the ...!
I have an idea. Amendment: One and done.

No more incumbents.
0 Votes
+ -
This is how the rich(hollywood types and drug and media barons) get richer. The US Government goes after the poor, cuz the rich have jacked up their movies and music, to say nada about pharmaceuticals! patent and copyright laws make the rich richer!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix