Chris Dodd, the head of the notorious MPAA, (and also a former Senator from CT, I'm embarrassed to say) was quoted on Fox News as openly bribing Congress (technically, he stated he expects Congress to support the MPAA-supported bills, like SOPA, in exchange for being paid).
The petition to investigate this insanely illegal behavior is here.
Chriss Dodd said:
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," said Dodd. "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."
Please sign up! I think it will probably get enough signatures regardless, but the sooner, the better. Please feel free to spread the word!
You ever stop and wonder what that whole Occupy thing is about? Practically everything Congress does seriously revolves around senators pocketing money and corporations profiting millions of dollars.
Don't get me wrong.. I'd love to see a change.. But petitions don't really make a difference.. Maybe in a local setting, in a small town, where people actually went door to door and worked for those signatures, but online it doesn't mean nearly as much, and even when it was all footwork and door knocking, they didn't make that huge of a difference.. Even on minor issues you needed a news network to back you.. You needed a way that anyone and everyone could see what you were doing and that the 'people you were petitioning against' would be publicly embarrassed and forced to change their view..
All that said, I was going to sign it, until I had to actually sign up for it.. Petitions just don't work.. I've seen quite a few petitions sweep the internet, and I really hate to compare it to this, but I signed a Surge petition years ago (as in the soda) to bring it back, when I signed, there was 10's of thousands of signatures, quite possibly well over a 100 thousand, but I'm not positive so I'm leaving it at 10's of thousands.. Was definitely over 60, but I'm somewhat sure it was over 100k..
Surge isn't back.. It actually had quite a bit of publicity, it didn't change anything. I don't know the last time I saw a petition actually change anything. Now you might question why I would say all of this when it probably wouldn't take but 30 seconds to sign up and sign the petition, and to that I would respond...
1. As I've said, I can't remember the last time I've seen them change anything
2. Petitions have become the epitome of solving problems in the advanced/technological world and I just don't agree with it.. I don't like this, "I'll sign a petition and everything will be great" attitude. Sorry, but things just don't work that way.. I know I'm not exactly out there busting my balls for what I believe in at the moment, but I'm not going to act delusional and pretend as if signing an online petition does a damn thing (sorry if that's insulting)
1) Candidates (typically) can't be on a ballot without a petition. Several candidates failed to do so in South Carolina this year - they're now out of the race. The ones that did petition, are still going.
2) Gray Davis (California gov) and subsequent election of big Arnold started with a signature petition.
3) For soda, the new flavors of Mt. Dew were chosen via online petitions (I'm an addict, sigh)
Not to mention petitions are explicitly called out in the Constitution. Now will every one work? Of course not. Will any of them work? Certainly. Will this one? I have no idea, one way to find out!
If you refuse to sign because you disagree with the petition's request, then that's fine. If you don't because you're lazy or think "my vote doesn't matter", then that's a real shame. I think people who don't vote have no right to complain about things which they could have voted to change.
1) Candidates (typically) can't be on a ballot without a petition. Several candidates failed to do so in South Carolina this year - they're now out of the race. The ones that did petition, are still going.
2) Gray Davis (California gov) and subsequent election of big Arnold started with a signature petition.
3) For soda, the new flavors of Mt. Dew were chosen via online petitions (I'm an addict, sigh)
Not to mention petitions are explicitly called out in the Constitution. Now will every one work? Of course not. Will any of them work? Certainly. Will this one? I have no idea, one way to find out!
If you refuse to sign because you disagree with the petition's request, then that's fine. If you don't because you're lazy or think "my vote doesn't matter", then that's a real shame. I think people who don't vote have no right to complain about things which they could have voted to change.
There's a flaw in that logic.. Your vote doesn't actually matter.. Bush (among others) was elected President even though they lost the popular vote..
Your vote doesn't really matter, the only way it seems to matter is when your vote and those who actually decide who gets to be president are congruent..
I don't view petitions as really any different, which is why I said they only really work (that doesn't mean exclusively) in small cities/towns and when it's publicly exposed.. The petitioners interest, and the one being petitioned against then find themselves sharing 'best interests'.. The petitioners believe what they're trying to accomplish is in their best interest, and at the same time, it is then in the petitionee's (dunno if that's a word, I'm just going with it) best interest to take note of the message and listen..
I would vote, if my vote really mattered.. The fact that who the general public decides they want doesn't necessarily determine who is put into office is what prevents me from it. Who I would vote for, would very likely never win, ever.. Because even based on popular vote, I don't agree with the majority of Amercians.. But that alone wouldn't keep me from voting.. My vote really doesn't matter.. So why bother with it?
1) Candidates (typically) can't be on a ballot without a petition. Several candidates failed to do so in South Carolina this year - they're now out of the race. The ones that did petition, are still going.
2) Gray Davis (California gov) and subsequent election of big Arnold started with a signature petition.
3) For soda, the new flavors of Mt. Dew were chosen via online petitions (I'm an addict, sigh)
Not to mention petitions are explicitly called out in the Constitution. Now will every one work? Of course not. Will any of them work? Certainly. Will this one? I have no idea, one way to find out!
If you refuse to sign because you disagree with the petition's request, then that's fine. If you don't because you're lazy or think "my vote doesn't matter", then that's a real shame. I think people who don't vote have no right to complain about things which they could have voted to change.
There's a flaw in that logic.. Your vote doesn't actually matter.. Bush (among others) was elected President even though they lost the popular vote..
Your vote doesn't really matter, the only way it seems to matter is when your vote and those who actually decide who gets to be president are congruent..
I don't view petitions as really any different, which is why I said they only really work (that doesn't mean exclusively) in small cities/towns and when it's publicly exposed.. The petitioners interest, and the one being petitioned against then find themselves sharing 'best interests'.. The petitioners believe what they're trying to accomplish is in their best interest, and at the same time, it is then in the petitionee's (dunno if that's a word, I'm just going with it) best interest to take note of the message and listen..
I would vote, if my vote really mattered.. The fact that who the general public decides they want doesn't necessarily determine who is put into office is what prevents me from it. Who I would vote for, would very likely never win, ever.. Because even based on popular vote, I don't agree with the majority of Amercians.. But that alone wouldn't keep me from voting.. My vote really doesn't matter.. So why bother with it?
The popular vote is a country-wide statistic versus the electoral vote which is state wide. There is no flaw in his logic, it simply means Al Gore won landslide victories in a few large populated areas and George Bush won many smaller areas.
EDIT: I'm not here to derail the thread, I just offered up my input and put it in spoilers so those who wanted to could just ignore it and wasn't going to go further, OP replied so I did the same.
I totally agree that the electoral system has some notable issues. But to say that a vote doesn't matter, at all, is simply wrong. There are loads of cases where a single vote made all the difference. If you want to use the Gore/Bush vote in 2000, it all really came down to just a handful of votes, and both sides were arguing which votes they could count and which they could throw out. The 2004 washington state govenor's race was decided by about 100 votes, out of 2 million total. So yes, a single vote absolutely matters.
It's fair to say your vote doesn't count as much as it should. It's fair to say your vote might even count more than it should, or that the effect of the votes isn't as strong as you'd like. It's even fair to say that sometimes (rarely) the vote is lost or counted incorrectly.
But to say that your vote doesn't matter at all is simply, provably, wrong.
I totally agree that the electoral system has some notable issues. But to say that a vote doesn't matter, at all, is simply wrong. There are loads of cases where a single vote made all the difference. If you want to use the Gore/Bush vote in 2000, it all really came down to just a handful of votes, and both sides were arguing which votes they could count and which they could throw out. The 2004 washington state govenor's race was decided by about 100 votes, out of 2 million total. So yes, a single vote absolutely matters.
It's fair to say your vote doesn't count as much as it should. It's fair to say your vote might even count more than it should, or that the effect of the votes isn't as strong as you'd like. It's even fair to say that sometimes (rarely) the vote is lost or counted incorrectly.
But to say that your vote doesn't matter at all is simply, provably, wrong.
Gore won the 2000 election the deciding factor was Florida, run by Bush's brother, go figure...
I thought this was the standard...? Just because someone says it out loud now its news? I thought everyone knew that corporations give to politicians campaigns so that they will legislate in their favor.
Edit: not to say that it should be ignored... just wondering why this is such big news.
Maybe politicians will think twice before taking big campaign donations now.
I think people who don't vote have no right to complain about things which they could have voted to change.
If I hate all the potential candidates I'm not going to vote for one or the other just cause.
Also, your vote doesn't matter.
Also, petitions really don't do anything.
Also, this really is old news. If you want corporations to stop ruling the gov. then you're going to have to earn enough money to pay the politicians to stop taking money.
I thought this was the standard...? Just because someone says it out loud now its news? I thought everyone knew that corporations give to politicians campaigns so that they will legislate in their favor.
Edit: not to say that it should be ignored... just wondering why this is such big news.
Maybe politicians will think twice before taking big campaign donations now.
Yes, honestly I got the impression it was just special interest campaign donations (which is hardly a reveal.) Not to say these aren't compromising the integrity of the US government, but it's not anything new...although framing them as bribes instead of the traditionally-spun term of "campaign influence" may be new-ish.
The overall campaign limits to donations of this nature was supposed to be the remedy to this influence. Of course there are many ways around that (e.g. the "Lippo Bank" scam employed by certain Chinese government agents in funding the Clinton campaign in the 1990's.)
If I hate all the potential candidates I'm not going to vote for one or the other just cause.
If you hop in the game at the final stretch then yea, your choices are limited. You should try getting involved before the self interest people chose your final candidates for you. You might be surprised.
If I hate all the potential candidates I'm not going to vote for one or the other just cause.
If you hop in the game at the final stretch then yea, your choices are limited. You should try getting involved before the self interest people chose your final candidates for you. You might be surprised.
Corruption is certainly not new - but it's fairly rare (imo) for someone to be as blatant about it as he was. People that are blatant tend to get caught. Although you could write this off as just another example, why not use it to attempt to make a change, since the evidence is so good?
If you want corporations to stop ruling the gov. then you're going to have to earn enough money to pay the politicians to stop taking money.
That's one way (pay them with "independent" money). But my capacity for earning enough money to fix the govt. is low, while my ability to vote and sign petitions is a lot higher. So while I work on winning the lottery, I'm going to do what I can for now!
Hey, I finally got my Mt. Dew "Pitch Black" back ... I bought 12 cases of it, enough to finally the flavor to the level of "that's tasty, but I won't crave it incessantly ever again"
Corruption is certainly not new - but it's fairly rare (imo) for someone to be as blatant about it as he was. People that are blatant tend to get caught. Although you could write this off as just another example, why not use it to attempt to make a change, since the evidence is so good?
Saying you're not going to make a campaign donation to someone who doesn't support legislature you want isn't corruption. If you read the quote, he's implying not making donations for reelection campaigns. The whole when your job is on the line thing, or whatever the exact quote was.
I'm on livewire right now, too bad I can only get it in 20oz bottles in this area: how much did 12 cases cost you?
$1.73 (with tax) is a good bit for soda...
I usually pay ~$4.50 for a 12 pack of anything but standard green. Green I can usually get for closer to $3 a 12-pack, sometimes even #2.50, at Walmart. I rarely see non-green for less than $4 now.
That night I checked out with a shopping cart full ... the guy was like ... damn! But no regrets, I haven't seen it since. I've cut down lately, I used to drink 3-4 a day, now I'm down to about 1 a day. I have just 2 cases of black left!
Saying you're not going to make a campaign donation to someone who doesn't support legislature you want isn't corruption. If you read the quote, he's implying not making donations for reelection campaigns. The whole when your job is on the line thing, or whatever the exact quote was.
While that's true, it's the implying that's the issue. There are very well defined, albeit bizarre, rules about who can give how much to whom and under what conditions. It is entirely possible that the MPAA's donations have been 100% legal. It's also possible that they stepped over the line, even unintentionally, and we can bust them for it.
What's certain is that the MPAA and many other groups "buy" legislation (it's what Dodd just said). The questions then becomes not if they are doing it legally or not, but how do we curtail the process? The closer we can get to a state where no one person has any more influence than another, the better. And corporations should have no say at all (they don't vote, they're not people!) An elected official's voting stance should only reflect their constituents, not where they got their election money from.
I think you're (and many other people) reading way too much into what exactly was said. And I doubt he was speaking for himself personally, more likely the organization he represents. Pretty sure there are already watchdog groups that oversee campaign donations from corporations, no need to spend tax dollars and man hours investigating this organization separately just because of what he said.
Also, SCOTUS disagrees with you about corporations not being people, but I'm sure you already knew that. I agree with them. Laws passed affect them, they should have some way to influence the passing of them. I'm not certain of what their campaign donation caps are, but I'd think they should be the same as a private individual. What is that, $10k?
I'm on livewire right now, too bad I can only get it in 20oz bottles in this area: how much did 12 cases cost you?
$1.73 (with tax) is a good bit for soda...
I usually pay ~$4.50 for a 12 pack of anything but standard green. Green I can usually get for closer to $3 a 12-pack, sometimes even #2.50, at Walmart. I rarely see non-green for less than $4 now.
That night I checked out with a shopping cart full ... the guy was like ... damn! But no regrets, I haven't seen it since. I've cut down lately, I used to drink 3-4 a day, now I'm down to about 1 a day. I have just 2 cases of black left!
Always cans ... plastic loses flavor to me too quickly. I'll take glass if I can get it, but that's pretty rare, and green only when I do.
Interesting note - I had a friend in college who was an orange juice fiend. Through a blind taste test out of paper cups, he could distinguish between plastic, can and glass, of the same Tropicana one he preferred. He was right 100% of the time ... we were amazed!
Pretty sure there are already watchdog groups that oversee campaign donations from corporations, no need to spend tax dollars and man hours investigating this organization separately just because of what he said.
There are, but I think this issue is important enough to warrant a double check. Given the things we spend our fed money on, this one shouldn't cost all that much.
Also, SCOTUS disagrees with you about corporations not being people, but I'm sure you already knew that. I agree with them. Laws passed affect them, they should have some way to influence the passing of them. I'm not certain of what their campaign donation caps are, but I'd think they should be the same as a private individual. What is that, $10k?
Bleh ... yeah I generally haven't liked those decisions. I'm hoping they will get reversed. I guess the real thing I'd like to see isn't so much corporations pulled entirely from donating, but at least put them on par with the rest of us that don't have millions to give. Yadda yadda 1% and all that
And, at the root, companies aren't people - someone, somewhere is making a decision to do every action. Someone at the MPAA is choosing the amount and cutting the check. I think if a company is giving money, it should be a requirement to get a majority vote from their employees, who after all, make up the company.
He goes away, somebody else takes his place, the same thing keeps happening without any pause. It won't accomplish anything except misdirecting public ire until something else gets their attention.
Always cans ... plastic loses flavor to me too quickly. I'll take glass if I can get it, but that's pretty rare, and green only when I do.
Interesting note - I had a friend in college who was an orange juice fiend. Through a blind taste test out of paper cups, he could distinguish between plastic, can and glass, of the same Tropicana one he preferred. He was right 100% of the time ... we were amazed!
I've passed all taste tests I've done 100%, however I detest OJ, I don't know how it "loses flavor" though, it still has the same flavor, but maybe you miss the metallic taste.
I'm drinking livewire right now, but it's so expensive...
Chris Dodd, the head of the notorious MPAA, (and also a former Senator from CT, I'm embarrassed to say) was quoted on Fox News as openly bribing Congress (technically, he stated he expects Congress to support the MPAA-supported bills, like SOPA, in exchange for being paid).
The petition to investigate this insanely illegal behavior is here.
Chriss Dodd said:
"Those who count on quote 'Hollywood' for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who's going to stand up for them when their job is at stake," said Dodd. "Don't ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don't pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."
Please sign up! I think it will probably get enough signatures regardless, but the sooner, the better. Please feel free to spread the word!
