Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Enron dealings small potatoes compared to Democrat submission to evil entertainment industry   ( divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

5456 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Mar 2002 at 12:56 PM (15 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

121 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2002-03-08 01:31:28 PM  
mitch: right, so are the republicans still assholes?

well of course, but on this particular situation. i don't think i want anyone to know what's on my pc.
2002-03-08 01:32:25 PM  
hey, where'd Toupsie's post go?
2002-03-08 01:32:27 PM  
ack, how'd i to that?
2002-03-08 01:32:49 PM  
To double-back Sex0r, that anyone's energy bills were lowered or that Enron went out of business is not terribly important.

It's that Enron was allowed to write their own regulations, which tends to be an environmental/competition/safety arena. Money for access that directly results in bad policies is ultimately the politician's fault. They are the last word on regulatory practices, which is why Bush/Cheney/et al are in such trouble.

This article doesn't seem to show any bad policy at all. It's just hopping and screaming that someone gave a politician a bunch of money. There has to be a resulting policy for it to be a scandal.
2002-03-08 01:34:34 PM  
You mean the evil entertainment group that Fox News/Los Angeles Dodgers/News Corp/Sky News/20th Century Fox, etc. is in no way a part of?
2002-03-08 01:35:24 PM  
FlamingMoe: ha! ha! very funny my friend.
2002-03-08 01:35:30 PM  
Diogenes - it's like with this bullshiat "clinton was asleep at the watch and let osama do his evil thing on sept 11" I'm sorry but bush SENIOR gave osama tons of money and weapons and gave the taliban control, and then bush junior not only funded the taliban as recently as this past spring, but also (according to both a french investigative journalist and the BBC) he hindered ongoing investigations of al quaeda to further oil interests during his presidency prior to sept 11.
2002-03-08 01:35:58 PM  
DrBenway Nope. Daschle went on TV to drive a wedge in support for the President on the war. Daschle has been sending out trial ballons left and right to knock down Bush's 5 month 80%+ approval rating. All of them have become "Lead Zeppelins". I am just waiting for Daschle to join up with the "Alec Baldwin Hates Bush" tour liking the Election 2000 to the Sept. 11 atrocity.

Spector only asked to be updated on the progress -- he must have been busy studying Scottish law to watch TV (a little impeachment allusion there). Spector is an idiot anyways.
2002-03-08 01:35:59 PM  
Keep right on electing 'em. Better buy a toothbrush, it's gonna be another 4 years of shiat eating at least.
2002-03-08 01:36:15 PM  
But the entertainment indusrty insn't lying to its stock holders about its worth. The entertainment industry isn't hiring accounting firms to cover up their illegal activities. They are just contributing to the democrats. To get laws passed in their favor. Sounds to me like info published by the Bush camp to defect the enron headlines from the Republicans.
READ Stupid White Men by Micheal Moore you will believe.
2002-03-08 01:37:00 PM  
DrBenway:hey, where'd Toupsie's post go?

Sorry your mother didn't have change for a fiver...
2002-03-08 01:39:36 PM  
Toupsie: "Daschle went on TV to drive a wedge in support for the President on the war"

I know this is going to sound naive to the jaded and cynical farkers, but Daschle also went on TV and articulated *exactly* what the majority of my friends think, which is that Bush is doing a pretty good job, but that it seems like he's using the war to steamroll his pet projects through congress, and maybe we'd all better just *talk* about this without anyone going ballistic about who is more patriotic than whom.

So, am *I* trying to drive a wedge in the support for the President, or is it possible that he means what he says?
2002-03-08 01:44:57 PM  
I think that both parties are fairly in the hands of special interests, but the special interests of the Democratic party, in general, have greater public support, e.g. unions, AARP, etc. whereas the special interests that favor Republicans, e.g. energy, NRA.

In the end, both parties cater to the highest bidder. It's just that the Democrats have better PR.
2002-03-08 01:45:00 PM  
The Dems are in entertainments and the legal professions back pocket. The Reps are in Oil and Manufacturings. What's the difference?

The only story here is keep P2P alive and fark the recording and entertainment industry. There are ways to make money with P2P, but they haven't had the GONADS to do it yet because it would mean SLIMMER PROFIT MARGINS!!!!
It's easier to screw you and me with their buddies the lawyers!!!!
2002-03-08 01:45:44 PM  
Steelboots: This is all stupid. Get rid of them all and let the average joe blow who works on a farm get elected to office. I want people who are common people, not rich lazy people who only want to line their own pockets and others of their ilk.

Have you ever served on a condo board or a jury? I have, and the thought of putting those people in charge of our laws makes me cringe.
2002-03-08 01:48:51 PM  
Time for a 2nd American Revolution and a new constitutional convention!!! Clear that den of vipers out!!!!
2002-03-08 01:49:02 PM, I have served on a condo board (still do) and I have to agree.
The average folk are quite average.
However, the lawmakers aren't. They are below average.
Ever spend 20 minutes with a lawyer? By the time you're done, you're $500 poorer and you still don't understand what he said. Considering these guys represent 75% of elected officialdom, is it any wonder government is in debt and farked up?
2002-03-08 01:51:08 PM  
Has Cher left the country yet?
2002-03-08 01:51:34 PM  
The entertainment industry isn't polluting our air, or gnashing their teeth until they can plunder the ANWR. It makes movies. Albeit a lot of crappy movies, but movies just the same.
2002-03-08 02:02:09 PM  
The democrats do have their own Enron, it's called Global Crossing. The bankruptcy of this company is more criminal than Enron. You don't hear about it because it didn't effect as many people's 401k's as Enrons, the left wing media keeps a lid on it, and the republicans are too stupid to expose it. Global Crossing (GX) execs pocketed 1.3 billion before it went under as opposed to Enron execs that pocketed 1 billion. GX's chairman, Gary Winnick, a big time donor to the democratic party, helped DNC head Terry Mcauliff turn a $100,000 investment in GX into 18 million. Tell me that's not corrupt.
2002-03-08 02:04:59 PM  
Jjorsett: I work with someone who's shared horror stories from the condo board. You speak the true thing.
2002-03-08 02:06:27 PM  
To Every issue,(Spin, Spin, Spin)
There's a Politician(Spin, Spin, Spin)
And a time for every interest group, under Heaven

A time to be bribed, a time to tell lies,
A time to Rant, a time to Shriek
A time to collude, a time to deny
A time to fess up, that wont happen during my life

To House & Senate (Spin, Spin, Spin)
It's election season (Spin, Spin, Spin)
And cash is our purpose, by Heaven

A time for the left, a time for the right,
A time to sell votes, stuff that bill full of pork
A time to throw stones, tho' in a glass house we roam

To all the Voters (Spin, Spin, Spin)
There is an issue (Spin, Spin, Spin)
To get them to vote, they way we want them to

I could keep going for hours but why?
2002-03-08 02:06:35 PM  
Elrond: your lawyer charges $1500/hour??? that's some serious lawyering.
2002-03-08 02:08:06 PM  
Oh, that darned left wing media, huh, Dale?
2002-03-08 02:08:08 PM  
And as usual,

The Republicans had their hands in the pot of Global Crossing as well, including Bush Sr. if I'm not mistaken.

The system is broken, and we have the very same politicians benefiting (and their friends/families) that are supposed to fix it.


Show your power at the voting booth!

that is all.
2002-03-08 02:08:55 PM  
So what will it take to get you people out in the streets, banging pots and pans and DEMANDING that your elected representatives shape up or ship out?

I'd say one million people in front of the Capitol building telling the farkwits to go back to their districts to really find out what their constituents need, and coming up with a slightly saner electoral cycle and system, would be a good start.

This goes beyond Republican vs. Democrat. The whole system is badly broken, and since in the U.S. the citizens are the ones ultimately responsible for the state of the nation, it's up to the citizens to demand and create change.
2002-03-08 02:09:23 PM  
As the democrats had their hands in Enron too, Deadmeat.
2002-03-08 02:12:51 PM  

I will not deny that. It's just that Enron's connections to the administration scared me a bit more.

Anyway, I'm not denying that both parties are corrupt.

That's why I said the system has to be fixed.

For the record, I vote Libertarian when able.
2002-03-08 02:14:34 PM  

It's clear both parties are involved. On one level, like a thousand other people have said already, the system is broken.

But a clear look at *how much* money is going to each organization and from where will tell you that the republicans are, simply put, taking more, and from less diverse groups. At least the dems have union money to moderate their behavior..
2002-03-08 02:15:51 PM  
So let me get this straight: If I think Bush is a complete fark-head, I have to support this complete tool?

I'm pretty liberal, but that doesn't mean I have to follow around every numb-nuts, sleazy Democrat and support them unthinkingly.

There are good and bad polititians in both major parties. There are polititians I have major beefs with on some issues, that I agree with one others.

Is this what American politics has come down to? That all I can do is pledge non-critical allegance to one of two factions? What a bunch of farking bullshiat.

Ignorance is in the major political parties' best intrests. From what I've seen at Fark, they must love some of you guys. They own you.

There are heros in both parties and there are weasels in both parties. The parties themselves will never encourage you to be intelligent enough to see that. They would rather you had a Cro-Magnon mentality of "Democrats good/Republicans bad" or the other way around. They have your vote sewn up then and you'll even vote for farkheads like Gary Condit or Jesse Helms at that point "for the good of the party."

If you want to crucify Bill Clinton for lying under oath, then you need to be honest enough to admit that Ronald Reagan did worse during the Iran Contra affari.

If you want to slam the way Ford pardoned the Watergate participants, then you need to also slam Clinton for the way he let all his buddies off the hook the last week he was in office.

We can't continue to have "situational ethics" that allow us to ignore or justify the worst transgressions of people on "our" side while running tremendous smear campaigns to destroy people from the "wrong" party. It's sick and destructive and it's what's wrong with the American political system.

Stick to your ideals, whatever they are, but be just as hard on the farkheads in your own party as you are on the one's from the other side of the fence.

2002-03-08 02:18:59 PM  
Well, not all politicians are corrupt.

I have to say that Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) is probably one of the last boy scouts in the government. Although his help confirming Ashcroft was strange. I think he just wanted his back scratched from Republicans when he tried to get campaign finance reform through.
2002-03-08 02:19:04 PM  
Unless these industries screwed thousands of people out of their hard-earned retirement money, put hundreds of millions into off-shore accounts so it wouldn't be taxed, and wrote the plans for a senator/governor/president, this is NOT as big a deal as Enron.

Seems like more propaganda from the hate machine to take pessure off thsoe involved in a real national scandal.
2002-03-08 02:21:07 PM  
I'm with you there Deadmeat. You can't deny the administrations connections to Enron, at the same time I firmly believe the only people that knew what was going on were Enron officials and their accountants.

For the record, I'd vote for a good libertarian as well. Being from Taxachusettes i'm sick of democrats but republicans seem to rather fight with each other than take up any issues withe democrats.
2002-03-08 02:21:53 PM  

That's one of the most sensible things I've seen, although the theme has shown up now and then.

Hooray for you.
2002-03-08 02:24:53 PM  

Yeah, at what was it, 27% to 73%? I'd have to look it up, it was something like that. It's easy to say "Both were involved!", but when you look at the extent, there's no contest.

Something you might find interesting:

Energy/Natural Resources Top Contributors

Gee, hmm, who's sold out to the energy interests? I wonder... :P
2002-03-08 02:33:25 PM  
Rei, everyone knows the republican party is in with the Energy companies. Just like everyone the Dems are in with the unions and media corportations. I don't have a problem with this. I don't deny Enron is a major black eye to the republican party, however what went on at GX was even more illegal and heavily involved democrats, yet we don't hear about it.

Bye the way, that link was great, very interesting. Pretty usefull site, thanks.
2002-03-08 02:38:26 PM  
Exactly. Diversionary tactics. Just like BJ-gate in the 90's.

Here! Pay attention to something stupid while the real crooks bend you over and fark ya!
2002-03-08 02:43:10 PM  
Gee I'm so surprised that Fox news would describe this as a Republican vs Democrat Fight when it's a dem(Rep. Rick Boucher) who's leading the fight against the end of "Fair Use" copyright laws, and another dem (Sen. Fritz Hollings) who's trying to remove Fair use.

I've not seen anything that suggests that this issue actually follows party lines, but that's not good spin for Fox news.

I was more surprised by that Wired News article link (posted by VIIseven7) giving it a party line spin. You really have to pay attention to the quotes they used.

"We might need to legislate," and "Unfortunately, one issue seems close to an impasse -- how do we keep files from being illegally shared and distributed over the Internet?" are the statements used to show that Democrats are in favor of copy protection. Pretty weak statements especially when you consider Wired goes on to say that they would rather see a private sector agreement than legislation. Which is exactly what the Republicans in the article say. So both Republicans and Democrats say that this would be better handled by the private sector, and legislation should be a last resort. Where is the "Content Spat Split on Party Lines" Headline coming from?

Piss poor biased journalism. I expect better from Wired.

If you're looking for some REAL information on copyright law in the digital age check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation at or read "The Future of Ideas" by Lawrence Lessig (I'm only halfway through it but it has some great arguments about the history and purpose of coyright law, and how they should be applied to digital media.)
2002-03-08 02:43:56 PM  

Troubled Telecom Firm's Democratic Ties No Help To GOP

BTW, GX wasn't nearly as much of a scandal as Enron, since there's little evidence that they cooked the books and all of that other evil. Apart from the fact that its scale was smaller than Enron, and that both parties were tied into it :) And that there was no close personal relationship between GX and Clinton like there was between Bush and Lay, etc. There's on a completely different plane - GX is just grabbing at straws.

BTW, if I had to pick between unions and energy conglomerates, there's not even a remote comparison on which one I'd pick - and my father is an oil exec, at that. And you're confusing the motion picture industry with media companies, who are actually more and more large republican supporters (and getting a nice payback, with Powell's son now approving every merger under the sun and effectively nullifying laws limiting media ownership).

And in fact, the only issue I've ever found myself disagreeing with my party on - just *one* issue out of every issue out there, from abortion to censorship to progressive tax brackets to education and health funding to military size to overseas aid to international cooperation and accountability to everything else - is how eagerly they embrace copy protection. That's it - out of everything. That's why I consider myself a Democrat, as opposed to "third party" as I used to call myself.
2002-03-08 02:47:59 PM  
"And in fact, the only issue I've ever found myself disagreeing with my party on - just *one* issue out of every issue out there, from abortion to censorship to progressive tax brackets to education and health funding to military size to overseas aid to international cooperation and accountability to everything else - is how eagerly they embrace copy protection. That's it - out of everything. That's why I consider myself a Democrat, as opposed to "third party" as I used to call myself."

Don't forget the Democrats' mad dash to one-up the Republicans in terms of harsh drug sentencing in the 80s. They were trying to shake the 'liberal hippy soft on crime' label and actually were the worse of the 2 sides.
2002-03-08 02:48:23 PM  

I saw that article, too. I'd be interested in seing the voting records on it when it all comes to a vote.
2002-03-08 02:51:27 PM  
Gribble! "The Democrats were in on Enron too," is the worst kind of Bullshiat, because it uses a tiny germ of truth to tell a big ol' Lie. Certainly the Democratic party got money from Enron, at a rate of about $1 per $10 that went to the GOPists. I'd say that hardly amounts to wholehearted support, but rather in Enron minimally hedging their bet.

Now, why would anyone be surprised that a media outlet virtually indistinguishable from the Turner Diaries would get all knocked out of whack that the Democratic Party has a not quite 2 to 1 fundraising lead with the entertainment industry?

And on the flip side of it, The GOPists are trying to deny their involvement in something that was possibly illegal and certainly unethical, while the Democrats are trying to prevent something that is certainly illegal, though possibly ethical. I'd say giving money to accomplish the former would be slimy, and the latter nearly patriotic.
2002-03-08 02:51:57 PM  
Yeah the SSSCA fight is a battle between politicians that understand the implications of the law (Rick Boucher) and those who don't (Fritz Hollings). Because while the strong entertainment lobby is trying to sway things in one direction, the equally powerful tech firm lobby is trying to sway things in the other direction.

Another thing to take into consideration. The law, even if it does get passed, in its present wording probably will not stand up to judicial review, as it flies into the face of over 300 years of copyright precedent.
2002-03-08 02:52:44 PM  

Ah, but it was the republicans who were leading that, the democrats just doing their best to do the minimum that would allow them to stay in office. If I had to pick a side on that one, it'd be the democrats, since they were still the less stringent side. It's just the opposite now when it comes to a prescription drug plan for the elderly - the Republicans throwing aside their anti-government-centered healthcare stance because they know that would be a serious liablity for them to rally against the elderly ;)
2002-03-08 03:03:04 PM  
From what I see in the article, the big evil the "media" are trying to perpetuate is intrusive copy protection. This will fail on two fronts:

1. If copy protection becomes irritating, the product it protects will fail (how many software packages still use code wheels, dark ink on dark paper code sheets, or codes embedded on every page of the manual?).
2. As long as there's a radio shack or off-shore server, no electronic copy protection will last more than three seconds.

That leaves copyright law (the "Disney" Bill, from good ol' Republican Sonny Bono, et. al.), but that seems to be headed for a clash with the supremes.
2002-03-08 03:06:34 PM  

1) Failure on merits of a product requires competition. The RIAA and MPAA have their own respective monopolies.

2) This is arguable, but possibly defensible. Purely hardware copy protection (i.e., no computer-based readers) can mean that you can only get the raw analog audio/video streams, and re-record them, losing quality. But that always will be a possibility.
2002-03-08 03:10:21 PM  
SLO what you are asking for is illegal and unethical *snicker*... sorry but here is the best way for your friend to deal with it. Have him forward the e-mail with its full headers to the abuse department of his ISP, they can take care of it from there and fark over the pointy headed cretin. Hope that helps.
2002-03-08 03:11:03 PM  
Oooh, new Enron news:

Enron Revises Lobbying Figures

No breakdown yet as to who got this additional money. It'll be interesting to know. :)
2002-03-08 03:13:51 PM  
"Failure on merits of a product requires competition. The RIAA and MPAA have their own respective monopolies."

True, but I noticed that several software packages from the old 386-days of PC's were often given horrible reviews based solely on the cumbersome copy-protection they tried to employ (akin to the speaker-destroying CD protection and inability for PC's to play certain CD's today). If things get onerous enough, people will probably choose piracy over purchase in even greater numbers.
Where competition will likely come in this arena is from independent record labels. The recording technology has gotten so cheap that almost anyone can press a decent CD and sell it for less than the record stores.
2002-03-08 03:15:57 PM  
Here is some interesting math concerning the SSSCA

There are 500,000,000 internet users according to latest numbers

the RIAA and the MPAA claim that they lose a total of $100,000,000 a year to internet piracy.

Meaning that each user on the internet costs them 20 cents a year because of piracy.

It will cost each American computer user about $1000 per computer to upgrade their systems to be SSSCA compliant and not have to spend 5 years in jail and pay a fine of $25,000.

How is this fair?
Displayed 50 of 121 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.