10 ms·

Republicans Repudiate 40 Years of Tougher Copyright Laws

184 points by gwright 14y ago

simonsarris 14y ago
I'm not sure its fair to say "Republicans", as if there's some consensus outside of the paper, regardless of the amount of Republicans in the Republican Study Committee. I doubt most of them know the paper exists, never-mind what conclusion it might draw. There's also no saying what percent of republicans and percent of democrats might agree with the paper. For all we know 70% of democrats and 40% of republicans might agree with the conclusion (pulled out of a hat, I might expect the % agree to be roughly the same for both parties). It's unfortunate, and I'm having a hard time finding a way to put it nicely, but other issues seem to take up most of that party's time. If the Republican party pivoted to being a fiscally conservative and socially apathetic party then they might actually do very well. If they spent their news cycles advocating research on the myriad topics in american law that border on cultish in acceptance, such as copyright and, sure, poverty reduction programs that may or may not be worth their salt, they might do great. We could use a party of respectable scrutinizers that stand skeptical of any longstanding policy that might be costing citizens (or civilization) too much. But they don't do that. Instead they spend their news cycles (conservative news stations and radio) on all this cultish crap of their own. Obscene amounts of doom-saying over every thing they might dimly disagree with. XYZ is going to "take away" guns, and kill jobs, and "ruin" (ruin!) the economy, and force an end to all prayer, and other ridiculous characterizations. Taxmageddon is the newest one. Taxmageddon. Returning to 90's tax rates is the End of Days. Lofty policy other than tax cuts, if they are thinking about other policies at all, are certainly rarely talked about, at least on the national stage. It's an interesting paper we've got on our hands here, but we have no reason to believe that the majority of republicans know it exist, never mind that they are ready to be serious and sincere about examining party priorities that might stop the entire rest of their platform from being a blocking issue towards voting for them.
- maratd 14y ago
  > If the Republican party pivoted to being a fiscally conservative and socially apathetic they might actually do very well. Unfortunately, parties can't pivot on a dime. It's going to take decades. However, the Republican party is moving in that direction. Most young Republicans are fiscally conservative and socially apathetic.
  - bendmorris 14y ago
    Are any current Republican politicians socially apathetic? I can't think of a single example. It doesn't seem like that's a viable way to mobilize the conservative base in any part of the country right now. Jon Huntsman tried to run a campaign that wasn't so extreme on social policy and look how that turned out.
    - gojomo 14y ago
      'Socially tolerant' or 'socially laissez-faire' are probably better terms than 'socially apathetic'. Schwarzenegger was. Rudy Guiliani, for the most part. Ron Paul has been, in most policy dimensions. When Romney was running for MA Senate and then elected as Governor, he was pretty socially tolerant, as well. And before him, another Massachusetts GOP governor, William Weld. Chris Christie isn't a socially-conservative crusader, and a number of the other GOP governors/senators are more pragmatic than anything else. It's always been there; it just needs a stronger hand versus the deeply socially conservative elements. However, as more issues have "nationalized" the parties have homogenized somewhat, with Dems successfully tarnishing even socially-tolerant Republicans as if they were the same as faraway hardcore religious conservatives, and liberal Republicans peeling away (as with Lincoln Chafee in RI and Charlie Crist in FL). I suspect the national parties (or perhaps mainly the GOP) will have to devolve into more than 2 brands for healthy regional competitiveness. While our system has a bias at every level towards 2-big-coalitions, having only two harmonized national brands doesn't offer sufficient competitive diversity. "Coke vs. Pepsi" is not enough for a nation this big, and especially damages the Republicans, as the more-stingy party.
      - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
- gwright 14y ago
  I think you are reading a bit much into the use of "Republican" in the blog title. Headlines all the time are written in the form of "Democrats say..." or "Republicans report ..." and so on. No one gets confused into thinking that that some sort of roll-call vote has been taken or that a 'consensus' has been reached by all party members.
- anewguy 14y ago
  You'll find a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones) from Republicans if you hang out in right-wing circles. If you get your news from left-leaning outlets, then they are caricaturish bad guys. Of course, the same is true in the other direction.
- brownbat 14y ago
  > It's unfortunate, and I'm having a hard time finding a way to put it nicely, but other issues seem to take up most of that party's time. Agreed. This article was the second suggestion I read recently on how the Republican party could improve its brand. The other piece, courtesy the Atlantic, seemed more pressing, and might be one of those things that's hard to put nicely: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-must-choose-rush-limbaugh-or-minority-voters/265002/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-...
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Ah, yes. The Republicans are getting no end of advice from people on the left as to what they should do to start winning elections after a relatively narrow loss. It seems 2010 has been completely erased from the collective Democratic memory, as is the fact that the Republicans were returned control of the House of Representatives. Somehow all the advice we're getting is "move left" and "be more like us". Thanks, guys. We'll take it under advisement.
- rz2k 14y ago
  This discussion is likely to venture too far into politics for this forum, but which programs fit under the category of poverty reduction? I ask, because the term makes me think of people with no conceivable prospects who are essentially being sustained out of pity. However, it is probably fair to draw a distinction between programs like Section 8 housing and food stamps (which probably total less than $30B), and the universe of all means-tested programs. Increasing the talent pool is vital to producing a dynamic economy. It sounds touchy-feely, but things like school lunch programs are an enormous success when judged on the basis of their effect on childhood development, and the resulting increase in greater eventual intelligence, educational attainment, and productivity. Regardless of whether people have contempt for their parents, or pity that some people may simply have worse luck than others, something as boring as one healthy meal five days a week for nine months of the year has measurable effects on cognitive development for people who didn't choose their parents. The same goes for programs like subsidized preschool education, programs that educate young parents who didn't learn how to nurture from their parents, and many other small programs that are likely to sound very boring and very futile, but effect real incremental change that ultimately benefits the entire economy more than the individual beneficiaries. On the other end of means tested programs from those that encourage talent pool development, are the social safety net programs that facilitate enterprising risk. Early in the nation's history for example the perfectly justifiable idea of debtors' prisons was abolished for the more pragmatic practice of bankruptcy protection. More modern programs make it increasingly possible for not only young single people to go all in on a startup, but people with families, with less risk that a failure will put their children on the street. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't work on savings, but that they can take an even bolder risk when worth it. It may be logical to argue that they should suffer the consequences of their risk, but the economy probably experiences a net benefit from encouraging people away from their biases toward playing it safe. I get that social programs are really boring, especially since they tend to be top-down organized and not very entrepreneurial, yet it isn't accurate either to assume that they are all over-sentimental and based on pity alone, or that they all ultimately end up undermining people's chances of standing on their own feet.
  - zero_intp 14y ago
    I have to say that this is one of the most insightful comments I have read on HN.
- Monotoko 14y ago
  anewguy, I think you've been hellbanned by a mod... which means no-one can see your comments, he wrote: "You'll find a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones) from Republicans if you hang out in right-wing circles. If you get your news from left-leaning outlets, then they are caricaturish bad guys. Of course, the same is true in the other direction."
- nickik 14y ago
  I would hope the learn the diffrence between pro-market and pro-buissness. Or rather I hope that anybody learns it.
ajross 14y ago
The headline is oversold. The meat is this: "The conservative-led Republican Study Committee just put out a Policy Brief that questions forty years of bipartisan support for tougher copyright enforcement". Now that's good news, and I think the analysis in the post is spot-on. This is the kind of thinking we'd hope to see out of a "new, more moderate" reinvented republican party. But one policy brief does not a policy make, and this one doesn't even (apparently) advocate for any explicit policy. They're dipping a toe in the water. At least they're thinking about swimming, but we've got a long way to go before this turns into something worth voting over IMHO.
- spindritf 14y ago
  What you're praising, and what this proposal can lead to, is the exact opposite of "moderate".
- marshray 14y ago
  I'm sure their political consultants are watching very closely how this gets picked up in the social media, particularly by those who are identified as thought leaders. Seriously, a tweet like "Wow maybe the Republicans aren't so corrupt and stupid after all [link] please RT" could make a noiceable difference in the behavior of Lamar Smith and his ilk.
tptacek 14y ago
This is a _Republican Study Group paper_ that argues for the reform of a critically important regulatory system because --- and they lead with this --- it "Retard[s] the creation of a robust DJ/Remix industry". I mean I'm not arguing, it's just hard to take that seriously as a Republican policy position. How big is the "DJ/Remix industry"? How big could it ever be? We have empirical evidence, because (according to this paper) other countries have robust DJ/Remix industries. The reforms at the end of this paper all seem totally sensible. It'd be great if this stuff happened. But be honest: even if we adopted every single reform in the paper, most infringers today would remain infringers, their liability would still be denominated in the tens of thousands of dollars, and it would remain just as illegal as it is today to run businesses predicated on copyright evasion.
- marshray 14y ago
  Obviously the "DJ/Remix" industry is just an example of something that (it's hoped) a wide audience can relate to. I think it's a trial balloon to see if there's any chance of finding a new issue on which the party can resonate positively with younger voters.
- gwright 14y ago
  They don't 'lead' with that. That example appears on page 4 of a 9 page document. It is the first example they use to illustrate the effects of current policy. The way your comment reads it sounds like the entire position paper is based on the DJ/Remix industry example.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I mean to point out that it is their first argument for what is wrong with the copyright system in a numbered list of wrongs.
ewillbefull 14y ago
"Throwing Hollywood under the bus could pay dividends for GOP" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/throwing-hollywood-under-the-bus-could-pay-dividends-for-gop/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/throwing-hollywoo... Republicans have suggested pivoting their platform in a free-internet direction.
- smsm42 14y ago
  Provided how little Hollywood is intent on helping them in any way, I don't see any downside for them. On the contrary, exposing some D congressmen as a puppets of Big Business - in this case, big entertainment business - can allow them to counter frequent similar claims from the D side. And given the skepticism of the R base about any extension of the government powers, as I said, no downside at all. I only wonder why there's not more of this.
  - mjn 14y ago
    There's not much downside from antagonizing Hollywood in particular, but there are plenty of non-Hollywood copyright interests, some of whom traditionally swing GOP, such as segments of the recording industry (e.g. Nashville). Though it's quite possible they're losing some of their influence within the party, especially since the departure of Sonny Bono from Congress.
lubujackson 14y ago
Huh. That would certainly make me think more favorably of Republicans, and it fits with the older, more moderate Republican concept of "less government involvement". There's a ways to go on some other topics, though. It might seem to be an anti-business angle, but the music business is shrinking rapidly and it's kind of like kicking a ball while it still has a bit of air in it.
- icebraining 14y ago
  It might seem to be an anti-business angle There's nothing wrong with that; for example, Luis Zingales proposes[1] a "pro-market, not pro-business" position for the GOP. I'm not an American, but I'd love to see a true movement against crony capitalism. We desperately need one here in Portugal. [1]: http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0708lz.html http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0708lz.html
  - shirederby 14y ago
    This is a good editorial on the subject: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/why-businesses-can-t-stand-free-markets-commentary-by-veronique-de-rugy.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/why-businesses-can-...
001sky 14y ago
Hollywood votes democrat. RIAA is run by a democrat. MSM media is democrat 9/10. Comcast's CEO vacations with OBAMA. etc. -- Old saying: 'My enemy's enemy is my friend.'
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Actually, it's more complicated than that. Both Silicon Valley and Hollywood mainly support democrats. Republicans in the past have not offered much that causes either to have to make tough choices. If they did, they might be able to pit one against the other, which would help their party immensely.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
mturmon 14y ago
"It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley." Glad to know they are in this one for
Khurrum 14y ago
I like it. Seriously, 12 years is a long time to be milking stuff.
stretchwithme 14y ago
Maybe they finally noticed who creative folks vote for.
iterative 14y ago
Um, except for two idiot Senate candidates who went down in flames, it was the Democrats who were pushing so-called "social" issues this election cycle with radical positions like forcing everyone to buy health insurance that includes contraceptives, whether they wanted to or not. Saying the employer or the insurer is one paying for the contraceptives is economic nonsense -- the cost ultimately comes out of the employees' pockets. Should, say, a woman who's gone through menopause or a gay man really have to pay higher health insurance premiums to subsidize someone else's birth control? Given that birth control pills are legal and cheap (~$10 a month at Walgreens) this was really just about trying to create a wedge issue by scaring people with a phony controversy. And after being in office for four years, Obama waited until about five minutes before the election, when the polls showed support was turning in its favor, to announce his very tepid support for gay marriage. Not exactly, a shining example of leading on principle.
- warfangle 14y ago
  Should a single man really have to subsidize care for a woman with breast cancer, or a six year old with an inoperable brain tumor? Shut the fuck up. Healthcare choices are to the individual and the doctor, not to the insurer or the government. If you don't want to subsidize health, go live in Somolia.
  - orangecat 14y ago
    If you don't want to subsidize health, go live in Somolia. If you love government mandates so much, move to North Korea. See how silly that is? The real question we should be asking is why employers have anything to do with health insurance in the first place.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Because every time somebody proposes that we do it sensibly everybody decides to do their best Joseph McCarthy impression.
    - jbooth 14y ago
_delirium 14y ago
Looks like they've already disavowed this memo: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4799352 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4799352

184 points by gwright 14y ago

I'm not sure its fair to say "Republicans", as if there's some consensus outside of the paper, regardless of the amount of Republicans in the Republican Study Committee. I doubt most of them know the paper exists, never-mind what conclusion it might draw. There's also no saying what percent of republicans and percent of democrats might agree with the paper. For all we know 70% of democrats and 40% of republicans might agree with the conclusion (pulled out of a hat, I might expect the % agree to be roughly the same for both parties). It's unfortunate, and I'm having a hard time finding a way to put it nicely, but other issues seem to take up most of that party's time. If the Republican party pivoted to being a fiscally conservative and socially apathetic party then they might actually do very well. If they spent their news cycles advocating research on the myriad topics in american law that border on cultish in acceptance, such as copyright and, sure, poverty reduction programs that may or may not be worth their salt, they might do great. We could use a party of respectable scrutinizers that stand skeptical of any longstanding policy that might be costing citizens (or civilization) too much. But they don't do that. Instead they spend their news cycles (conservative news stations and radio) on all this cultish crap of their own. Obscene amounts of doom-saying over every thing they might dimly disagree with. XYZ is going to "take away" guns, and kill jobs, and "ruin" (ruin!) the economy, and force an end to all prayer, and other ridiculous characterizations. Taxmageddon is the newest one. Taxmageddon. Returning to 90's tax rates is the End of Days. Lofty policy other than tax cuts, if they are thinking about other policies at all, are certainly rarely talked about, at least on the national stage. It's an interesting paper we've got on our hands here, but we have no reason to believe that the majority of republicans know it exist, never mind that they are ready to be serious and sincere about examining party priorities that might stop the entire rest of their platform from being a blocking issue towards voting for them.

maratd 14y ago
> If the Republican party pivoted to being a fiscally conservative and socially apathetic they might actually do very well. Unfortunately, parties can't pivot on a dime. It's going to take decades. However, the Republican party is moving in that direction. Most young Republicans are fiscally conservative and socially apathetic.
- bendmorris 14y ago
  Are any current Republican politicians socially apathetic? I can't think of a single example. It doesn't seem like that's a viable way to mobilize the conservative base in any part of the country right now. Jon Huntsman tried to run a campaign that wasn't so extreme on social policy and look how that turned out.
  - gojomo 14y ago
    'Socially tolerant' or 'socially laissez-faire' are probably better terms than 'socially apathetic'. Schwarzenegger was. Rudy Guiliani, for the most part. Ron Paul has been, in most policy dimensions. When Romney was running for MA Senate and then elected as Governor, he was pretty socially tolerant, as well. And before him, another Massachusetts GOP governor, William Weld. Chris Christie isn't a socially-conservative crusader, and a number of the other GOP governors/senators are more pragmatic than anything else. It's always been there; it just needs a stronger hand versus the deeply socially conservative elements. However, as more issues have "nationalized" the parties have homogenized somewhat, with Dems successfully tarnishing even socially-tolerant Republicans as if they were the same as faraway hardcore religious conservatives, and liberal Republicans peeling away (as with Lincoln Chafee in RI and Charlie Crist in FL). I suspect the national parties (or perhaps mainly the GOP) will have to devolve into more than 2 brands for healthy regional competitiveness. While our system has a bias at every level towards 2-big-coalitions, having only two harmonized national brands doesn't offer sufficient competitive diversity. "Coke vs. Pepsi" is not enough for a nation this big, and especially damages the Republicans, as the more-stingy party.
    - AnthonyMouse 14y ago
gwright 14y ago
I think you are reading a bit much into the use of "Republican" in the blog title. Headlines all the time are written in the form of "Democrats say..." or "Republicans report ..." and so on. No one gets confused into thinking that that some sort of roll-call vote has been taken or that a 'consensus' has been reached by all party members.
anewguy 14y ago
You'll find a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones) from Republicans if you hang out in right-wing circles. If you get your news from left-leaning outlets, then they are caricaturish bad guys. Of course, the same is true in the other direction.
brownbat 14y ago
> It's unfortunate, and I'm having a hard time finding a way to put it nicely, but other issues seem to take up most of that party's time. Agreed. This article was the second suggestion I read recently on how the Republican party could improve its brand. The other piece, courtesy the Atlantic, seemed more pressing, and might be one of those things that's hard to put nicely: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-must-choose-rush-limbaugh-or-minority-voters/265002/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/the-gop-...
- tsotha 14y ago
  Ah, yes. The Republicans are getting no end of advice from people on the left as to what they should do to start winning elections after a relatively narrow loss. It seems 2010 has been completely erased from the collective Democratic memory, as is the fact that the Republicans were returned control of the House of Representatives. Somehow all the advice we're getting is "move left" and "be more like us". Thanks, guys. We'll take it under advisement.
rz2k 14y ago
This discussion is likely to venture too far into politics for this forum, but which programs fit under the category of poverty reduction? I ask, because the term makes me think of people with no conceivable prospects who are essentially being sustained out of pity. However, it is probably fair to draw a distinction between programs like Section 8 housing and food stamps (which probably total less than $30B), and the universe of all means-tested programs. Increasing the talent pool is vital to producing a dynamic economy. It sounds touchy-feely, but things like school lunch programs are an enormous success when judged on the basis of their effect on childhood development, and the resulting increase in greater eventual intelligence, educational attainment, and productivity. Regardless of whether people have contempt for their parents, or pity that some people may simply have worse luck than others, something as boring as one healthy meal five days a week for nine months of the year has measurable effects on cognitive development for people who didn't choose their parents. The same goes for programs like subsidized preschool education, programs that educate young parents who didn't learn how to nurture from their parents, and many other small programs that are likely to sound very boring and very futile, but effect real incremental change that ultimately benefits the entire economy more than the individual beneficiaries. On the other end of means tested programs from those that encourage talent pool development, are the social safety net programs that facilitate enterprising risk. Early in the nation's history for example the perfectly justifiable idea of debtors' prisons was abolished for the more pragmatic practice of bankruptcy protection. More modern programs make it increasingly possible for not only young single people to go all in on a startup, but people with families, with less risk that a failure will put their children on the street. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't work on savings, but that they can take an even bolder risk when worth it. It may be logical to argue that they should suffer the consequences of their risk, but the economy probably experiences a net benefit from encouraging people away from their biases toward playing it safe. I get that social programs are really boring, especially since they tend to be top-down organized and not very entrepreneurial, yet it isn't accurate either to assume that they are all over-sentimental and based on pity alone, or that they all ultimately end up undermining people's chances of standing on their own feet.
- zero_intp 14y ago
  I have to say that this is one of the most insightful comments I have read on HN.
Monotoko 14y ago
anewguy, I think you've been hellbanned by a mod... which means no-one can see your comments, he wrote: "You'll find a lot of good ideas (and some bad ones) from Republicans if you hang out in right-wing circles. If you get your news from left-leaning outlets, then they are caricaturish bad guys. Of course, the same is true in the other direction."
nickik 14y ago
I would hope the learn the diffrence between pro-market and pro-buissness. Or rather I hope that anybody learns it.

ajross 14y ago

The headline is oversold. The meat is this: "The conservative-led Republican Study Committee just put out a Policy Brief that questions forty years of bipartisan support for tougher copyright enforcement". Now that's good news, and I think the analysis in the post is spot-on. This is the kind of thinking we'd hope to see out of a "new, more moderate" reinvented republican party. But one policy brief does not a policy make, and this one doesn't even (apparently) advocate for any explicit policy. They're dipping a toe in the water. At least they're thinking about swimming, but we've got a long way to go before this turns into something worth voting over IMHO.

spindritf 14y ago
What you're praising, and what this proposal can lead to, is the exact opposite of "moderate".
marshray 14y ago
I'm sure their political consultants are watching very closely how this gets picked up in the social media, particularly by those who are identified as thought leaders. Seriously, a tweet like "Wow maybe the Republicans aren't so corrupt and stupid after all [link] please RT" could make a noiceable difference in the behavior of Lamar Smith and his ilk.

tptacek 14y ago

This is a _Republican Study Group paper_ that argues for the reform of a critically important regulatory system because --- and they lead with this --- it "Retard[s] the creation of a robust DJ/Remix industry". I mean I'm not arguing, it's just hard to take that seriously as a Republican policy position. How big is the "DJ/Remix industry"? How big could it ever be? We have empirical evidence, because (according to this paper) other countries have robust DJ/Remix industries. The reforms at the end of this paper all seem totally sensible. It'd be great if this stuff happened. But be honest: even if we adopted every single reform in the paper, most infringers today would remain infringers, their liability would still be denominated in the tens of thousands of dollars, and it would remain just as illegal as it is today to run businesses predicated on copyright evasion.

marshray 14y ago
Obviously the "DJ/Remix" industry is just an example of something that (it's hoped) a wide audience can relate to. I think it's a trial balloon to see if there's any chance of finding a new issue on which the party can resonate positively with younger voters.
gwright 14y ago
They don't 'lead' with that. That example appears on page 4 of a 9 page document. It is the first example they use to illustrate the effects of current policy. The way your comment reads it sounds like the entire position paper is based on the DJ/Remix industry example.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I mean to point out that it is their first argument for what is wrong with the copyright system in a numbered list of wrongs.

ewillbefull 14y ago

"Throwing Hollywood under the bus could pay dividends for GOP" http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/throwing-hollywood-under-the-bus-could-pay-dividends-for-gop/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/01/throwing-hollywoo... Republicans have suggested pivoting their platform in a free-internet direction.

smsm42 14y ago
Provided how little Hollywood is intent on helping them in any way, I don't see any downside for them. On the contrary, exposing some D congressmen as a puppets of Big Business - in this case, big entertainment business - can allow them to counter frequent similar claims from the D side. And given the skepticism of the R base about any extension of the government powers, as I said, no downside at all. I only wonder why there's not more of this.
- mjn 14y ago
  There's not much downside from antagonizing Hollywood in particular, but there are plenty of non-Hollywood copyright interests, some of whom traditionally swing GOP, such as segments of the recording industry (e.g. Nashville). Though it's quite possible they're losing some of their influence within the party, especially since the departure of Sonny Bono from Congress.

lubujackson 14y ago

Huh. That would certainly make me think more favorably of Republicans, and it fits with the older, more moderate Republican concept of "less government involvement". There's a ways to go on some other topics, though. It might seem to be an anti-business angle, but the music business is shrinking rapidly and it's kind of like kicking a ball while it still has a bit of air in it.

icebraining 14y ago
It might seem to be an anti-business angle There's nothing wrong with that; for example, Luis Zingales proposes[1] a "pro-market, not pro-business" position for the GOP. I'm not an American, but I'd love to see a true movement against crony capitalism. We desperately need one here in Portugal. [1]: http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0708lz.html http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon0708lz.html
- shirederby 14y ago
  This is a good editorial on the subject: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/why-businesses-can-t-stand-free-markets-commentary-by-veronique-de-rugy.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-23/why-businesses-can-...

001sky 14y ago

Hollywood votes democrat. RIAA is run by a democrat. MSM media is democrat 9/10. Comcast's CEO vacations with OBAMA. etc. -- Old saying: 'My enemy's enemy is my friend.'

DannyBee 14y ago
Actually, it's more complicated than that. Both Silicon Valley and Hollywood mainly support democrats. Republicans in the past have not offered much that causes either to have to make tough choices. If they did, they might be able to pit one against the other, which would help their party immensely.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

mturmon 14y ago

"It pleases conservative bloggers, appeals to young swing voters, stokes the culture wars and drives a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, Hollywood and Silicon Valley." Glad to know they are in this one for

Khurrum 14y ago

I like it. Seriously, 12 years is a long time to be milking stuff.

stretchwithme 14y ago

Maybe they finally noticed who creative folks vote for.

iterative 14y ago

Um, except for two idiot Senate candidates who went down in flames, it was the Democrats who were pushing so-called "social" issues this election cycle with radical positions like forcing everyone to buy health insurance that includes contraceptives, whether they wanted to or not. Saying the employer or the insurer is one paying for the contraceptives is economic nonsense -- the cost ultimately comes out of the employees' pockets. Should, say, a woman who's gone through menopause or a gay man really have to pay higher health insurance premiums to subsidize someone else's birth control? Given that birth control pills are legal and cheap (~$10 a month at Walgreens) this was really just about trying to create a wedge issue by scaring people with a phony controversy. And after being in office for four years, Obama waited until about five minutes before the election, when the polls showed support was turning in its favor, to announce his very tepid support for gay marriage. Not exactly, a shining example of leading on principle.

warfangle 14y ago
Should a single man really have to subsidize care for a woman with breast cancer, or a six year old with an inoperable brain tumor? Shut the fuck up. Healthcare choices are to the individual and the doctor, not to the insurer or the government. If you don't want to subsidize health, go live in Somolia.
- orangecat 14y ago
  If you don't want to subsidize health, go live in Somolia. If you love government mandates so much, move to North Korea. See how silly that is? The real question we should be asking is why employers have anything to do with health insurance in the first place.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Because every time somebody proposes that we do it sensibly everybody decides to do their best Joseph McCarthy impression.
  - jbooth 14y ago

_delirium 14y ago

Looks like they've already disavowed this memo: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4799352 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4799352