Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
United States

Howard Dean to Guest Blog for Lawrence Lessig 1246

Ethanol writes "Starting Monday, Professor Lawrence Lessig (whom we all remember from Eldred v. Ashcroft) is going on vacation, and his weblog will be guest-hosted by Democratic presidential candidate Governor Howard Dean. Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Howard Dean to Guest Blog for Lawrence Lessig

Comments Filter:
  • by cowmix ( 10566 ) * <mmarch AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:44PM (#6426193) Homepage
    "Either sane
    copyright laws, with a
    welfare state, or bad
    copyright laws, and imperialist invasion of countries?"

    I beg you to spend a little time reading up on Howard Dean. His
    policies are far from a "socialist welfare state".
  • Topic.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:49PM (#6426224) Journal
    "Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"

    From the comment-section on LL's blog:

    Good heavens. Dare I interpret Governor Dean's guest blogging on Prof. Lessig's site as a sign that he supports copyright reform?
    But, good lord, if he's actually in substantial agreement with Dr. Lessig on the issue, it's like a dream come true. ...posted by Evan

    LL responds:

    Good point, and I should have made this clear: Dean's guest blogging says nothing about Dean's views about the issues I've been pushing here. I've never discussed these issues with any member of the Dean campaign. And as we don't (yet) determine elections, I'm not even sure that Dean has worked these issues out himself.

    So please don't read anything into this more than the obvious: This is yet another way in which the Dean campaign has understood something about the net. ... posted by Lessig

    It's a win-win deal. LL gets someone to blog while on vactation, Dean reach out to a couple of thousand potentional voters. But interesting anyway. Looking forward to reading this blog.

  • Re:There's a thing (Score:4, Informative)

    by neema ( 170845 ) on Saturday July 12, 2003 @11:49PM (#6426225) Homepage
    Maybe the best bet would be to judge where your state is going. If it's clear that a candidate like Dean is going to win in your state (Dean or Kerry seem like they're going to win in California and New York, for example), then go ahead and vote for the green party. But if you're in Alabama, vote smart.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:08AM (#6426286)
    Having lived in MA for the past decade I'm embarrassed to say I have not heard of Dean until recently. What I like of him is that he appears to say what he feels like without backing down.

    Sure, the current POSPOTUS is a "straight talker",
    ("bring em on" sigh) but he usually has to take back the idiotic stuff he says, or assign blame somewhere else (it's nice to have a bunch of obsequious lap dogs).

    Much has been said about Dean's lack of foreign policy experience. I am amazed at this, because Bush's experience before election was when his daddy took him on rides on Air Force One.

    He probably needs to be briefed as to where every African country on his itinerary is on an atlas.

  • by phantomlord ( 38815 ) <(moc.hcetwrk) (ta) (todhsals)> on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:10AM (#6426295) Journal
    ok... so where are the people shouting about how Dean is getting the equivalent of a monetary donation that's not being given to other candidates? What is it that all the money that everyone on slashdot goes to fund? Media: ads, office staff, platform talks, getting their message out, etc. Lessig is more of less a political lobbiest of a special interest group, but many of the slashdotters believe the same thing he does, so it's ok in this case... we just need to shut up the ones we disagree with. If Rush Limbaugh were to run for office and stay on the air during campaign season, wouldn't all the CFR people whine that he has an unfair advantage? How about if he let a single candidate guest host his program for a whole week?
  • by Jeremi ( 14640 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:11AM (#6426299) Homepage
    FWIW, the reason for that awkward phrasing is that the new campaign finance reform laws require candidates to state explicitely in the ads that they are the ones behind the ads. Expect to see more fun and creative ways of satisfying that requirement in the future, from all candidates.
  • by Elf-friend ( 554128 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:13AM (#6426310)
    Normaly this news would excite me, but the Howard Dean that is running for president is not the same man as he was as our governor. I just don't know what to make of him anymore. Initiatives he opposed in Vermont now have his support, and vice-versa. His tirade over the war (regardless of your position on the war) seemed over the top. I found him downright scary.

    I've met our former governor three times (it's a small state, and my involvement in statewide 4-H events gave me the opportunity). He seemed very personable, but actions towards the end of his time here tended to disillusion me (and many Vermonters) about "Howard the Coward" as some called him (especially after he wouldn't sign the civil-unions law publicly, instead of behind closed doors). A man who easily won his first three elections, found the next two more chalenging (many think that, if the Republican candidate - the same woman both times - had been more likeable, he might have lost). It is possible he could not have won another (his hand-picked successor did not).

    I just don't know what to think of this move, I fear it is more than likely a political ploy, something we have seen more than enough of in Vermont these last two terms. The Democrats are desperate for the voters that went Green last time, because they know they need them. In Vermont, though, Dean was always very business friendly, too much so for me to trust him on this now. Which is the real Howard Dean? That is the question.
  • by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:28AM (#6426367) Journal
    Are you trolling? Whatever; I'll bite.

    They way you mentions "a socialist welfare state" and puts it up against " imperialist invasion of countries" i get the feeling that you are not very happy about it...

    But did you know that when UN classifies countries based and ranks them in their Human Development Index what you propably consider socialist welfare states(as a bad thing) these socialist welfare states top the list?

    1.Norway, socialist welfare state
    2.Iceland, socialist welfare state
    3.Sweden, socialist welfare state
    5.the Netherlands, somewhat socialist welfare 6.state
    7.Belgium, socialist welfare state
    8.the United States,
    9.Canada, somewhat socialist welfare state
    11.Switzerland, socialist welfare state
    12.Denmark, socialist welfare state
    14.the United Kingdom,
    15.Finland, socialist welfare state
    20.Spain and
    20.New Zealand

    Those I have marked socialist welfare states is those states I consider to be closer to a typical socilist welfare state modell than the United States way of "welfare state". There are of course difrences between them and different "degrees of socialist welfare states".

    So please: Don't compare "socialist welfare states " to a foregin policy of "imperialist invasion of countries"

    Why do people continue to vote for republicans and democrats anyway?
    Because your country addappted a political system that in reality only promotes a two party system.
  • by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:30AM (#6426375) Homepage Journal
    Lieberman, like Gore before him, is a conservative in Democrat's clothing. They talk all liberal about some things, but really aren't much liberal at all when it comes down to behavior.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:33AM (#6426385)
    "[Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
    -speaking after President Jackson heard the decision of Worcester V. Georgia []

    Why do we still have this man on our money?
  • by vnv ( 650942 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:45AM (#6426442)
    Just who is Howard Dean?
    "I don't mind being characterized as 'liberal' -- I just don't happen to think it's true." -- Howard Dean, in Salon.

    If he is not a liberal, just who is he?

    To find out, we have to move past his political machine. Like Bush, Dean is very adept at associating himself with issues and causes that are important for his campaign. Thus for Dean we see his association with Lessig and an apparent concern for "the commons". Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    Let's take a look at how Dean compares to Kucinich [], a long time liberal Democrat.

    Howard Dean, a subset of the comparison points:

    Health care plan

    Complex 4-prong plan, extending multiple state and federal programs piecemeal, combined with tax credits and incentives, all of which Dean claims is more likely to become law, but still won't cover everyone

    Death penalty

    Favors for "extreme" crimes like terrorism or the killing of a police officer, although critical of Bush administration's "careless" approach to executions

    Roe v. Wade

    Pro-life until recently; now the only candidate pledging to make Roe v. Wade a "litmus test" for appointing federal judges. Pro-choice, but refuses to make Roe v. Wade a litmus test for federal judges

    Kyoto treaty

    Says we must "take another look," but has "concerns" about some provisions

    Patriot Act

    Would repeal "parts," but also wants to expand intelligence agencies; praises Russ Feingold as only Senator who opposed the act, ignoring Kucinich's vocal House opposition, falsely implying no other candidate opposed the Patriot Act


    Notes problems with "free" trade, suggesting the need for inclusion of human rights, environmental, and labor standards in trade agreements -- but still pro-NAFTA

    "Star Wars" ballistic missile system

    Would cut only 1/8 of the funding, transferring it to international threat-reduction programs

    Pentagon waste

    Disagrees with any proposed Pentagon cutbacks, and advocates aggressive expansion of intelligence, police, and special forces

    Medical marijuana

    Firmly opposed, although promises to abide by a proposed FDA evaluation

    War on drugs

    Has accepted National Governors Association position: more federal funding for all aspects of the drug war; however, also speaks of drug use as a medical problem, and has called the War on Drugs a failure; website and recent speeches simply do not clarify what policies he would pursue, as far as I can tell

    We see that Dean is very much like a "lite" version of Bush. There is very little in Howard Dean that is liberal.

    Bush would be delighted to run against Dean who is simply a watered down version of Bush. And Dean comes from Vermont, bringing only 3 electoral votes. Easy campaign, easy victory.

    What Bush doesn't want to do is run against a real Democrat who actually represents the tough issues that this country is facing. Or have to deal with a candidate whose home state carries 21 electoral votes.

    Howard Dean may look snazzy on paper and in the media, but in reality, he is merely the lite version of Bush and would do little or nothing to actually make America better for Americans. We'd have the same screwed up medical system, giant defense budgets, pollution, and corporatist America that we have with Bush. Voting for Kucinich or for the Greens is change. Dean is status quo, more of the same Bush Doctrine.

  • by EvanED ( 569694 ) <> on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:46AM (#6426443)
    There's another option, the approval vote. I think it's what the IEEE uses, so maybe that'll give it some credibility around here. Basically you can vote for as many people as you want. No one person can have more than one vote, but if there are three people you wouldn't mind haveing in office, you can vote for all of them.

    It combines the easiness of current voting with the power of ranking systems (either the instant runoff or the Borda) without binding you to order somehow rank everyone who is on the ballot. (Which is an interesting problem in itself... it probably implies computers which means $$$ and even less trust with the current systems than I have in the chad-based systems.)

    (See the intereting Discover article at for more information about voting systems.)
  • by BigDork1001 ( 683341 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:49AM (#6426464) Homepage
    I am usually very against guns. I hate them personally but growing up in the country with family members that hunt I have no problems with them in a general sense. What Dean says on gun control makes sense. Why should it be the same in small town Vermont as it is in inner city LA? Read it for youself...Dean for America []
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2003 @01:41AM (#6426637)
    A requirement of the granting to broadcasters the opportunity to have a monopoly on the use of a portion of the spectrum in a particular area is that the content must be in the public interest in several ways.

    Lessig's blog is not a public resource.
  • by KiahZero ( 610862 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @02:11AM (#6426736)
    One example for each:

    - So he screwed us economicaly how?
    He talked the economy into recession... we were doing OK, and he kept saying the god-damned R-word every time he opened his mouth. That doesn't help.

    - So he screwed us in scientific research how?
    Remember stem cell research? Nevermind any sort of therapeautic cloning research.

    - So he screwed us in basic civil rights how?
    *cough*USA PATRIOT act*cough*
  • by Zhe Mappel ( 607548 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:19AM (#6426946)
    Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the most progressive of the Dem contenders, has published "The Case for Public Patents" this week in The Nation. (Catch the nod to open source towards the end of the piece.) &s=kucinich

  • by gnurb ( 632580 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:49AM (#6427015) Homepage
    Could this be a sign that a serious contender for President (tied for first for the nomination in the latest polls) has his head screwed on right about copyright law?"

    Not really.

    From Lessig's blog: Good point, and I should have made this clear: Dean's guest blogging says nothing about Dean's views about the issues I've been pushing here. I've never discussed these issues with any member of the Dean campaign.

    Upset cause I submitted this story 6 hours earlier, but happy cause Howard Dean's effective use of the internet to generate buzz (and $$$) excites me.

  • by RALE007 ( 445837 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @03:54AM (#6427026)
    ...Well, first things first. At first you have to establish that it really was an unjustified and illegal war before you can accuse him of murder. But since that seems to have been the case, it would be very ironic indeed if some leading member(s) of his administration would have to answer to the International Criminal Court which they so opposed...

    I'm not trying to troll here, but it would be very ironic considering the US has rejected identifying the permanent tribunal [].

    The tribunal can charge Americans all they like, but the US will not identify any charges, findings, convictions, or sentencing of the tribunal that they do not wish to identify.

    To put it bluntly, if some leading member(s) of GWB's administration were charged by the ICC (International Criminal Court), said member(s) of the administration would tell the ICC to bugger off. Charges by the ICC? Possible but unlikely. Anyone from the GWB administration answering to the ICC, cold day in the seventh ring.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13, 2003 @04:38AM (#6427140)

    geeze what an idiot. stop watching fox news and listening to talk show idiots.

    So I guess we should cover up all of those mass graves, put all those children back in prison, get Chemical Ali back into the lab, get those torture racks greased, throw all of those 'Big Brother Saddam' pictures back up in Baghdad, and leave a fruit basket with a letter of apology. You're right...we are indeed in the Twilight Zone.

    Nobody said saddam was a good guy. But just because he is a "bad" guy, doesn't give the US justification to wage war on another country. If the US really cared about innocent people, it would not prop up corrupt dictatorships (saudi arabia, south america, etc). If this was really just about helping "free" the iraqi people, then what about the chinese, the cubans, the africans, the saudis, and countless others who are opressed ? Will the US invade each one of those to "free" the people ? What about the chechnyans ?

    Of couse the US won't do anything about these other places because A) They don't have oil, and B) some of them can defend themselves with nukes. Moral of the story: if you have something the bully (the US) wants (oil) then get something to defend yourself as fast as possilbe (nukes). I really can't blame NK for wanting nukes after this.

    What a crazy world we live in where a guy who's chief sin is being a conservative is demonized more than a man who has murdered 100s of thousands of innocent people who simply disagreed with him.

    no, his chief sin is lying and waging war on false pretenses. preemptive war, my ass. this just justifies any country any other country based on vague notions. and iraq has nothing to do with 911. its sickening how you neo-cons drag up 911 at every opportunity, to justify any and everything.

    The fact is, the United States had moral, legal, and political justification for removing Saddam Hussein.

    No moral authority. It is up to the Iraqi people to decide their own government. No legal authority. The war was not sanctioned by the UN. Political authoriy ? if you mean the ignorant american populace who will agree to anything as long as a flag is wrapped around it, then yep.

    A people who have experienced oppression you will NEVER comprehend are now free.

    Well bushie is giving us a chance to exprience opression. Torture, secret trials, holding people indefinately without trials, rounding people up for questioning based on their religion / ethnicity, the PATRIOT act, etc. Someone needs to invade the US to "free" the people.

    I'll never forget the images of those Iraqis beating that Saddam statue with the shoes off of their feet. It's a shame you have forgotten, or maybe you never opened your eyes up enough to see.

    its nice that you opened your eyes and saw fox news for the coverage, but perhaps you should open it up a bit wider and examine the wide angle photographs of the scene. There were only a handful of iraquis tearing down the statue with dozens / hundreds of us troops surround them. hardly an example of a popular demonstation....

  • Re:PRIORITIES! (Score:5, Informative)

    by radicalsubversiv ( 558571 ) <(michael) (at) (> on Sunday July 13, 2003 @04:38AM (#6427143) Homepage Journal
    Couldn't agree with you more on that PATRIOT Act. However, in the interests of accuracy:

    Sen. John Kerry: Voted for
    Sen. John Edwards: Voted for
    Sen. Joe Lieberman: Voted for
    Sen. Bob Graham: Voted for
    Rep. Dick Gephardt: Voted for
    Rep. Dennis Kucinich: Voted AGAINST, and has strongly criticized
    ex-Gov. Howard Dean: never been in Congress, but has expressed concern/opposition
    ex-Sen. Mosely-Braun: wasn't in Congress at the time, opposes
    Al Sharpton: never been in Congress, opposes
  • by dpete4552 ( 310481 ) <slashdot.tuxcontact@com> on Sunday July 13, 2003 @06:48AM (#6427397) Homepage
    Bush isn't even honest in his State of the Union Address, and Americans don't seem to be having a hard time trusting him...
  • by LauraScudder ( 670475 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @07:17AM (#6427430) Journal
    The problem with social security in America is that it's going down the shitter because not enough money is going in compared to out - and people still don't get a whole heck of a lot to live off of. We're hitting the real stress point for the system with the baby boomer generation, and bankruptcy of social security in the future is a real possibility

    The result is that everyone my age (20s) is resigned to the fact that we will most likely get no social security later unless the system gets reformed now. It's quite depressing to see that money taken out of your paycheck knowing that you won't see any of it later.

    I have the distinct feeling that now that people about my age are getting paychecks, we're going to start to see a real push for ss reform. Unfortunately we have to push back against the baby boomers, who just want their money now.

    I'm quite impressed by social security in Europe, by the way (I'm in Germany right now), though there's still some kinks I've heard about like high taxes and lack of incentive for real solvency in the health insurance companies. I'd feel better about those problems than about the situation in America now.
  • by Xabraxas ( 654195 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @08:18AM (#6427521)
    They haven't found Saddam Hussein yet either, but no one says he didn't exist.

    Except...we have seen Saddam before. Actually the man (Donald Rumsfeld) who you qoute (without giving proper credit) has met Saddam in person. So we know he exists. The problem is that weapons inspectors did not see any WMD in person. In fact when we went to war all we had for evidence were satelite photos of weapons labs that later turned out to be stations for blowing up hot air balloons. Ties between Bin Laden and Hussein have been unfounded. Documents about Iraq attempting to obtain uranium from Africa have been proven to be falisified.

  • by Joe Trippi ( 689074 ) on Sunday July 13, 2003 @12:05PM (#6428245)
    As Governor Dean's campaign manager I thought I could answer a few questions and make a comment or two as well. We have absolutely forbidden any staff from posting or writing anything for Howard Dean and then post it under his name. In other words everything the Governor blogs and everything he blogs for Lessig will be written and posted by the Governor himself. One of the reasons we thought Lessig would be a good place to guest blog is that it helps to build this trust that it is really the Governor doing the guest blogging -- and that the community will trust that Lessig would not have allowed it if it wasn't so. Any thoughts as to how to answer the issue of trusted identity would be appreciated. It is something we have been really trying to figure out -- as I have pointed out -- how do you know this is really me? And we are not trying to kid anybody -- particularly anyone here -- we know we ain't perfect -- and that we don't get it all -- but we are trying to get it -- trying to reach out to everyone using every tool we can -- because as someone who you will probably regard as a political hack -- who has worked on 6 Presidential campaigns -- I can tell you what you already know -- ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY -- The only way to put power back in people's hands is for the people to buy their government back. A million to two million Americans contributing $100 each or whatever they can -- will be a force that will not only win the Presidency -- but will also strike enough fear into everyone else in Washington -- that we can change our country's politics. The biggest challenge is to cut through people's cynicism -- nothing will change if we can not get beyond that and get people to participate in their self-government again -- and believe that together we have the power to protect our rights, and our civil liberties, and reclaim our government. That is what this campaign has been trying to prove -- that is why we are doing what we are doing eveyday to build a community that will carry that cause. That is why Howard Dean will guest blog for Lawrence Lessig -- to reach out -- in an authentic voice -- and see what happens. Why? Why the hell not? Joe Trippi campaign manager Dean for America please excuse the double post.

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly