Category: Politics

I hate the tiny screen of MLB.tv.

I’m beating Major League Baseball’s anti-fan deal with DirecTV repeatedly, but it keeps providing fodder.

In Demand president Rob Jacobson, whose company is owned by affiliates of the companies that own Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems, offered to carry the package on the same terms that DirecTV is for the next two seasons while putting off the issue of The Baseball Channel until it launches.

“This would ensure that for the next two years at least, all baseball fans would have access to the `Extra Innings’ package,” he said. “If we’re unable to reach an agreement when the channel launches, we’d give baseball the right to cancel the `Extra Innings’ deal. We think this is a fair compromise.”

[Sen. John] Kerry, trying to play the role of mediator, got behind the effort.

“What’s the matter with that?” he asked Bob DuPuy, baseball’s chief operating officer.

That’s a valid question, but only coming from a fan. [And I’m asking it: what’s the matter with that? – ed.] Congress, in its official duties, should not be determining the specifics of business deals in the private market. I know baseball and television aren’t fully private markets the way a corner store and a candy producer would be, but they should be.

“When fans react, Congress reacts,” [Sen. Arlen] Specter said. “You may be well advised to act before we do.”

Sen. Specter’s first statement is wrong because it amounts to nothing more than mob rule. He’s parading it as democracy, but we’re talking about the same beast. I’m angry about the deal. Still, it’s not something I expect my congressman to address. Sen. Specter’s concern may be correct. His actions are not.

Which gets to his second sentence. Stop threatening. Act or shut up. I’ve already stated that Major League Baseball should not have antitrust exemption. As long as it exists, though, dictate. That way everyone understands the true nature of the deal. Instead, we get blabber about the interests of consumers until someone inevitably steps up with cash or politicians back down without dignity. It’s tiresome.

I still hold out hope that a deal will get done. I can’t fight the fear that Major League Baseball only offered the Extra Innings deal to cable and Dish Network as a front to later pass blame on an outside party for not meeting the terms. I despise Bud Selig.

Informed, educational thoughts on antitrust absurdity at A Stitch in Haste.

New meaning to “elective” surgery.

Does this sound like it’s based on principle or politics?

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was part of the last significant effort to overhaul the system during her husband’s administration. That attempt failed, but the Democratic candidates said Saturday that the conditions exist to push for dramatic change.

But Clinton warned that getting there would still be difficult. “We don’t just need candidates to have a plan,” she said. “All of them have plans. We need a movement. We need people to make this the number one voting issue in the ’08 election.”

At least Sen. Obama had the decency to speak of “the need to solve the problem now,” although I’m sure his solution will involve the kind of theft proposed by John Edwards. Instead, Sen. Clinton made a transparent plea about getting elected above any need to debate the merits of this “problem.”

I can’t imagine any of these candidates getting my vote in 2008.

Justice is blind, right?

From Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post:

Alberto Gonzales has to go.

Okay, we’re off to a great start. Gonzales should’ve never been confirmed as Attorney General because of permissive stance on torture. And Mr. Krauthammer has shown a less than admirable permissiveness on torture. But that’s a great opening line.

I say this with no pleasure — he’s a decent and honorable man — and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their blood lust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.

I don’t get it. The Democrats are to blame. What? And doing the right thing would only fuel the out-of-control Democrats? I’m lost. So, “tactically wise” is better than leadership? I know I’d be foolish to expect leadership from the President, but we should at least demand it.

It’s not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.

How could he allow his aides to go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony? How could Gonzales permit his deputy to say that the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?

Oh. Now it makes sense. Gonzales didn’t do anything wrong, you see. There is no scandal in firing U.S. attorneys because they didn’t prosecute Democrats vigorously enough. People like me who think that politics should not be involved in deciding who to prosecute are mistaken. We’re being silly. A monarchical privilege is attached to the office of president.

Mr. Krauthammer goes on, but his logic isn’t worth pursuing. The clear paper trail showing nothing but slimy intentions to pervert the justice system for partisan ends is wrong. Mr. Krauthammer should not now celebrate that because his chosen party is in power in the White House. The Democrats will return to the White House. And if/when a Democratic president pulls this, we should all be equally appalled. This is not complicated.

The article doesn’t mention constitutional principle.

I don’t know what to say about this assessment of Rudy Giuliani as a good presidential candidate for social conservatives.

The animating idea of the “gay rights” movement is every bit as ridiculous as the case for the right to “choose.” The left would have us believe that society has no grounds for its ancient disapproval of homosexuality. If society approves of heterosexual relationships that typically serve to create and sustain families it must also approve of homosexual relationships that typically do not serve that purpose. Those of us who approve of one and not the other are bigots in need of punishment and reeducation.

Nobody ever makes this argument. When clearly stated it is self-refuting nonsense.

Nevertheless, the left cheerfully assumes that all disapproval of homosexuality is bigotry. It goes on its merry way agitating for changes in law and society which would suppress every expression of this society’s distaste for homosexuality and eliminate every distinction between traditional marriage and other sexual relationships.

A proper fisking would take too long. Besides, the absurdity of this conspiracy theory claim should be apparent. My short attempt: government should treat every individual the same. Nothing more, nothing less.

Read the whole thing if you need a good laugh at paranoid someone can be.

Via Andrew Sullivan

Carefully chosen words are not an accident.

I haven’t tracked the developing scandal involving the Bush administration’s Justice Department’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys for what appears to be little more than insufficient prosecutorial partisanship at Rolling Doughnut, but I’ve paid enough attention to figure out that something’s rotten. I have no confidence that it won’t get swept away and ignored from the viewpoint of consequences. Still, I’m stunned that those involved think we’re this stupid:

At a Justice Department news conference, [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales said he would find out why Congress was not told sooner that the White House was involved in discussions of who would be fired and when. He did not, however, back away his stance that the dismissals that did take place were appropriate.

“I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision,” Gonzales said.

The White House said President Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general. “He’s a stand-up guy,” White House counselor Dan Bartlett said in Mexico, where he was traveling with the president.

Let me know how well that investigation into the delay goes. I bet it’ll be carried out with the same expediency with which the Bush administration’s connection was revealed. Until then, we have assurances from both sides that each side is filled with nothing but upstanding statesmen. Yeah, right.

For example, a semi-skilled individual could read this statement from the Attorney General and get the impression that he feels he’s above such demeaning tasks as keeping the Congress informed.

“Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information _ incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress,” Gonzales said. “I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here.”

He’s making zero claim that he’s obligated to report such information, only that when he decides to provide it, it should be accurate and complete. Thanks for the clarification, but I’ll take a little more regularly-scheduled oversight with my Department of Justice government.

Which cellular service will each candidate endorse?

If it walks like a duck…

What’s the closest thing in politics to a religious experience? The ethanol conversion.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) experienced one in May of last year. Long opposed to federal support for the corn-based biofuel, she reversed herself and endorsed even bigger ethanol incentives than she previously voted against. Now running for president, Clinton is promoting a $50 billion strategic energy fund, laden with more ethanol perks.

Political opponents depict Clinton’s about-face as pandering to Iowa Democrats, who will cast the first votes of the 2008 nominating season. …

That’s the most obvious explanation, and the one that came to my mind first. But it doesn’t really matter what reasoning she used. In the best analysis of her switch, she believes that the free market can’t figure out a viable solution to our dependence on oil. If ethanol is so wonderful, it will succeed without government help. If it needs government help to succeed, it isn’t the solution. Senator Clinton’s opinion is irrelevant, other than to broadcast how she would treat the economy as president. If this is any evidence at all, I’ll pass.

Further into the article, the reporter claims that a candidate having an opinion on how to use ethanol is now expected, so it gains little for anyone. Essentially, we now expect our political candidates to inform us which products we should choose. Forgive me for having a brain and an independent streak, but I’m more than qualified to figure out how to choose for myself. I also trust other individuals and businesses to search for opportunities in the marketplace, whether or not that marketplace exists today. Human history is full of examples. That includes energy sources. No politicians necessary.

Like a System the Government Would Develop

I’m looking to buy a new laptop computer. I’m probably going to buy a Dell. If I do, I’ll have more to say based on my previous posts. For now, though, I’m fascinated by this:

From now on, whenever you buy a Dell PC, you’ll have the option of donating a few dollars toward the planting of new trees. And it’s not for nothing. A PC requires electricity, and generating electricity typically involves spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. As Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth makes pretty clear, this is a big problem, especially for people living at sea level. New trees can offset some of those carbon emissions.

I’ll read more about the program when I get closer to my final decision to determine whether or not it’s a feel-good gimmick or a legitimate strategy. It’s probably a bit of both, and it’s only $2 for a laptop, so the harm is minimal. But I dismissed this connection immediately.

You might think that this is just another way for Dell to take your money, but the company’s putting your money to good use. The fee is a token one, to be sure, but it could change the way people think about consumer electronics. I see it the same way I see that check box on my tax return, the one that sends $3 from my yearly tax bill to the Federal Election Commission. I’m guessing that IRS check box represents the first time the average voter actually realizes that election campaigns are partially financed by the federal government. Likewise, the check box on Dell’s site may be the first time that the average PC buyer thinks about the environmental impact of all that Web surfing.

That $3 checkbox is a silly example of how government can step beyond what is legitimate. I won’t voluntarily pay (through the back door) any money to fund the nonsensical thinking that leads to McCain-Feingold. I’ll donate money only to candidates I think are worthy, which is why I’ve donated $0 in my life to political candidates. That $3 checkbox perpetuates the mistaken notions that 1) two parties are enough and 2) either one of them is competent to govern. Sorry, but I’m aware of how candidates and politicians treat citizens. If the Dell program is anything like that, I’ll keep my $2.

Further down, this:

In addition to taking a lead in carbon offsets, Dell has one of the best recycling programs in the industry. The company announced a free recycling program three years ago, and in June it took it a step farther. Today, you can send any Dell PC back to the company for recycling—without paying a penny. If you buy a new Dell, the company actually sends someone to pick up your old PC. Again, this is a free service, and your old PC doesn’t have to be a Dell. Right now, manufacturers such as HP and Apple charge anywhere from $13 to $30 to dispose of your old computer. That’s just enough disincentive to ensure that most of those systems will land in a landfill.

This is a huge problem—not just for users, but for businesses. Here at PC Magazine Labs, we’re in the process of phasing out the last of our old CRT monitors and replacing them with LCDs. CRT monitors contain a huge amount of toxic lead. We’re talking 8 pounds a pop, if you consider all the glass, frit, and solder in a big CRT. This isn’t something we want leaking into our water tables.

I agree that recycling, or at least proper disposal of old computers is important. Free is a great incentive. And businesses (and governments) are absolutely the place to make the biggest push because they buy and upgrade in bulk. But I’ve priced the laptop I want through Dell’s small business catalog. The recycling kit is $25. Maybe if you’re the purchasing manager for a Fortune 500 firm you don’t care because you know that your P.R. department will issue a press release explaining how wonderful your company is at caring about the environment. For me, as a small business owner, I can afford one $25 payment to recycle an old (Pentium I) desktop I still have. But a small business buying more computers with a limited budget might find that $25 per computer fee a lot more daunting. That seems obvious, as even I’ve balked at the $25 and will look into other methods.

If businesses are the most logical starting place, and I think they are, the goal for Dell, HP, and Apple is on target, but the incentive needs work.

It’s back? It was gone?

Does Rep. Greg Walden have a split personality?

Speaking to broadcasters yesterday, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee said he could envision the Supreme Court taking away the FCC’s powers over indecency on the airwaves. The FCC’s recent decisions on indecency are being challenged in court by three of the major TV networks.

Walden says that he supports an increase in FCC fines and the Commission’s powers, but says that the vague nature of past indecency rulings could give the courts the opening they need. …

At the NAB-sponsored conference in Washington D.C., Walden also said to expect more government control over ad content and pressure on TV violence. “Keep your hand next to the panic button. Advertising is likely to get blamed for everything. Forget personal responsibility. Paternal government is back.”

The First Amendment gives the Supreme Court all the opening it should need to fight censors like Rep. Walden. That it ignores its duty is only a symptom of the larger problem with government. He warns broadcasters that they need to be more proactive against paternal government while seeking to expand the power of that paternal government. How complicated is “Congress shall make no law…“?

Via: Fark

How is answering the question avoiding it?

I’m not sure I understand the furor here.

President Bush encouraged governors Monday to support his call for changing the tax code to help more people buy private healthcare insurance, but did not address their pleas to increase funding for a healthcare program that insures millions of children of the working poor.

Bush avoided the question. Except, not so much.

“I’m looking forward to working with Congress on health care. I firmly believe … that states are often times the best place to reform systems and work on programs that meet needs,” he said.

I don’t think he believes, or at least his actions do not support that statement. However, his statement in this context is correct. National reform is necessary, but in the opposite direction from what I suspect the governors want. Sure, it’d be nice to get all of the benefits of covering people for your state without paying the bill yourself, at least not directly. (I’m ignoring the public vs. private debate for the moment.) But that’s not happening without taking from one to give to another. If it’s appropriate at all, the state is the highest level where it should be done with this issue.

Essentially, it comes down to this statement, but understood through reality instead of wishful thinking:

Gov. Jon Corzine, a New Jersey Democrat, warned that the administration’s budget promised illusory savings. “You end up paying for this in other ways — uncompensated care, emergency rooms,” Corzine said. “This is pay me now or pay me later.”

Every spending decision faces the same test. The only issue at stake is who is willing to face that truth. Gov. Corzine should look at his own budget rather than pawning blame onto the Bush administration.

It’s the 48th inning. Everyone’s exhausted. Keep playing!

Steven Pearlstein offers a few reasons why the government should block the proposed merger between Sirius and XM. Mostly, it’s boilerplate fear of big business and its assumed power to dominate people’s lives. I think I yawned once or twice while reading it. He wrote the perfect summation against his argument in his conclusion. It only takes a moment of looking beyond the words.

What we have here, folks, is a case of two money-losing companies locked in what has become ruinous competition, from which they hope to escape by merging. It may be that, given the economics of the business, there is room for only one to survive and prosper. But if satellite radio is such a “natural monopoly,” consumers will be better off if the companies are forced to duke it out until one prevails and the other dies. The antitrust laws were designed to foster competition, not to foreclose it by bailing out competitors that overpaid for talent, over-invested in plant and equipment or over-promised results to their investors.

How do we know consumers will be better off if the two companies continue to bloody each other? We can assume it, but it’s just an assumption. Sort of like the assumption that the FCC made that the public interest would be best served by allowing two, and only two, competitors to purchase a satellite radio license. How do we know what will be best in the future?

The explanation generally revolves around some imagined significant harm that will result from a monopoly. Only history doesn’t always show such harm. Would we have a viable, efficient economy with the same power if regulators had stopped steel or oil consolidation? Evidence suggests that those industries continually improved their manufacturing methods, increasing efficiency and lowering prices. We should not act in response to potential harm. If the merged company actually exhibits monopoly behavior, then intervention may be warranted. Until then, it’s wise to realize that the threat of intervention acts as an incentive against monopoly behavior.

More to the case at hand, perhaps it’s better to let one of the two surrender and preserve assets for productive use than to make them fight each other until one company is toast.