Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-20-2008, 06:42 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-20-2008, 09:06 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Question for the site editors:

Who chose the word manque? And what was the intended meaning?

As I understand it, manque (manqué) means a failure of sorts -- someone who tried to be something or someone else but did not succeed. For example: Concerning the leftosphere, Conn Carroll is a reporter manqué, since he labors under the misapprehension that it begins with Chris Bowers and ends with Matt Stoller.

I assume the title, "Falwell Manque," refers to Rick Warren, but isn't it true that Warren has succeeded (or is at least on the way to success) as the new, kinder, gentler, Falwell 2.0? Certainly, Sara and Conn agreed upon this.

Perhaps the editors were seeking to signal disagreement with this view, and "I knew Jerry Falwell, Jerry Falwell was a friend of mine, and Rick Warren is no Jerry Falwell" wouldn't fit?

Moving along ...

I was happy to hear some discussion of Net Neutrality. However, I got the sense, as I often do when TWiB tries to address big policy issues, that we'd be better served hearing from specialists in the relevant field. The Heritage talking point -- "It's just like FedEx!" -- is suitable for a sound bite on a Fox News chit-chat show, I suppose, but it's a poor analogy.

To name one place where the analogy breaks down, FedEx does not own, build, run, or maintain the infrastructure upon which its service business depends. By contrast, many of the telcos enjoy monopoly or near-monopoly control over their "roads," particularly on a regional level.

To name another, FedEx is allowed to get away with effectively refusing to serve all customers because there is another organization offering to serve people who want things delivered that offers nationwide coverage. You do not have to pay FedEx ten or twenty bucks to deliver a one-ounce envelope to your cousin's ranch in East Nowhere, Wyoming. The USPS will do it for less than fifty cents, albeit more slowly. Consider also magazines, catalogs, bills, letters to constituents from members of Congress, direct advertising mailers, etc., none of which FedEx has any interest in handling at affordable rates, and it becomes clear that FedEx can get away with offering a boutique service without anyone becoming too bent out of shape about their picking and choosing, precisely because it will never be the only game in town.

For those interested in the issue of Net Neutrality (and if you're reading this, you definitely should be), specifically regarding the buzz-causing article in the WSJ, and who are unsatisfied with Conn's post, his attempt to push the meme that supporters of Net Neutrality are either misinformed or at each other's throats, his cherry-picking from Lessig's post, and his failure to distinguish between edge caching and tiered service, I have a post with lots of links available for your reading pleasure.

[Added] You might also browse SaveTheInternet.com for more. Start here, and see also a follow-up post on TPM.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-20-2008 at 09:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-20-2008, 10:39 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Madoff madness

Let's not try to summarize l'affaire Madoff prematurely. I've heard a lot about the potential losses hapless investors and philantropies, but that's only half the story. The other half is: Who benefited? A Ponzi scheme, by definition, favors the early investors. Who were they?

$50 Gigabucks is a sum of money beyond my imagination. What..., it just evaporated? Maybe this is more than a Ponzi scheme collapsing. Call me a cynic, but we shouldn't draw conclusions until someone has followed the money. Investigative journalists, where are you?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-20-2008, 11:45 PM
brucds brucds is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 940
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Robinson is wrong in her characterization of Warren's position on global warming. He isn't a "denier" and has signed on to the position of "concerned" evangelicals regarding climate change and action to curb carbon emissions. I don't want to defend this man, but neither do I condone attacking him on issues where he is, in fact, a "moderate" relative to the traditional religious right of Falwell, et. al.

As for Obama's choice of him at the invocation, I think Obama is turning out to be much more politically astute than many of his supporters. Obama's gonna have to do the heavy lifting on several major fronts and I'm going to watch his performance over the long haul. Meanwhile, let lefties make noise.

The right circled their wagons around Bush and came away from their "triumph" looking like the world's biggest losers. A triumphalist left at this juncture would make me nervous - Obama is better off with adversaries on his left rather than sychophants or happy campers at The Nation with his every move. I'm confident we're going to come out of this era with huge gains for the liberal agenda and a disoriented right.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-21-2008, 12:37 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucds View Post
As for Obama's choice of him at the invocation, I think Obama is turning out to be much more politically astute than many of his supporters. Obama's gonna have to do the heavy lifting on several major fronts and I'm going to watch his performance over the long haul. Meanwhile, let lefties make noise.
I agree. Given that nobody in politics would agree with my first choice (no religious invocation at all), we might as well toss a bone to the right with this one. Sara is right that symbols are important, but actual policy initiatives are far more so. We're going to need the right to go along on a lot of things in the next four years, and if the Warren pick helps, fine.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-21-2008, 12:58 AM
rfrobison rfrobison is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 1,629
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Ms. Robinson either has her facts wrong about Warren's position on global warming or she's lying: http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/fe...lltoaction.pdf.

I suspect she, like so many other ideologues on the left (yes, the right is just as guilty of this), is simply drawing a caricature because it's easier to boil someone down into a set of "wrong" beliefs, which are then dismissed, rather than discuss each one on its merits.

Hope you're out there, Sara. You've been caught.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-21-2008, 01:21 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucds View Post
As for Obama's choice of him at the invocation ...
Never mind about Warren and the invocation. What about the benediction???

ZOMG! More pastor controversy!

(Search hint via John Cole, whose post is well worth reading, particularly the Joe Klein blockquote. And follow the link to The Toot, right at the end.)
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-21-2008 at 01:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-21-2008, 05:52 AM
Nate Nate is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 195
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Just fyi for anyone who might have a wikipedia account; Someone nominated the category classifying bloggingheads people for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...oggingheads.tv

If you have an account, I would encourage you to vote to keep it.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-21-2008, 07:57 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucds View Post
As for Obama's choice of him at the invocation, I think Obama is turning out to be much more politically astute than many of his supporters.
Something that supports that thinking, from the wingnuts at CBN (via Sully):

Quote:
Liberals and gay activists aren’t happy with Barack Obama for choosing pro-life and prop 8 supporting pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s inaugural. But pro-life readers seem to be equally upset at Rick warren for agreeing to it.

The Brody File has been flooded with emails and most of them absolutely rip Pastor Warren for doing this. Below is but a very small sampling. I can’t reprint all of them but let me just say that pro-lifers are NOT happy with Warren at all.
That is, the Christianist right appears to be as flipped out as some on the left. Is Obama pulling a divide and conquer on them? Or if that wasn't his intention, did he at least expect it as a side effect?

I saw something said by someone somewhere else to the effect of this: Obama's choice of Warren pushes Dobson, Hagee, and guys like them a little farther out to the fringe. And that's a good thing.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-21-2008 at 08:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-21-2008, 08:07 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nate View Post
Just fyi for anyone who might have a wikipedia account; Someone nominated the category classifying bloggingheads people for deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...oggingheads.tv

If you have an account, I would encourage you to vote to keep it.
I added my two cents. Hope it helps.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-21-2008, 09:04 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by brucds View Post
Meanwhile, let lefties make noise.
Some pretty good noise from Bérubé.

If we could go back in time, I'd be with him.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-21-2008, 11:39 AM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

From a nice column by Bill Kristol:


"And the selection of Rick Warren may turn out to have significance beyond short-term political maneuvering. One can see this from the hysteria on the left and among gay activists. They sense that Obama isn't willing to sign on to their campaign to delegitimize, to cast out beyond the pale of polite society, anyone who opposes same-sex marriage--and in particular, anyone (like Warren) who supported Proposition 8 in California, the initiative that overturned the California Supreme Court's legalization of same-sex marriage.

The assault on Prop 8 supporters has been extraordinary in its mean-spiritedness and extremism--but the left knows what it's doing. The purpose has been to intimidate people with an opposing point of view from defending their position. To be against same-sex marriage, even against the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage, is to be a bigot. As one leftwinger said on CNN, Warren is a "hatemonger" comparable to "the grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan." Or, as the Human Rights Campaign's Brad Luna told Byron York of National Review, dismissing the fact that the benediction will be delivered by the Reverend Joseph Lowery, who is more friendly to gay marriage: "I don't think any Jewish Americans would feel much comfort in knowing that an anti-Semite is starting the inauguration with an invocation, but we're going to end it with a rabbi." So the claim is, opposing same-sex marriage is tantamount to being a racist or an anti-Semite.

Making that charge is at the heart of the agenda of the gay lobby. They don't want to debate same-sex marriage. They want to demonize its opponents. Ironically, Lowery himself, who is a (somewhat equivocal) supporter of gay marriage, refuses to equate the gay rights and the civil rights movements: "Homosexuals as a people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he told the Associated Press. "They may have been scorned; they may have been discriminated against. But they've never been enslaved and declared less than human."



The No on 8 thugs look pretty disoriented. Here they've been intimidating playhouse employees and shaking down restaurant owners (while issuing a pass to the black and latino communities that helped pass prop 8) and all of a sudden their hero decides politics is more important than ideology.

Just as some here attempt to deligimitize Christians with their ridiculous 'Christianist' labels, those seeking to demonize anyone against gay marriage (Obama and Biden anyone?), the thugs have to realize politics come first.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-21-2008, 12:09 PM
Foobs Foobs is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

1) Isn't picking Warren for the invocation the sort of thing that Obama telegraphed he would do? I mean, that was one thing I got from his campaign, that he would reach out to his opponents and bring those who disagreed with him to the table.

2) As others have noted, this move is politically astute in that it makes things a bit messy on the right.

3) I think gay marriage should be recognized (actually, I think no marriage should be legally recognized, but that's another story), but I also know that the political environment isn't there for it. The political environment will be there in a few decades, but it isn't now. I appreciate the idea of standing up for what's right, but that in itself makes you like Christopher Hitchens (someone who doesn't seem to grasp that there are a lot of different good things that could be done and that you have to weigh the chances of success and costs of each). You should work for what's right, but you should fight from a position of strength.

4) I get the appeal of romantic purity that would rather have heroic defeat than pragmatic victory. I'm glad that Obama appears to, like me, prefer messy victory. Maybe Sara will understand that at some point, too.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-21-2008, 01:02 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Not sure if I'm breaking some sort of comment-jacking ettiquite, but I thought these 3 comments from TNC's blog were good:

Quote:
I'm quite torn about this, really. I agree that Warren is more than a symbol, and in my gut I agree with all the arguments against him. I wish he wasn't giving the invocation. (Ok, I wish there was no religious aspect to the inauguration at all.)
But I must point out: This is what Obama ran on. He was not unclear that this sort of thing is exactly the sort of thing that he was planning to do. He went to the forum at Warren's church, over a lot of people's protests, during the campaign. So I sympathize with the people who are angry over Warren's selection, but if this wasn't the kind of presidency you were looking for, you probably should not have voted for Obama. He's kind of being a dick here, but it's exactly the kind of dick he promised he was going to be.
My other ambivalence has to do with using so much liberal political capitol trying to ram through this gay marriage stuff at all. Not because gays don't deserve to get married. That they should be allowed is so obvious it's stifling. But that's the point. It's essentially just the old bigoted people who are pushing this thing. In ten or twenty years, when they're all dead, gay marriage will pass with flying colors. That's not right, but I'm not willing to excoriate Obama over something that he never promised anyone (insofar as he never said he supported gay marriage), and that gay people will get in the relatively near term anyway.
Posted by OGWiseman | December 19, 2008 4:43 PM

Let me chime in and say that I don't agree with the "Why do we need to pray at the inauguration crowd." Obama's a Christian. It's his inauguration. If he wants a prayer to kick off his presidency, good for him. If he were agnostic or something and didn't want a prayer, I'm sure no one would force that on him.
So no, it's not "only symbolic" either, because I think there is more than symbolism in asking for a blessing before embarking on the most challenging journey of one's life. And now that Wright's been denounced, and rejected, Obama probably has about as good of a relationship with Warren as he has with any other religious figure. At least publicly. Warren isn't Obama's enemy, so the keep em close angle doesn't fit. He seems to like the guy.
but more than anything else, this isn't just symbolic because like everything else BO does, it's political. For Warren it's political too. And I suppose time will tell who wins and looses politically from all of this...
Posted by Green | December 19, 2008 4:46 PM

If we learned anything from this election, isn't it that we should judge politicians by what they do and what they say, not who they associate with?
If Obama's twenty years with Rev. Wright don't indicate that Obama shares any of the Rev.'s conspiracy theories, why should inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inaugural indicate that Obama won't be the fierce advocate for gay rights the he claims?
Also, Ezra's "symbolism" juxtaposition is a bit crap. Obama's election was symbolic that a America, as a country, chose to put a black, brilliant liberal in the White House. He wasn't appointed by anyone, the man won the biggest popularity contest in history. Obama's election stood as proof that America had the potential for its rhetoric of freedom and equality to match the reality.
In contrast, Warren's invocation is a symbol that Obama is playing for keeps. If inviting Warren gets Obama a sliver of evangelic support, and getting that sliver is what it takes to get health care reform, a working economy, a healed environment, a sane foreign policy, or expanded gay rights -- sign me up.
Posted by Dunbar | December 19, 2008 4:49 PM
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-21-2008, 02:30 PM
Foobs Foobs is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

It amazes me how Wikipedia doesn't seem to grasp that it isn't on paper, so it isn't bound by the same limitations as a normal encyclopedia. I mean, you would assume that the people running a business grasped it... I mean, unless you'd been paying attention these last few years...

I would think it would do just as well to have the information within the bloggingheads article, but the cross connections should be made... oh, and I think the proper response to the person who felt compelled to scourge wikipedia for things he felt insufficiently important is a hearty "fuck you"
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-21-2008, 05:09 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Sara Robinson smile is so cloying and she is way out of her depth on the Madoff issue. First of all, in order to invest in a hedge fund you have to be a qualified "sophisticated investor", which means you have to have a net worth of several million bucks. What this means is that when you invest in a hedge fund your risk is your own and nobody has ever cried for a millionaire who loses his shirt (except, apparently, Sara Robinson). Hedge funds are not allowed to advertize on "Main Street" for that reason. They must exclude naive and clueless investors like Sara by regulation. Extending the SEC's regulatory powers and tinkering with hedge funds will result in less risk taking, which is a bad thing for a capitalist economy, but pretty much par for the course for a socialist economy. All you have to do is remember two words: caveat emptor. That is the real foundation for risk management in the USA. If you thought it was something else, you are a fool.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-21-2008, 05:43 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Re Net Neutrality.
I could be mistaken, but I believe that GOOG and others started this entire net neutrality debate five years ago to prevent tiered bandwidth offerings by cable and telecoms. It was always understood that the FCC and Congress would smash any cableco or carrier (which, again, to my understanding have separate regulations and are not the same thing at all) that tried to block access to content. GOOG and its cohorts' only concern was that network owning companies would create alternative channels to them. Now that GOOD has overwhelming market share in search, they are backing out of this debate because it's no longer relevant. What is this woman Sara Robinson smoking? Her entire "Telus blocked my content" argument is a red herring.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-21-2008, 05:44 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

What a surprise: harkin's in victim mode again. Why is it always fine for wingnuts to call those they don't like every offensive name they can think of ("America-haters," "terrorist-lovers," "traitors," "treasonous," "Communists," "Fascists," etc.), to think they're fully within their rights to call for boycotts of businesses who say "Happy Holidays" or who support not discriminating against gay employees or customers, to bombard the FCC with organized email campaigns when seven-tenths of a second of TV offends them, and on and on, yet when people on the other side makes a stink or do a little collective action of their own, they're instantly branded as "thugs?"

(He asked rhetorically.)

I suppose if the best harkin can do is turn to the perpetually wrong Bill Kristol to make his case, I should feel pity, but let's not let the poster boy for nepotism and wingnut welfare go completely unchallenged.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Kristol View Post
The assault on Prop 8 supporters has been extraordinary in its mean-spiritedness and extremism--but the left knows what it's doing. The purpose has been to intimidate people with an opposing point of view from defending their position.
Starts right of playing the victim card and inflating things to the level of conspiracy, doesn't he? This shows the real lack of spine of chickenhawks, doesn't it? Someone gets a little in their face, a few isolated instances like an old hag getting a cross knocked out of her hand while she's dishing out hate speech occur, and suddenly, it's "the left" has a "purpose" of "intimidation." Sucks when the gates of the gated community mindset don't quite insulate the privileged from the rest of humanity, doesn't it?

If you all are too afraid to defend your positions against what overwhelmingly consists of verbal disagreement, that's on you, not on those who are making their disagreement known. Doesn't say much for the courage of your convictions, or the claim that you hold the majority view, though, does it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Kristol View Post
To be against same-sex marriage, even against the judicial imposition of same-sex marriage, is to be a bigot.
To be against same-sex marriage as a civil right is to be a bigot, yes.

To claim that it's being "imposed" is a crock. No one is making anyone get married to anyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Kristol View Post
As one leftwinger said on CNN [...]

So the claim is, opposing same-sex marriage is tantamount to being a racist or an anti-Semite.
Ah. One person says something, and Kristol, showing his usual lack of intellectual honesty, claims this represents the way half the nation thinks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Kristol View Post
Ironically, Lowery himself, who is a (somewhat equivocal) supporter of gay marriage, refuses to equate the gay rights and the civil rights movements: "Homosexuals as a people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he told the Associated Press.
The old technique of finding someone purportedly from "the other side" and cherry-picking a quote. Can you say, "Conn Carroll says, 'Chris Bowers says ...'?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Kristol View Post
"They may have been scorned; they may have been discriminated against. But they've never been enslaved and declared less than human."
So because gays have never been enslaved, they should just shut up when they're discriminated against in any other fashion? And as far as "never been declared less than human" goes, this might be the single stupidest thing Kristol could have picked to support his argument. The whole point of this debate is that gays are being treated as less than human: they're being denied rights enjoyed by other humans.

And as for the historical record, please. Do we really need to recount the other, even worse aspects of gays being treated as sub-human, from homosexuality being listed in the DSM as a "mental disorder" until the 1980s, with the lingering consequences that charlatans still make bank by claiming they can "cure" gays, to countless instances of gay-bashing; i.e., physical assault and murder, simply for being openly gay?

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
The No on 8 thugs look pretty disoriented. Here they've been intimidating playhouse employees and shaking down restaurant owners (while issuing a pass to the black and latino communities that helped pass prop 8) ...
Shorter harkin: We'd actually be fine with other people being "intimidated" and "shaken down." Just not us poor whiny white people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
Just as some here attempt to deligimitize Christians with their ridiculous 'Christianist' labels ...
More victim-speak and more distortion. (We could also note the cowardly formulation "some say," but let's leave that aside.)

The term Christianist is always used to apply to a specific group of people who claim their perverse superstitions are not to be subjected to criticism, make them morally superior, and entitle them to discriminate against, or even bomb, others who do not hold these same superstitions. And who, by the way, have felt no shame about their own use of terms like Islamist and Islamofascist to refer to all Muslims, terms which in fact led to the creation of the term Christianist in response.

No one, not even a militant atheist, thinks all Christians are Christianists.

But really, keep that cloak of self-pity wrapped tight, harkin. It seems clear you've got nothing else to wear.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-21-2008 at 07:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-21-2008, 05:55 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
What is this woman Sara Robinson smoking? Her entire "Telus blocked my content" argument is a red herring.
It doesn't serve the whole argument in favor of Net Neutrality, but it's not a red herring, either. It's a useful anecdote that illustrates the inherent danger of allowing those who have control of the means of transmission to feel entitled to regulate what's being transmitted.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-21-2008, 05:55 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quoting Sara Robinson on Net Neutrality: "When was the last time anyone enforced an anti-trust law in the United State?"
Didn't Microsoft settle a massive anti-trust suit a few years ago? Doesn't every single merger or acquisition require a laundry list of asset disposals? Sara Robinson is not really in touch with what's going on in the U.S. economy. She is a lightweight.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-21-2008, 06:08 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quoting BJ Keefe: It's a useful anecdote that illustrates the inherent danger of allowing those who have control of the means of transmission to feel entitled to regulate what's being transmitted.

It's a more useful anecdote in Canada. In the U.S. there are already a boatload of FCC regulations pertaining to media concentration. In media, content always wants to own distribution and vice versa. It's axiomatic that one can create and fortify the other, and there is nothing new there. There's no need for liberal pundits to go around telling scary stories at present. The real story is that bandwidth to the home has increased at a pretty rapid rate.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-21-2008, 06:35 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
Quoting BJ Keefe: It's a useful anecdote that illustrates the inherent danger of allowing those who have control of the means of transmission to feel entitled to regulate what's being transmitted.

It's a more useful anecdote in Canada. In the U.S. there are already a boatload of FCC regulations pertaining to media concentration.
The effectiveness of these regulations is not always apparent, though, is it? How much choice do most people have regarding cable TV, local newspapers, and local radio stations? How much choice does anyone not living near a city have for broadband Internet connectivity? What recourse do those cut off by their ISPs for "abuse" of purported unlimited access have? Why has text messaging recently become so expensive?

Quote:
In media, content always wants to own distribution and vice versa. It's axiomatic that one can create and fortify the other, and there is nothing new there.
That doesn't make it right, though, does it? And I doubt you'd be happy about the phone company cutting off your conversation if you were talking about something they didn't like, or the USPS not delivering your mail because they objected to what your letters said.

Quote:
There's no need for liberal pundits to go around telling scary stories at present.
Actually, there is. As much as I dislike arguments by anecdote, they can be effective, and it's important to bring every tool to bear in the effort to prevent the telcos from further rigging the game in their favor.

And I wonder how much you care about conservative pundits and their scare tactics?

Quote:
The real story is that bandwidth to the home has increased at a pretty rapid rate.
Only to some homes, and certainly, increasingly falling behind much of the rest of the industrialized world. It's also worth noting that calling what's available "broadband" is often highly dubious. DSL service in many regions is less than 1 Mbps, and that's in the fast direction. And even the best of what's available in the US -- in highly select regions, to boot -- still pales compared to what's available in places like Japan, Korea, and parts of Europe.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-21-2008 at 06:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-21-2008, 07:09 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quoting BJKeefe:

And even the best of what's available in the US -- in highly select regions, to boot -- still pales compared to what's available in places like Japan, Korea, and parts of Europe.

You cannot compare U.S. internet penetration to Korea and Japan. Their population density is huge. The U.S. has totally different demographics and that impacts the enomomics of rolling out broadband immensely. You need capitalists to roll out these services, remember? I'll tell you where dubious broadband is, it's in Canada! The monthly tariff is about double what it is in the U.S., and as the lady said, there's no choice in Canada. Do you think that's due to over-regulation or under-regulation? They also regulate content development in Canada, which means it's not that great. But they do have Little Mosque on the Prairie, so that balances it out a bit, I guess. They like to protect industries in Canada, which is why Silicon Valley is in California (for now) and not Toronto or Vancouver. BTW, I'll clarify that Telus is in Canada, because you seem to be unaware of it.

How much choice do most people have regarding cable TV, local newspapers, and local radio stations?

Huge, there is huge choice in the U.S. But I'll admit, alot of liberal media bastions, especially newspapers, are going down the tubes because they run Abu Ghraib headlines for six months and they don't innovate. They're run like trust funds for wealthy liberal families and wealthy families aren't innovative (even if they're liberal, and even if they manage to avoid the snares of Madoff and his ilk). The problem in media is to loosely quote a liberal adversary, Jeff Zucker, is "that we are trading analog dollars for digital dimes." In other words, internet is crushing business models. I love it.

And I doubt you'd be happy about the phone company cutting off your conversation if you were talking about something they didn't like, or the USPS not delivering your mail because they objected to what your letters said.

What kind of liberal hysteria is this? What are these hypotheticals? Keep it real. You want AT&T and Comcast to spend $15bn in capex every year, and this is the level of political dialogue you want to foster. Once those dollars are in the ground, the shareholders are sitting ducks. You think I'm going to chain my capital down if Obama or Kevin Martin or Pelosi/Reid are going to paint me as a bad guy for not investing on their cost of capital assumptions. Maybe I'll invest in Korea or Japan instead.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-21-2008, 07:45 PM
Fsharp Fsharp is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
Quoting Sara Robinson on Net Neutrality: "When was the last time anyone enforced an anti-trust law in the United State?"
Didn't Microsoft settle a massive anti-trust suit a few years ago? Doesn't every single merger or acquisition require a laundry list of asset disposals? Sara Robinson is not really in touch with what's going on in the U.S. economy. She is a lightweight.
Not to mention anti-trust laws are meant to act as deterrents. In-fact, without further information one would be just as justified as to view the lack of anti-trust suits as evidence for a lack of anti-trust violations rather than a lack of enforcement.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-21-2008, 08:28 PM
Fsharp Fsharp is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
To name one place where the analogy breaks down, FedEx does not own, build, run, or maintain the infrastructure upon which its service business depends. By contrast, many of the telcos enjoy monopoly or near-monopoly control over their "roads," particularly on a regional level.
Yes, but service providers have monopoly over only one type of broadband technology. If Qwest is the only DSL service provider in your region, you can still choose cable, satellite, cellular, or wireless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
To name another, FedEx is allowed to get away with effectively refusing to serve all customers because there is another organization offering to serve people who want things delivered that offers nationwide coverage. You do not have to pay FedEx ten or twenty bucks to deliver a one-ounce envelope to your cousin's ranch in East Nowhere, Wyoming. The USPS will do it for less than fifty cents, albeit more slowly. Consider also magazines, catalogs, bills, letters to constituents from members of Congress, direct advertising mailers, etc., none of which FedEx has any interest in handling at affordable rates, and it becomes clear that FedEx can get away with offering a boutique service without anyone becoming too bent out of shape about their picking and choosing, precisely because it will never be the only game in town.
FedEx isn't refusing to serve customers. The only reason it doesn't offer a letter carrying service is that it realizes it can't compete with the publicly subsidized USPS. What's the internet equivalent of delivering a one ounce package to East nowhere anyway? Comcast isn't complaining about sending tons of spam to my email account.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-21-2008, 08:36 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

To FSharp: Darn right. She is a joke. It's funny, she reflexively digs at Palin, but tries to copy her color scheme (not sure why it's not working for Robinson). But, putting aside her absurd fantasies about anti-trust in the U.S., she wants to transform the cablecos and telcos into utilities? They are already heavily regulated under the Cable Act and Telecom Act, what more does she want them to do? Never report a profit again. Hellooo! I guess shareholders are just a minor inconvenience in her model. Wake up! You can't run an economy this way, and the New Deal did not save the U.S. from the Depression. It only extended it. Hoover and FDR were both to blame for being too interventionist, and Robinson's ideas are just an extension of that fallacy. If the government moves in to provide ISP service and compete with the networks, will that encourage or discourage investment and further innovation/service rollout. Look to the example of rural electrification in the 20s. The unintended consequence of those policies was to deter private investment and service provision.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-21-2008, 08:51 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
You cannot compare U.S. internet penetration to Korea and Japan.
Sure you can. I just did.

Quote:
Their population density is huge. The U.S. has totally different demographics and that impacts the enomomics of rolling out broadband immensely.
You do have a point here. However, that does not mean we should just say, "Oh, we're too spread out here in the US, and those away from urban centers will just have to deal with life on dial-up." If we can deliver mail and electricity and dial tone, and build good roads to virtually every home in the country, we can do the same for real broadband connectivity. And we should.

Quote:
You need capitalists to roll out these services, remember?
Not necessarily. There's no fundamental reason why wiring up the country couldn't be viewed as a public good or service, to be carried out by the people for the people.

Quote:
I'll tell you where dubious broadband is, it's in Canada!
So it's okay for you to cherry-pick a country to support your argument right after you've said that I may not?

Quote:
BTW, I'll clarify that Telus is in Canada, because you seem to be unaware of it.
If you're proud of knowing this factoid, by all means, keep harping on it. But to correct your misapprehension, I was aware of it from the time it was mentioned by Sara.

Quote:
How much choice do most people have regarding cable TV, local newspapers, and local radio stations?

Huge, there is huge choice in the U.S.
An empty assertion. Please name for me a list of communties where one may choose between competing cable TV providers. Please name for me a list of cities having multiple thriving local newspapers. Please name for me a list of cities where local radio is healthy, where the AM and FM bands are not dominated by piped-in programming from conglomerates. Regarding radio, have a look at this post and this post (via Wolcott).


Quote:
But I'll admit, alot of liberal media bastions, especially newspapers, are going down the tubes because they run Abu Ghraib headlines for six months and they don't innovate. They're run like trust funds for wealthy liberal families and wealthy families aren't innovative (even if they're liberal, and even if they manage to avoid the snares of Madoff and his ilk).
The sheer lunacy of this does not merit a response, but I have quoted it in case you ever come to your senses, so that I'll have it to tease you with.

Quote:
The problem in media is to loosely quote a liberal adversary, Jeff Zucker, is "that we are trading analog dollars for digital dimes." In other words, internet is crushing business models. I love it.
I will grant that I vastly prefer what I have available now to what I used to have available ten and more years ago. However, I know that my own tastes are somewhat unusual, in that they do not much run to local news. I also know that I am fortunate to be living in a city.

I will also say that I do not love the consequences of the transition, however inevitable it may appear and however hopeful I might be that in the long run, people will figure out how to make money in a new way. I am deeply worried about the loss of investigative journalism and foreign news coverage. I wonder about the cultural loss caused by who knows how many worthy reporters and other writers being forced to find other work because they can't make a living doing what they do best. I dislike the homogeneity that comes from corporate ownership and consolidation as a part of the struggle for survival on the part of news organizations. I despair at the never-ending focus on cost-cutting that results in gutting of hard news departments and quality TV shows, while low-cost gossip columns and "reality" TV and talk shows fill the space. And I point out that even if one is savvy enough and enough of a self-starter to seek out the good stuff online, not everyone has this opportunity, because of the lack of broadband coverage.

Quote:
And I doubt you'd be happy about the phone company cutting off your conversation if you were talking about something they didn't like, or the USPS not delivering your mail because they objected to what your letters said.

What kind of liberal hysteria is this?
It's called "making an analogy." Is making an analogy now "liberal hysteria?" Are you conservatives becoming so rigid in your love of dogma and so narrow in your outlook that anything not perfectly between the lines must immediately be dismissed with an insult?

And really, are you even creative enough to come up with some other pejorative besides "liberal?" Come on. You've used this as a slur half a dozen times already.

Quote:
Keep it real. You want AT&T and Comcast to spend $15bn in capex every year, and this is the level of political dialogue you want to foster.
Keep it real yourself. Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about what I think AT&T and Comcast should spend.

In fact, my view is that the telcos are showing sufficient resistance to carrying out the responsibilities they assumed as part of their being granted monopoly status that we should strongly consider a different approach. I am in favor of exploring getting rid of private ownership and control of the pipes and turning the infrastructure underlying the Internet into the equivalent of a publicly-owned utility grid. I could be persuaded that this might be a bad idea, but not by an argument for maintaining the status quo.

Either the big telcos have to do a better job at upgrading the network -- instead of trying to clamp down on people's use of it, and dragging their feet on expanding service into regions where they don't see immediate fat profits -- or we have to figure out a way to get some real competition in place. Or we just say to hell with uncritically worshiping the magical free market sparkle pony, and turn the whole system over to public ownership.

Quote:
Once those dollars are in the ground, the shareholders are sitting ducks.
I don't think this is true. Why would cables ever be laid, if this were the case? Clearly, at least some people, at some times, think they can make money by building better infrastructure.

And if you're really worried about this, then you should consider coming over to my view that we ought to consider the infrastructure as a public utility, instead of something to be owned by a few big companies.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-21-2008 at 08:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-21-2008, 09:21 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quoting BJKeefe:

Please name for me a list of communties where one may choose between competing cable TV providers.

Nationwide you have a choice between DirecTV, Echostar, at least one telco and at least one cableco. Is that your definition of monopoly? Cablecos don't compete in each other's territory because it is cheaper to consolidate systems in adjacent territories than it is to roll out service in a competitors area. Cablecos don't have to resell their service under the Clinton-era Cable Act. Telcos have to resell their service under the 96 Telecom Act, but all the resellers went bankrupt years ago and there's no more capital to fund them, so nobody does it. Ditto all the cable overlay players. Chap 11 mostly. So if there's no monopoly and you have at least four providers, what do you call it? Competitive equilibrium.

In fact, my view is that the telcos are showing sufficient resistance to carrying out the responsibilities they assumed as part of their being granted monopoly status that we should strongly consider a different approach.

Nobody has been granted a monopoly. There is no monopoly! I think $600bn of incinerated capital in the telecom bubble proved that.

Either the big telcos have to do a better job at upgrading the network -- instead of trying to clamp down on people's use of it, and dragging their feet on expanding service into regions where they don't see immediate fat profits -- or we have to figure out a way to get some real competition in place. Or we just say to hell with uncritically worshiping the magical free market sparkle pony, and turn the whole system over to public ownership.

Comrade, your colors are showing. These companies trade at multiples of free cash flow, and the yields aren't that stellar. Neither is the growth. But they do a hell of better job than any bureaucrats could do in a million years. You want telecom run like Amtrak? Be my guest, but not with my money. Here's what's going to happen. People who think like you are going to run this economy into such a ditch that these assets will be trading for pennies in four years. Make my day. Thank you for being brave enough to say what you really think.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-21-2008, 10:03 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
People who think like you are going to run this economy into such a ditch that these assets will be trading for pennies in four years.
Dude, people who think like you have already put us there, and you're still dumb enough or selfish enough to keep on digging.

Quote:
Thank you for being brave enough to say what you really think.
You're welcome.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-21-2008, 10:38 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quoting BJKeefe:

Dude, people who think like you have already put us there, and you're still dumb enough or selfish enough to keep on digging.

Look, Dude, you just got schooled. All your lame assertions about monopoly . . . contradicted, refuted, gone. . . . Your keystone argument a falsehood. So who's dumb, lamo? How much do you give to charity? As much as Biden, Obamas? Either way, it doesn't add up to sqat. You want to lecture me on ethics? Had a look at the donor list to Clinton's "Foundation" yet? I'm being kind enough to tell you how things are going to play out, that's selfish? Your insight is straight out freshman English. The debate isn't won by the writer with the most stirring or offensive rhetoric. I destroyed your credibility on these topics. I have schooled you. Your facts were blatantly wrong, so it doesn't say much for your ideology. Plus, you are so long-winded and meandering. You need an editor and/or more meds.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-21-2008, 10:48 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
Quoting BJKeefe:

Dude, people who think like you have already put us there, and you're still dumb enough or selfish enough to keep on digging.

Look, Dude, you just got schooled. All your lame assertions about monopoly . . . contradicted, refuted, gone. . . . Your keystone argument a falsehood. So who's dumb, lamo? How much do you give to charity? As much as Biden, Obamas? Either way, it doesn't add up to sqat. You want to lecture me on ethics? Had a look at the donor list to Clinton's "Foundation" yet? I'm being kind enough to tell you how things are going to play out, that's selfish? Your insight is straight out freshman English. The debate isn't won by the writer with the most stirring or offensive rhetoric. I destroyed your credibility on these topics. I have schooled you. Your facts were blatantly wrong, so it doesn't say much for your ideology. Plus, you are so long-winded and meandering. You need an editor and/or more meds.
If you keep saying the same thing over and over, it becomes true, is that it?

Your repetitiveness and sputtering insults make it sound like I've filled you with uncertainty. I'll count that as a win. I didn't expect to convert you in one go, nor that you'd have the self-confidence to admit that anyone else's point of view might have some worth.

It's understandable. Your view of the world is crashing down all around you, thanks to dogma that you've accepted without question for too long.

Gonna be a long, cold winter.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-21-2008 at 10:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-21-2008, 10:53 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

I will not follow you any deeper into this playground. Recess is over!
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-21-2008, 10:56 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
I will not follow you any deeper into this playground. Recess is over!
Bull. You'll be back as soon as you can think up something else to say.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-21-2008, 11:01 PM
Salt Salt is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 344
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Of course your last post went off the page and I only got the insults the first time around, but I will take this opportunity to school you on a different subject.

Quoting bjkeefe:
Your view of the world is crashing down all around you, thanks to dogma that you've accepted without question for too long.

Gonna be a long, cold winter.


Lesson #2: If you're short securities, it's a good thing if the world crashes. In fact it validates your worldview/analysis. It also means that a long, cold winter will afford some awesome skiing.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-21-2008, 11:11 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

As predicted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
I will not follow you any deeper into this playground. Recess is over!
Bull. You'll be back as soon as you can think up something else to say.
The outcome, paraphrased:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Salt View Post
I'm back! I thought of something else to say! I schooled you! I schooled you! I schooled you!!!1!11!! (*sob*) And stop insulting me. (*sniff*) (I can't take what I like to dish out.)
Have I got you read or what?
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 12-21-2008 at 11:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-21-2008, 11:23 PM
Fsharp Fsharp is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 17
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Only to some homes, and certainly, increasingly falling behind much of the rest of the industrialized world. It's also worth noting that calling what's available "broadband" is often highly dubious. DSL service in many regions is less than 1 Mbps, and that's in the fast direction. And even the best of what's available in the US -- in highly select regions, to boot -- still pales compared to what's available in places like Japan, Korea, and parts of Europe.
Why would we move to a utility model or a wholly state run system when the countries you mentioned aren't doing so?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-21-2008, 11:41 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
As predicted:

The outcome, paraphrased:

Have I got you read or what?
Pssst... Brendan, your friend left or fell asleep.
I've been waiting for a while to see if there's more action, but it looks like it's all quiet. Now you can cheer up!
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-21-2008, 11:49 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fsharp View Post
Why would we move to a utility model or a wholly state run system when the countries you mentioned aren't doing so?
I don't know the specifics, but it is my impression that in other countries, there are (or were) closer connections between the companies who built the infrastructure and their governments. In some cases, the government is at least a partial stakeholder, and/or was part of the initial construction, and/or found the right incentives to motivate the private sector into doing the right things.

Whatever the case, I do know that our own system isn't working as well as it ought to be. I don't insist that we move to a utility or state run model, but I do think we should consider these options.

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for the government to be a giant ISP. I don't think that will work. I just want them to be considered as one way to get the underlying network up to speed for everyone, because as long as the telcos can always wave the "responsibility to the stockholders" card, which means a single-minded focus on short-term performance, I don't see how they're ever going to be motivated to move beyond where they are now -- trying to maximize profits and trying to avoid having to increase capacity or reach.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-21-2008, 11:51 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Pssst... Brendan, your friend left or fell asleep.
I've been waiting for a while to see if there's more action, but it looks like it's all quiet. Now you can cheer up!
I was cheerful when he was here. It's fun to make wingnuts wig out.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-22-2008, 12:00 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Falwell Manque

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I was cheerful when he was here. It's fun to make wingnuts wig out.
If that makes you happy...

Weird source of entertainment though. Are you sure it's fun? Just wondering...
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.