"Yet in all of these discussions of “economic” issues, there is a glaring omission -- the telecommunications/Internet sector of our economy. Perhaps there is a perception that telecom and Internet policy is too complicated for public discussion[...]"

Well, of course, it *is*! I'm only *half*-Polack, but, even so, I have trouble following all the ins and outs of the telecom-related policies (when I remember to read up on the subject at all, that is)... How on earth would you expect *Repub presidential candidates* to understand the intricacies of same (and never mind their "faithful", who are the most likely listeners of the debates)???

Posted at October 10, 2007 1:21 PM in response to What The Republican Economics Debate Left Out

I've witnessed some of that "recovery" in my own family. My stepson lost a job where he had some seniority, reasonably decent health insurance, decent pay, etc. Because the economy was on the upswing (you could have fooled me), he was lucky enough to find another one, in the same line of business, within a couple of months. But. At a 30% pay cut (entry-level), worse retirement plan, less health insurance *and* with a much longer commute (4hrs round trip instead of less than 2).

Since divorce soon followed his "recovered" work-plan, he's now supporting two households (the ex-wife and children stayed in their house and he's renting. Close by, because of the children, so the commute is still long).

Faux-Noise has had a poll recently about whether people are praying for Bush and, apparently, a surprising number of Democrats do. I don't find the number surprising at all. I'm an *atheist* and I pray for Bush daily. It's called "an imprecatory prayer"

Posted at October 5, 2007 7:17 PM in response to Spinning Jobs at the White House

Edwards is absolutly right; there's no such thing as Global War on Terror, except in our own terrorised minds. And *that* war should be easy enough to fight -- just issue "a Prozac-a-day to keep the panic away". Would require a single-payer national health insurance, but he's got *that* flank of it covered also.

And I like his idea of creating a single "National Security Budget", from which funds could be shifted to various aspects of *broadly understood* "security" *as needed* (would I rather die of thirst due to changing climate than wear a burka if the jihadists "follow us here"? Not really; I like it that someone understands there's more to "security" than cowering from Muslims)

Of course, the devil's in the details and in application; on paper, the communist system sounds good also but, having grown up in it, I'm all too familiar with certain... I don't know... snags?

Posted at September 12, 2007 10:02 PM in response to Edwards for the Defense

As to whether Iran can or will strike back. Figure that they've been sitting there the last five years trying to figure out how to do it.

One thing that seems to get lost in the discussion of what we can do to Iran and what Iran can do to us in retaliation, but something I can't stop thinking about, having grown up in Poland, where the memory of WWII is still very much alive.

If US attacks Iran unilaterally, without any allies at all (other than Israel, perhaps) -- as seems likely -- what's to stop the rest of the world from "ganging up" on us? The way Europe reacted to Hitler's attack on Poland? It's true that, due to Hitler's better military and equipment it took a long time to beat him back and that it would, probably, not have been possible without US's help. But, all the same, WWII did end up with Hitler in a bunker and bombs destroying most of of Germany. And it wasn't Poland who did the bombing... Same way as Iran might not have to.

Posted at September 3, 2007 5:47 PM in response to Iraq with an N? Anatomy of a Rumor That Has to be Taken Seriously

I'm not as sure as you are that the outing of Craig wasn't due to a leak. The arrest was in June. The guilty plea was entered on Aug 6. But the report of the case didn't come out till Aug 27; for 3 weeks, there was silence. Is Roll Call a monthly magazine, which couldn't publish the tidbit earlier because the plea happened on Aug 6 rather than July 20?

I suspect a no-friend-of-Craig brought it to Roll Call's attention -- a leak. Either that,or else someone on RC's staff had been reading Minneapolis court dockets, spotted Craig's name and said "aha!" Which I think is far less likely but, if that's what had happened, then it's an example of "intrepid journalism"" :)

Posted at September 1, 2007 2:04 PM in response to Meet the New Hypocrite...

When I was a student at the Warsaw University (1967-1972), belief in the communist principles was "nice" but not a requirement in the propaganda section of the Student Socialist Organisation; the ability to present a strong argument was much more important than your beliefs. To this day, I automatically "deconstruct" everything I read/hear for the underlying lies and truth-skews.

Brooks doesn't have to be a conservative; that he is, is a plus, but not a necessity. It's his ability to "soap up your eyes" (to use a Polish phrase) and do it with self assured smile (smirk?) that is valuable.

Posted at August 29, 2007 3:11 PM in response to David Brooks the Sophist

Probably nothing to do with this new FCC decision but I'm finding that a tin-foil hat is becoming a more and more prominent fashion accessory in my wardrobe, the mre I learn about the machinations of our current govt...

So, yesterday, I get a phone call (on landline, yet! Probably because my cell is off unless I want to call out ) from a representative of my cell-phone provider (Verizon). Am I happy with my plan? Yes. How many minutes do I use (of my 450)? About a 100; I use the phone mostly when travelling (seldom) and for long distance calls. Hum.

Am I happy with my phone? Yes. Do I know that, if I renewed my contract (it expired 4 months ago), I could get $100 off a new phone? Yes, I do. Aren't I interested? Nope; I will not get locked into another 2-yr contract, with all its penalties, if I don't have to; I could die and my husband would have to pay the penalties for breaking the contract. Hum.

So then he ratchets the pressure a tad and tries a veiled threat: "I'd hate for you to lose money, if the cost of the old plan you're using went up" "If the per-month cost goes up significantly, I'll just switch providers. That's a good reason *not* to renew my contract unless absolutely necessary, don't you think?"

A moment of silence and a slight backpedal: "Well, I don't expect the prices are likely to go up any time soon (my inner alarm says "are they likely to go down? Is that why he's calling?), but you might be more comfortable locking into the current price." Nope, not me.

At that point he gave up -- obviously there's no buck to be made off that foreign FM K9 -- we said polite goodbyes and disconnected.

But. 45 minutes later, I'm in a grocery store and want to ask my husand a question about something he'd requested. And I don't get a signal. I've called, from the same store -- and even the same spot in the store -- many times before, without a single problem; suddenly, I have no connectivity?

Once I got back home and turned the phone on again the signal was there, as usual. But that moment of tin-foil panic -- the guy's taking revenge for my rebuff -- I lay at the door of the current malAdministration and I'll never forgive them for it. "Back in USSR, see how lucky you are" is a nice song but, after growing up in Poland I'm not altogether amused by it.

Posted at August 15, 2007 10:21 PM in response to Cellphone Users Get the Big Tease from the FCC

In all this "China has no standards" discussion, I think it's worth noticing that, according to that NYT article,, Mattel has recalled *two sets* of toys. A bit under half a million of them because *China* screwed up and slathered them with lead paint. And over 18 million, because they were dangerous (magnets too strong), even though they had been made *to Mattel's specifications*. Ie, in this case, China did what it was told to do, without cutting any corners (for once), and it was *Mattel* -- the American side of the equation -- which screwed up.

It seems to me that 18.2 mil (Mattel's fault) is a several orders of magnitude bigger screw up than 0.436 mil (China's fault). But we're more likely to hear about the China's part, mostly because, in China's case, it's not the first time in the recent memory.

But... Is it really the first time in Mattel's case? Or did Mattel admit to its own fault because it happened to be convenient to announce both recalls at once, conflating the two problems and hoping that the public -- already primed for anti-China reaction (post cold-war and before we got the terrorists to unload our fears on, China was being positioned as the replacement for the USSR) will just overlook their own oopsie?

Posted at August 15, 2007 9:45 PM in response to Toy Story, Global Version

Man 1:
Aren't you the guy who jumped in the river yesterday, to save my little girl from drowning?
Man 2:
Yes, but it's no big deal, you don't have to...
Man1:
It is a big deal, too; she was wearing a coat and a hat when she went into the water. Where are they?

It's an old, old, joke I learnt as a child in Poland but it applies here too. With legally mandated compulsory Samaritanism, how would one prevent the Samaritan from being punished for not doing *enough* to help? The non-Samaritans melt-away and are not there to vent your frustration on, but you sure know who your benefactor was...

Posted at August 10, 2007 8:16 PM in response to Responses to 'A Duty to Assist'

The last time you pulled into your corner gas station to fill ‘er up, you probably noticed the price-per-gallon on the the huge sign out front or on the pump when you got out. Every other driver saw the price, too, and knew that they were paying exactly the same price as you were for exactly the same amount of gas. -- Congressman Kagen

And if I don't like the price and think I can get a better deal somewhere else, I can drive around, from gas station to gas station, until my tank's empty. If I hadn't found anything that suits me before then, I'll need to call AAA to come and tow me to the nearest one, which may end up being the most expensive of all (and never mind all the gas I've wasted driving around, looking for a better deal). Or I re-learn how to walk.

In the same way, I can price-shop for health plans or for off-the-shelf drugs/supplements. But, if I'm caught short before I find something that I can afford, I end up in an emergency room or dead. Not quite the same thing, since, while the visit to the emergency room can be compared to being towed by AAA, being dead doesn't compare to re-learning how to walk.

Transparency per se is good (I'd be happy to see the amount of profit Mobil or Exxon or my insurer are making on every galllon of gas I use and on every pill I take) but, applied as you suggest, doesn't seem to solve any problems at all.

Like everyone else, I'll be waiting to see the next installment in hopes that there'll be something more substantial there.

Posted at August 7, 2007 7:28 PM in response to Universal Access to Affordable Care: A Declaration of Health - Step One