Psychopolitik 2.0

Re: the upcoming cutoff of analog TV:

Now here’s a great Christmas gift idea: a cute-as-a-bug 5-inch TV. As the Circuit City ad says, the TV “makes it easy to take entertainment on the road.”

But it will be cute only until Feb. 17, 2009, when its little screen will go blank.

To make the set work after that, the owner will need a digital converter box and a place to plug it in, making entertainment on the road not so easy.

Circuit City does warn consumers that the set’s analog tuner will stop working after that date, when federal law requires broadcasters to send only digital signals in order to free up electromagnetic spectrum for use by emergency responders and other interests. (emphasis mine)

Ok, so this was a decision imposed from above.  The government wanted that analog spectrum, so they simply took it.  Typical example of the confusion about the definition of “public” — civilians hear the word & think “we own it”, and politicians say no.  Whatever, that’s how they’ve approached it from day one.  But check out the responses to the inevitable confusion…

Already this month, hearings on DTV have been held in both the House and Senate, and another is scheduled in the House on Wednesday.

Lawmakers are trying to determine whether industry and government are doing enough to inform TV viewers about how to handle the transition.

To help, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration will offer each U.S. household up to two coupons, worth $40 each, to be used toward the purchase of two converter boxes. The boxes will become available in 2008, probably for about $50 each. The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a cable-industry trade group, has unveiled a $200 million public-service announcement campaign.

But some lawmakers fear many viewers will forget to redeem the coupon until after its 90-day life expires. Also, people in rural areas may not be able to get to a retail electronics outlet in time to use the coupons.

Some groups suggest that government create a DTV Task Force, similar to the Y2K Task Force, which oversaw the fixing of a widespread software problem in the late 1990s that threatened to shut down computers at the turn of the millennium.

Many Republicans argue that the free market will solve most of the problems as Americans upgrade to new televisions and cable service over the next year. (emphasis mine)

So to deal with an issue created by political impatience with transitioning technology, one group proposes subsidizing converter boxes — and by extension, the companies making those boxes.  Another responds to that by basically saying “nah, people are too stupid to use coupons right”.  Yet another wants to repeat the Y2k panic.  As for the GOP response, if they were seriously convinced the market could sort this out, they wouldn’t have agreed to the spectrum grab in the first place.

Full disclosure: I have cable & a relatively new model TV, so this more than likely will not affect me.  It just pisses me off that even on such a comparatively trivial issue, the usual suspects come out.

Oh yeah, one more thing.  My insistence on NEVER asking for help at any “big box” electronics store proves justified yet again:

In August, U.S. PIRG sent surveyors to major electronics retail stores in the Washington area to see whether clear information was being dispensed.  It found clerks often gave out inaccurate or misleading information, such as suggesting everyone must upgrade to expensive high-definition television sets.

Unless you’re into video games something hardcore, HD is a waste of money IMO.  I mean, I see a difference, it does look better, but nowhere near enough to justify the price difference.  Even the low-end, smaller HDTV sets are around 500 bucks, c’mon now.

Keeping with the politics-as-theater theme…:

No one had any hard questions for the deputy administrator of FEMA, an agency deeply tarnished by its delayed action after Hurricane Katrina, when he held a news conference Tuesday to talk about the California wildfires.

“Are you happy with FEMA’s response so far?” someone asked.

Indeed, the deputy administrator was. “I am very happy with FEMA’s response so far,” responded Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson Jr.

The news conference looked like a success in the Bush administration’s effort this week to demonstrate it could respond competently to a disaster.

On Friday, however, the agency admitted that the softball questions were posed by FEMA employees, not reporters.

This is when you know they’ve hit bottom.  When they can’t even find one sympathetic reporter to sugarcoat anything, so they have the employees form their own circle jerk.  If our pansy-ass press is considered too aggressive, even with the media’s unfortunate habit of taking everything the government says at face value, that really says a lot.

Of course, having been caught, the ruling regime had to pretend to condemn it:

The White House was not happy with FEMA’s response.

“It is not a practice that we would employ here at the White House,” said Press Secretary Dana Perino, mentioning three times that it was an “error in judgment.” “It’s not something I would have condoned, and they, I’m sure, will not do it again.”

Anyone that remembers how strictly they screened audiences at events where Bush was attempting to speak knows the tendency is already there.  Anything to show a unified front, the truth is irrelevant.

That’s politics for you.  It is considered more important to seem to be efficient than to actually be efficient. The system really discredits itself if you watch it long enough.

Slate’s Explainer column, pointing out the possibility of Steve Colbert’s run in the South Carolina presidential primaries breaking election law:

The Federal Election Commission prohibits corporations from making “any contribution or expenditure in connection with a federal election.” A “contribution” includes “anything of value,” including airtime. Thus each time Colbert promotes his candidacy on The Colbert Report, he’ll be accepting an illegal “in kind” contribution from Comedy Central’s parent company, Viacom. The FEC does exempt news programs (including satires like the Report) from the “in kind” airtime ban, but not if a political party, political committee, or candidate (like Colbert) controls the show’s content. (emphasis mine)

So, hypothetically, if, say…FoxNews decided to back Guliani and use as much air time as possible to smear his opponents in either party, they could do that.

Or, if CNN wanted to portray the Democratic Party nomination as a lock for Hillary, and essentially tell the rest of the field “don’t bother, just step aside”, this law, supposedly for the purpose of keeping things “fair”, would be silent.

Because neither of them are officially controlled by a political party.

Yet Steve using his show and campaign as a bit of performance art & commentary on how goofy the whole song & dance of partisan politics is would be a violation. Because by making fun of the process, he’s corrupting it. Yeah, sure.

Now, we’ve fallen for a lot over the years. But I think it’s safe to say that if someone seriously tried to use having their own TV show as a stepping stone to election, people would spot it a mile away and laugh. Something so obvious just strikes people as cheesy anyway, like watching an infomercial. Meanwhile, no matter how unquestioning the mainstream media is, no matter how transparent their front-runneritus, they’re still seen as oracles of some sort. Is it any wonder why Steve & John’s shows are so popular?

This is nowhere near a serious example, but the point is the same: restricting expression doesn’t actually accomplish anything. Besides, Steve doesn’t even share his actual views on anything on his show, it’s all a character. Then again, that’s one thing he’s got in common with the others…

Edit 103006 @ 12:55 AM: Bill O’Reilly, in the process of promoting his new book, bashes Colbert’s campaign as a stunt to, um, er, promote his new book:

“This is a publicity stunt to mock the country,” he said.

O’Reilly said that Colbert announced he was running for president to get publicity for his new book, “I Am America (And So Can You!).” But he said Colbert refused an invitation to promote the book on “The O’Reilly Factor.”

“Colbert doesn’t have the cojones to face me,” O’Reilly said. “He knows the book is dumb, so he’s not going to come in. Instead, he runs for president.”

I assume this is an inside joke between the two of them, because otherwise it’d mean Bill has somehow dropped his IQ into negative numbers.  Even a chimpanzee on crystal meth can tell the publicity stunt aspect is the entire point of Colbert’s run, the message being “honestly folks, what’s the difference?”.

The dead-enders are going to love this excuse:

The White House on Friday defended Attorney General-nominee Michael Mukasey’s refusal to say whether he considers waterboarding a form of torture, saying it is a difficult issue to discuss in public.

“These are complicated questions,” White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said. “Judge Mukasey, I think, did the best he could to be responsible in not talking about interrogation techniques which, as you all know, we decline to do.”

Nice one. Apparently the fate of the free world rests on not discussing before congress an opinion on a technique the Khmer Rouge embraced, despite me being able to find a description of it on friggin’ Wiki. If Teh Evildoers watch C-span, they can use a search engine.

Mukasey, a retired federal judge who has ruled in some of the nation’s highest-profile terror trials, frustrated Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday by repeatedly refusing to discuss the legality of specific interrogation techniques — including forced nudity, mock executions and simulated drowning known as waterboarding. Mukasey said he did not know if waterboarding is torture because he is not familiar with how it is done. (emphasis mine)

Ok, if you can’t even tell whether making someone who has already been subdued and isn’t an imminent threat to anyone at that moment think they’re about to join Michael Vick’s losing fight dogs is fucked, you really shouldn’t be near a position of authority. Besides, the administration has been weaseling around such arguments via rendition — stick ‘em in someone else’s custody for a bit, then claim to have no idea what they did to the suspect, despite the fact the person has no fingernails & confessed to something that happened before they were born — it’s not like they’re going to follow the law no matter what it is. Give your token denunciations, wait for the inevitable democrat roll-over, then show you were lying all along, it’s worked that way for the rest of the crew.

It’s the hypocrisy that hurts more than anything else. At least a conscious, open argument that it didn’t matter, while reprehensible, would be more honest. If the ruling regime is going to torture people & flush any semblance of moral high ground down the toilet, most they could do is look us in the eyes and admit it.

Stick to politics, Tom.

According to this quiz, found via Sullivan, I’m a “book snob”:

Not really, I just read because I’m bored as hell with most things. Books are underrated as entertainment, even when concerning serious subjects — for example, the last book I finished was a freakin’ “biography” of Cocaine. How many snobs have that kind of book?

BTW: I kinda had to fudge one response, in that I don’t actually have a bookshelf; those cost more money than I have. What I did was set some storage containers that kinda look like milk crates on their sides, stacked against a wall of my room, and put books in that.

Cunning Realist, callin’ ‘em straight as they are:

A phrase that’s become popular is “a clash of cultures” and variations of it. The description’s appropriate. The first culture is one in which policymakers believe they’ve repealed the natural business cycle. This culture of moral hazard and push-button Fed liquidity makes it possible for 30-somethings to sit in front of computer screens in Manhattan and Connecticut and make millions from the flickering green dots, while that same liquidity debases the dollars held by wage earners, retirees, and prudent savers; it allows mediocre corporate executives to exercise stock options and become fabulously wealthy; it tells stock and real estate speculators that if things go south, someone sitting in an office in Washington will press the “print” button and make everything okay; it makes “bridges to nowhere” possible; and it allows a nation to launch a preventive war and decades-long occupation without a thought about how to pay for it. This culture depends on dollar hegemony.

The other culture is composed of a few countries, non-allies, that happen to occupy the ground above the natural resource most sensitive to Washington’s print button. Since they have the gall to object to our insistence on exchanging ever-depreciating pieces of paper for their main (and finite) natural resource, they both complicate our attempt at reinflation and profit from it.

I’ve pointed out elsewhere that, fiscal pipedreams of the State notwithstanding, our money is pegging itself to oil.  Who has the oil, and how we expect them to act, shows why that’s such a terrible outcome.  The underlying conflict, despite claims of concern about terrorism or “regional stability” (as if that were our concern anyway), is over when — not if — we will reach a point where the guns of this country are the only currency anyone will take seriously, in both senses of the word.

To be honest with you, the more I ponder it, the more I can’t decide: which is more pathetic, the fact of the group we’re heading down this path for in the first place, or that “our” rulers expect this to work forever?  Either we’re systematically insane, or our dignity & long-term security are cheap sells.

While looking for an alternative source for this — a story about Turkey potentially punishing Boeing for the recent U.S. congress approval of calling their WW1 era murders of Armenians “genocide” (for some stupid reason the site won’t load that article, just a bunch of ads) — I checked Reuters for related stuff. One of the ads on their site was apparently Google-generated, and…let’s just say it showed its lack of humanity in a funny way. Click the thumbnail below for a closeup.

Considering regular ringtones annoy the hell out of me, I don’t even want to imagine that one…

Found this amusing in light of the Chinese toy recalls:

Deborah Evanoff thought she’d traded her frantic Silicon Valley career for a lazier pace when she took over the low-tech toy company her parents founded in the late 1960s.

Instead, she’s ramping up Arrowcopter Inc.’s manufacturing operations and getting a record number of orders from retailers in 11 countries. More people are buying the slingshot-like gizmo, which starts at $4 and — as the packaging proudly proclaims — is made in the United States.

As consumers look for alternatives to Chinese-made toys following a series of recalls this year, dozens of small toy companies are struggling to meet surging demand. Some owners report online sales up as much as fivefold from last year. They’re hiring extra workers, expanding warehouses and adding extra assembly shifts.

“Every time there’d be a new recall this summer, we’d get a huge new order,” Evanoff said as she watched contract manufacturers stuffing neon-colored copters, rubber bands and wooden sticks into plastic packages. “We didn’t stop all summer long.”

Good.  People buying what they feel is up to standard and dropping what is not is more reasonable and a lot simpler than calling for blanket bans.  Thinking before you spend your money isn’t that hard.

Mona @ U.O. links approvingly to John Cole’s merciless slamming of David Brooks’ head-up-ass explanation for the state of modern “conservatism”.  One of the comments to that post links to this post quoting an example of right-wing alarmism — conveniently from Eric “questioning war is unamerican” Dondero.  From THERE, clicked to another post on the same site, to reach a pondering about how rare it is these days for representatives of nations we’re being taught to expect war with to state their case.  In other words: “WTF…we talked to the Soviets, but merely suggesting it concerning nations that have no chance in hell of making a dent on us even if they wanted to gets you the Evil Eye?”