...long about the 350 thousandth time that depending on government to regulate those greedy corporatists backfired. The only thing that drives down prices and improves service and product offerings is competition. i.e.: some OTHER greedy corporatists jumping in and saying "You're screwing over your own customers (because you can), but if we don't, they'll soon enough be OUR customers."
And, yes, of course they eventually change, the disruptive and innovative people behind the challenge to entrenched players cash out and the new players themselves then go to gov't for preferential treatment and suppression of competitors...but the thing is, the initial innovation and disruption is *never* a product of government intervention. Sometimes (rarely) government inattention or incompetence *allows* said competition to occur, but it isn't something to expect. So the wistful tone of the article ("Gosh, if only the CRTC would make them give us what we want at the price we want!") is kind of mystifying.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No more head in the sand for the left?
Yeah, the Dems have no hand in the corporatist kleptocracy we now live under, nothing to do with the FDA ensuring Big Pharma profits, didn't insist on policies that created the housing bubble that led to the 2008 crash, never helped turn IP-hoarding into a creativity-free gold mine, and know nothing about the taxpayer-raping pension crisis coming rapidly down the pike.
*gah* I posted about the reality-warping stress created when people try to pretend there's a good guy/bad guy dichotomy somehow represented by these two political parties before I saw your posts, Thad, but thanks for providing the fine example.
All of the illogic, sand/head submersion, pretzel-twist reasoning and denial are the result of both sides trying to pretend there are "good guys" and "bad guys" in DC.
The world makes more sense, and you can actually make logical constructs with predictive and explanatory power if you will only accept a single fact: THEY. ARE. ALL. BAD. GUYS.(even the wimmens).
They ALL trade off support and votes for questionable legislation, they ALL accept the "assistance" (and, not coincidentally, the campaign contributions) of lobbyists in writing legislation. They ALL read off positions given them by groups whose agendas are not consistent with the legislators' stated purpose of REPRESENTING THE BEST INTERESTS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS. (not just the wealthy and powerful ones)
Once you stop trying to excuse the actions of "My team", things tend to fall into place. And yes, many of the individuals involved are, personally, decent human beings. But "Senatores boni viri, senatus autem mala bestia"
"...shoveling cash to anyone who wants to take it and is willing to say what we want to hear about whomever we want to hear it said."
Lack of transparency? Inadequate oversight? Casual waste of taxpayers' money? Psht.That's FedGov SOP. Prosecutorial overreach and a corrupt system of payoffs to well-connected "Friends of Law Enforcement" seem like relatively harmless outliers. No big deal. So many government agencies can be/have been turned to the abuse of citizens and the suppression of legitimate demands for reform, and few of them have the weaponry, legal muscle and (sadly) public support the DEA has.
More investigation will only show the agency being used as so many others are: To ensure the money keeps flowing to the right people and stays in the right pockets, forever, if possible. Directed persecutions of problematic individuals may be rare now, but the powers-that-be may soon find it desirable to 'cull the herd' of rude, inadequately-indoctrinated badthinkers. The DEA will be pretty useful then.
I have seen Trump referred to as a "giant orange middle finger" offered up to the political class by people who feel betrayed by both parties. The question of his "competence" for the office is irrelevant to them.
In point of fact, you, and other self-appointed elitists, do NOT want anything like a true "polyglot culture". In action, as we have seen recently on college campuses, you want absolute adherence to ideas that you find amenable and an absolute ban on ideas you characterize as objectionable.
You are so certain of your moral superiority (which is based on projection, straw men and LOADS of unexamined assertions) that you see no need for any self-awareness. You hand wave and name call all disagreements, and alter definitions of words as necessary.
When it can be seriously claimed that the morally unobjectionable sentiment "All Lives Matter" is LITERALLY an "act of violence" (and not far down the rod, a sentiment to be met with violence, I suspect), the "false consciousness" is not only on one side, and neither side is actually FOR freedom of expression and belief.
And as long as one party or the other can convince either the educated clueless or the less-educated clueless that they are on the "moral" side of some stupid, irrelevant wedge issue, what you claim not to want is supported by your actions. And of course, you won't see it...
The only thing worse than too many "ignorant citizens" would be a permanent army of corrupt white-collar elitists in a permanent federal bureaucracy benefitting from and perpetuating the cronyism and influence-peddling the elected officials indulge in. In such a vile system, the self-interest of all parties involved is to strive for ever-greater, more centralized power and wealth; to be used in pandering to ever-more-incompatible interest groups.
Good thing we don't have anything like that. So much better to have the educated running thing for the dummies, right? #noneedforasarctag
I think it will be years before the all-important 19-25 demographic will accept a technology that can be used by parents and grandparents without routinely generating eye-rolling faux pas.
OTOH, the conversion of text about a song into actual audio bits of the song itself, could generate a mini-licensing scheme. The RIAA would have to cut the NSA in on the deal for access to those multi-billions of communications on your text-o-voice-o-phone device. After all, those mega data centers don't build and maintain themselves!
What happens when a definition of, or extrapolation from, a dubious definition of racism runs smack dab into mean ol' REALITY, eh?
So far, as with some really sketchy rape statistics on which some good-sized new departments and well-paying enforcement jobs depend, reality has been politely asked to make the adjustments. But I can't be the only one who questions how far down that road we can go...?? Can I?
Threats, bluster...it allows them to selectively enforce their policies. People who play nice probably won't have a problem. Individuals, websites and bloggers who are critical, who point out what a social, ecological and economic disaster this decadent bread-and-circuses shitshow has become...THEY might find themselves on the bad end of the expressed consequences.
The wealthy and powerful benefit, as in so many big-money endeavors, governmental and otherwise. But the sanctimonious drivel under which this corruption festers, the soaring invocations of "the aspiring human body and spirit" and the "bringing together of all nations under the banner of noble athletic competition", that's what really makes this particular in-your-face reverse Robin Hood act so unbearably nauseating. There's hypocrisy, there's mega-hypocrisy, and there's hyper-reinforced industrial-strength hypocrisy. And then there's the Olympics.
Ugh. "support the Olympics"? I'd rather support some corrupt sport that basically enslaves the athletes, making them work for nothing and casting them aside when they become useless for revenue generation...something like NCAA football, maybe.
Maybe he's trying to make the relatively minor, commonplace (for Louisiana. And Illinois.) corrupt practice of crony favoritism seem unimportant by comparison to the direct abuse of citizens under color of law.
Though illegal search and theft of private property has been somewhat devalued as a shocking violation of the oath to "serve and protect" recently. Was the failure to administer a beatdown just professional courtesy or something?
Did you check the Official TechDirt Pledge everyone has to sign in blood before coming onto the site?
Or the finalized, official platform of the TechDirt Party?
Or the policies of the FTC telecommunications department Masnick runs.
If you still can't find the official explanation of what "we" all want, brush off the dust and try looking under that gigantic, cobwebbed pile of unused brain cells. Which, for most of us, are kept in the cranium, but your search might be quicker if you just started at the anus.
But all meaningless to a pandering scum politician like Cuomo. Not only is the list a tragic joke, but the ongoing expansion of "restricted activities" and locations ("not within 1,000 yards of school/candy store/daycare/cute puppy, etc") for people on said flawed list calls into question the entire philosophy of incarceration-as-punishment.
We HAVE punishments in the books for these crimes. When the punishments have been meted out...the State's done. They don't get to add punishments, inconveniences or petty humiliations to the sentence.
If Cuomo really cared about da chirrens, he'd have these bad people castrated or murdered, or both. AND shunned! Honestly, it seems the patience The State has for the inconveniences presented it by laws and the justice system seems to be growing shorter and shorter. I won't be surprised by the introduction of a "We Can Do Anything We Want Because Pedophiles and Terrorists Act"
(though I'm pretty sure anyone who points this out is automatically considered a pedophile apologist, amirite?)
(Maintaining the perfect void of Step 2 inevitably requires all Congresscritters to delegate any actual legislating or decisionmaking to the executive branch and/or lobbyists retained by well-heeled industries. Then the only exceptions are hysterical legislative overreactions to media-driven moral panics and tit-for-tat patronage deals.)
Possibly, but this seems, like a lot of cases, to be companies' representatives responding to a clear "Heah's how we-all do bidness roun' heah." message. An employee, in such an environment, pressured by a boss who plainly states he doesn't care about "how they-all do bidness down theah" but wants results and a corrupt potential customer, will usually go along to get along.
We hypocritically prosecute businessmen for doing business in ways that are accepted overseas but don't seem to be bothered when it involves gov't procurement procedures, military contract bidding or "please just shovel the money into these dumptrucks" union demands.
It just seems sleazier when the scale is smaller and somehow more acceptable when the bid/contract/procurement specs are hundreds of pages.