It's ALWAYS more profitable to collude than to compete.
Though there does exist the inexplicable race-to-the-bottom competition to become the most-hated/"best customer raping" company in the country. I suspect the execs just engage in that for funsies, though.
"Of course the sudden realization that government oversight of giant, anti-competitive corporations is sometimes necessary and even good for consumers has arrived a little late for most of us."
Umm...the problems which you so eagerly and smugly require government regulation, specifically the lack of competition in the broadband space, ARE CREATED BY OTHER GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. There is no "capitalist" or "market forces" or "invisible hand" to debunk or ridicule.
Perhaps if you were saying (accurately), "We need SOME government regulations to protect us from the government selling out to corporate lobbying efforts." it would be easier to see how bullshit your "proof" of the need for more government regulation actually is. Or maybe not.
Well, I see your point, and that's pretty much what I do.
Then again, fuck you. The eBook prices are still spit-in-your-face, piss-in-your-beer insulting ripoffs. They could make money from me by pricing reasonably, but THEY FUCKING WON'T. Screw 'em. Not a penny from me.
"Many of the women and girls in the sex trade are not there willingly."
Ah, a rigorous statistical analysis:"Many", eh? Read (in the most recent issue of REASON) about Cross X Country, the giant, multi-agency sting/raid/bust operation that netted "less than many" unwilling prostitutes, and "so less than many it was almost zero" UNDERAGE ones.
Indicating the problem, while allowing that forcing little girls to have sex is bad m'kay?, is NOT a gigantic epidemic requiring a moral panic to deal with. Even less than alcohol was prior to Prohibition or drugs right after Prohibition ended.
Put it this way...the conventional wisdom is that the "Red Scare" was a cynical attempt to increase gov't power by frightening the public. Yet there WERE more actual Russian agents/plants within the gov't than were found "underage forced prostitutes" in this recent massive (and expensive) undertaking.
Keep saying "but it's illegal!" all you want, you still have to account for the actual size of the problem and the proportionality of the response.
Especially, gutting the corrupt Olympic pig* would be welcome.
As a long-time sports (pro and college) fan, I'm starting to feel that consuming media "sports entertainment product" is a suboptimal use of my time and to contribute money to the pockets of franchise owners, agents, and the 'governing bodies" of faux-amateur sports empires is stupid and might even be wrong on a moral level.
Comcast is going to bugger me no matter what, and I think they view "cable basic" as a bit of olive oil. If you know what I mean.
I'm not one to get hysterical about what are mostly stylistic affronts emanating from Trump, and consider his election an ill-considered if understandable yuge orange middle finger directed at a self-appointed elite.
That said, the appointment of Sessions for AG is an absolute worst-case scenario. Sessions' comments about civil asset forfeiture (or, more accurately, "random spontaneous law enforcement tax surcharge collections") are perhaps the most "divorced from reality" on any subject I have ever heard. Not just from politicians, but anywhere. And I've read YouTube comment threads!
Surely it will be a test of Trumps' own ability to do simple political calculations. Cops only have so much political power. Their victims, and the tens of millions of American citizens who obviously WANT THEIR DAMN DRUGS have many multiples of that power. If Trump reconsiders this appointment, or allows it to fail without doubling down or investing much political capital in pushing it, that will be a welcome sign, of, at least, a degree of pragmatism and rationality.
IF, otoh, he really thinks Sessions should be AG...well, it will mean some of the hysterically-expressed fears of the Trump administration were justified. The silver lining would be the increased likelihood of a single-term Presidency.
This ^ x1,000. Corruption in a European bureaucracy? Say it ain't so!
And it also explains why some of us are always, intuitively and without knowing all the specifics, distrustful of "bigger, better, (and always more powerful) government". No matter if the urge to produce such a governing force begins with moral high ground, best intentions and people of good will...it always ends up with people rationalizing a sell-out. When they bother with rationalization at all.
Given that technology is finally bringing into focus the Holy Grail of totalitarians everywhere: the ability to know what everyone is doing, all the time; people need to understand the starkness of our choices. Total top-down control ("Don't worry citizen. We'll have top men in charge. Top. Men.") or a messy chaotic freedom that will have its' own failures and casualties.
And while I can't advocate anyone else search for wisdom in the ouvre of a middlebrow movie director, I'll admit to being inspired by, and adopting, Capt. Mal Reynolds' declaration in Firefly: "I aim to misbehave."
Hmmm...given that, are the antics we see on college campuses (fainting, hysterical crying, uncontrollable fear and rage) in response to "offensive" speech/writing/opinion, setting up a precedent in which speech can be legally treated *as* violence??
One hears it frequently, that the pain felt makes the stimulus indistinguishable from physical assault. Indeed, such an argument of equivalence is sometimes also used when claiming that *triggering* speech is at fault when the 'triggered' person commits actual physical violence in response.
I would hate for such equivalence to become 'precedent-by-decree' through the kind of administrative interpretation various FedGov agencies (and Presidents) more and more resort to. Pretty sure the actual LAW doesn't work that way. A fact for which we should all be grateful.
That Some Good May Come of This Dept: For any government power that might be used to do good, right wrongs, "level the playing field", etc., etc, I'd like people to imagine that power in the hands of Trump or a Trump Administration. Government power should not be increased based on the assumed, or hoped-for, morality and enlightened nature of those wielding it. Nopenopenope.
Yeah, I never thought they were too bad and usually seemed to have a sense of humor about stuff.
They *did* wrongly debunk the story about the "Emory U Chalk Trump Crisis". Though in that case, the article writer's excuse that it sounded so ridiculous he assumed the story had to be a mean-spirited invention actually kinda rings true. I thought much the same.
"Honestly I think the best solution is to start teaching critical thinking in schools and start teaching it young."
Amen to that. And why is this not done??
I strongly suspect (supported by personal experience) that the folks doing the teaching have found that turning young people into critical thinkers too early doesn't result in the kind of students/people/citizens they want to produce.
Not a conspiracy, just the way things work out. An observation that has explanatory and predictive power, which usually suggests a strong element of truth.