Kerfuffle

Known tech expert John McCain wants your Internet bill to look like your cable TV bill

The Republicans are ever so skilled at mis-branding (some would same lying about) things so their sheeple will side against something that is actually in their best interest.  The latest shameful effort is John McCain's "Internet Freedom Act."  As in "freedom for the Internet service providers to esentially create tiers of service, and then charge accordingly."

From PC World via Reuters...

McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, seeks to do the opposite of what its name implies by ensuring that broadband and wireless providers can discriminate and throttle certain traffic while giving preferential treatment to other traffic. Basically, those in power or those who pay more will have better access. Apparently we have different definitions of 'freedom'.

According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." Isn't that what the FCC does? Isn't that sort of like introducing a bill to prohibit the Treasury from printing money, or a bill to prohibit the IRS from collecting taxes?

This bill comes from a man who proudly claimed he is neither a PC or a Mac when asked about his computer preference during the campaign.  He's more or less a self-admitted computer Luddite.  Great.  But it's not like he's completely without some perspective.  He is on the receiving end of more tel-com lobbyist cash than any other senator, and more than double the next closest recipient.  This from the guy who was supposedly all about campaign finance reform.  Tell me you aren't surprised this guy is all about the money.  Maverick, my ass.

Consider what might happen in the marketplace if the big tel-coms are allowed to play favorites with content.  For example, if you have Time-Warner as your ISP -- the same Time-Warner that owns CNN -- how will you feel when they speed up any CNN video feeds and slow to a crawl video from MSNBC and FNC?  Or if Comcast gts their wish and buys NBC Universal, it will be the NBC comedies that come down the Internet autobahn, and the ABC videos that get the dial-up speed dirt road.

In a worst-case scenario, Gizmodo suggests this unfortunate promotional piece from your ISP...

John McCain's Internet Freedom Act is another attempt by Republicans to reward big corporate donors with laws that enrich stockholders and screw consumers.  And these same Republicans count on the electorate being stupid enough to believe the "freedom" in the bill's name means this is a good thing for citizens.  No shame, these Republicans.

Baseball and Insurance: the only two industries immune from antitrust law. Guess which one is afraid of competition?

Hint:  it's not one that is organized by leagues.

Remember when Republicans and their media pals blamed the stock market on President Obama's policies? Good thing we have Tivo!

Now that the stock market has cracked 9000 for the first time since January, and is up about 2000 points since Obama took office, I'm waiting for our Republican leaders, pundits and media hangers-on to credit the President with this economic rebound.

Memory needing a refresh?  Let's go to the video from Jed at DKTV...

What's that sound?  Crickets perhaps.  I'd like to think a lot of things make the market go up and down.  But since the geniuses who were in power when the economy tanked saw fit to blame the new guy for what the market did as soon as he was in office, is it not fair that they also credit him with the rebound?

Ah, the politics of the Party of No.

"They give us those nice bright colors. They give us the greens of summers. Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, Oh yeah"

"What is Kodachrome?"

That would be my response on Jeopardy if the answer offered was, "The absolute best film to capture anything in true color and preserve it for all time."

My first real job was as a clerk at a camera store when I was 15.  I was already a camera nerd, developing and printing my own black and white film.  I messed around with slide film... usually Kodak's Ektachrome, because I had always heard it was more stable even though it had a sort of bluish bias.  But I also knew that, without exception, the best color saturation... provided you had a lot of light... was Kodachrome... especially Kodachrome 25.

 Even back then, in the 1970s, Kodachrome was special, in a class by itself.  It couldn;t be processed by just anyone.  Our little store shipped it from San Diego up to Kodak's lab in Palo Alto.  (I still have the yellow Kodak Palo Alto transfer bag I appropriated when I worked at RB Photo.) It took longer, but the results - even for an amateur - were worth the time and expense.

As recently as ten years ago, the instructors at The Nikon School, a traveling seminar for serious amateurs, talked about the value of shooting transparency film over print film, and that nothing delivered like Kodachrome.  The images perfectly captured a full range of color in the most stable of forms.

But Kodachrome's time was limited.  Digital photography was pretty much bringing a close to the multi-century history of capturing images on film. The ability to capture, manipulate, and print professional grade color was brought to the home market by camera makers along with manufacturers of digital hardware on flash memory media.  To be shooting with film was to be protecting the buggy whip franchise.  My Nikon N70 and N90 are now up on the shelf with my antique camera collection.  The D70 took over, and now I lust after the D90 and others.

Last month, Kodak announced that the last product in the Kodachrome line, Kodachrome 64, would no longer be manufactured.  Most camera nerds and professional photographers are accepting this as the inevitable, but it is still kind of sad.

Some are taking it better than others...

Jim Sugar, a Mill Valley advertising and commercial photographer, said it was about time.

"The world became a different place when the resolving power of digital cameras equaled or surpassed film," he said. "This was not a tragedy. This was a train wreck that we saw coming for 15 years. And by this point it wasn't even a train wreck, it was a fender bender."

But some fans are not ready to let go just yet.

John Game, a 62-year-old amateur botanical photographer in Berkeley, has used Kodachrome for more than 30 years because, in his view, nothing else would do.

Game still has eight Kodachrome rolls to go and is looking for more. He plans to use them as he tries to "gradually wean myself off of them."

"For my last roll I'll make a point of doing something symbolic, something special with it," he said. "It's been a wonderful film. It's like the end of an era in photography."  [San Francisco Chronicle]

Like everyone else reflecting on this passing of this artistic icon, I keep thinking of Paul Simon's song, and only now can truly appreciate and feel the sentiment in those closing lyrics.

"Mama don't take my Kodachrome away."

Too late.

It really says something when the Chinese government objects to the takeover of Hummer by a Chinese company for environmental reasons

I've always thought Hummers were a prime example of what happens when the confluence of American consumerism and testosterone imbalance goes horribly wrong.  Aside from being proof that money can't buy taste, the damn things are emblematic of many Americans' complete disregard of our own energy situation, ignorance of global warming, and Detroit's too-cozy-for-too-long relationship with Big Oil.

To prove how bad these things are for the environment, China (China who is our rival for pollution and energy consumption) is moving to block the acquisition of the Hummer brand by a Chinese company.

[BBC] A Chinese firm's bid to buy the gas-guzzling Hummer car brand will be blocked on environmental grounds, according to Chinese state radio.

Sichuan Tengzhong Heavy Industrial Machinery emerged as the surprise buyer for the brand earlier this year.  But China National Radio said Hummer is at odds with the country's planning agency's attempts to decrease pollution from Chinese manufacturers.

But Sichuan Tengzhong disputed the accuracy of the radio report.  "The fact that it is from an article from a state media organization does not mean it is government policy," the company said in a statement.  "Some people may have views and speculation, but the Chinese government has a process that we respect."

The acquisition from General Motors needs Chinese regulatory approval.

One more reason for people who drive these things to be proud:  the Chinese are rejecting them.

Hey you cost-conscious coffee drinker: Is that a real latte... or a McLatte™... you're guzzling there?

I'm sorry.  I just can't help laughing when I see McDonald's peddling fancy-ass coffee drinks right there next to the Snack-wraps™.  But you know, in these recessionary times, Mickey D's is eating Starbucks breakfast (which used to be a maple oat scone, and now is a chicken McMuffin).  Yes, I am a coffee snob; I admit it.  I'm also a bit of a hamburger snob.  And let's face it, McDonald's is to coffee what McDonald's is to, umm, hamburgers.

Fact is, McDonald's sales are up and Starbucks sales are down.  It's not surprising that McDonald's does better in a bad economy, because they sell relatively cheap food.  But I don't get why someone wouldn't just skip having a latte or whatever they waste $4 on at Starbucks rather than spend half the price on a fake version.  (Yeah, i know, Ronald.  You spent a ton of money on all those espresso machines.  But you still have fry cooks making the damn drinks.)  I mean, would a person who enjoys the occasional Guinness or Newcastle suddenly make a cost-cutting switch to Milwaukee's Best?  Only if that person was a serious alcoholic and couldn't tell the difference between The Beast and the good stuff anymore.  If you're such a caffeine junkie, just skip the fancy drinks and go right for the regular coffee (which at Starbucks tastes like coffee and at McDonald's tastes like coffee made yesterday).  On this level, Starbucks is SO worth the extra 35¢.

The folks over at Gawker have this Starbucks versus McDonald's thing pegged...

McDonald's message is this: "Now you have a good excuse to buy a cheap ass burger while you pick up your daily tub of coffee, yuppies." Clear, direct, and honest. Meanwhile, the chief marketing guy at Starbucks is like "McD's will recruit all these new yuppies who will get tired of drinking their swill and trade up to our swill!" while glancing around nervously, adding, "Yea, that's the ticket. 'Trading up.' Yea, I like the sound of that." We all know you're toast, Starbucks man.

I don't know.  I was in a McDonald's a few weeks ago and it had a gas fireplace and some leather club chairs.  This cozy retreat was just this side of the glass doors leading into the McPlayland ball crawl.  Another sign of the apocalypse.

Well what do you know? The "Top Ten Happiest Places To Live" is made up of countries that have higher taxes and provide a lot more social services.

Some might call them socialst countries.   That wouldn't be quite correct... not that those who throw around the word "socialism" are concerned about factual definitions and stuff

It seems like every week, some media outlet reports on some list of cities, states, regions or countries, proclaiming them the best this or most that.  This time, it's the world's happiest places to live, ranked by nation.

What makes this interesting, and a touch ironic, is that the study and attendant list was reported in Forbes, the magazine that identifies itself as the "Capitalist's Tool," and all of the countries are governed primarily or significantly under socialist policy.

Where in the world do people feel most content with their lives?

According to a new report released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), a Paris-based group of 30 countries with democratic governments that provides economic and social statistics and data, happiness levels are highest in northern European countries.

:::

The report looked at subjective well-being, defined as life satisfaction. Did people feel like their lives were dominated by positive experiences and feelings, or negative ones?

To answer that question, the OECD used data from a Gallup World Poll conducted in 140 countries around the world last year. The poll asked respondents whether they had experienced six different forms of positive or negative feelings within the last day.

Some sample questions: Did you enjoy something you did yesterday? Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Did you learn something yesterday? Were you treated with respect yesterday? In each country, a representative sample of no more than 1,000 people, age 15 or older, were surveyed. The poll was scored numerically on a scale of 1-100. The average score was 62.4.

The top ten shake out like this:

1. Denmark

2. Finland

3. Netherlands

4. Sweden

5. Ireland

6. Canada

7. Switzerland

8. New Zealand

9. Norway

10. Belgium

This kind of study must drive the wing-nutty righties crazy.  The magazine (and name behind the magazine) that so many identify with capitalist economic policy and conservative ideology finds that people are happiest in countries that take a more socialistic view of how the conduct government and work for the good of all people.  In other words, these are nations with higher taxes but that also provide many more social services (i.e. medical care, good public schools for all).  What a concept! 

Of course, most of the Glenn Beckians likely don't read magazines, let alone magazines as intellectually complex as Forbes.  I just can't picture Joe the (Pretend) Plumber and former McCain spokesman reading Forbes. Maybe Hot Rod, or Soldier of Fortune... described by Google as "Famous and simultaneously infamous magazine, for 'mercenaries and professional soldiers' as well as for arm-chair dreamers and wannabes. [emphasis mine]  But their conservative political and ideological masters do.  Sarah Palin does claim that she reads "all of then" in terms of newspapers, and she gets a lot of coverage in US Weekly, People and the National Enquirer, so maybe she gets Forbes.  Right.  Who am I kidding?

I don't put too much stock in polls and studies like this, but the do provide insights into how people see their world, and suggest more in-depth study.  I hope someone follows up on this with a closer eye on socialistic government policy.  It would be great to demonstrate a real correlation between socialism and happiness.  Of course, even if that happens, the conservatives will just dismiss it as junk science from liberal academics.  (To me that usually suggests validity in and of itself.)

I wish Robert Greenwald would try to make the messages in his political films even remotely clear

Take a look at this video from Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films.  It's pretty hard to tell, but I think they want Bank of America's CEO, Ken Lewis, fired.  At least that's my take.  Something about a Christmas bonus and the bank having to be bailed out by the US government.

When I was 17, I opened a my first checking account with Northbrook Trust & Savings.  Years later it was bought out and became Lakeview Bank.  The it was bought out and became LaSalle Bank.  Then it was bought out and became Bank of America.  I still have that checking account.  And believe it or not, since I am back in school, I have the student deal with no fees or service charge.  (But I bet if I bounce a check it will cost me like a thousand dollars.)  So I'm a customer (a non-revenue customer but a customer just the same).  And I think this Lewis guy is up to no good.

So count me in.  Fire Ken Lewis.

AIG Chairman Edward M. Liddy pretty much says "f*** you" to the American taxpayers

Can these people be any more contemptuous?  I mean, honestly.  In nearly every other business environment, people who fail get fired.  But the very pompous Edward M. Liddy, CEO if AIG feels that failure is to be rewarded with $165 million in bonuses to keep the failed team in place.

From the New York Times...

The American International Group, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses by Sunday to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.

Word of the bonuses last week stirred such deep consternation inside the Obama administration that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner told the firm they were unacceptable and demanded they be renegotiated, a senior administration official said. But the bonuses will go forward because lawyers said the firm was contractually obligated to pay them.
:::
A.I.G., nearly 80 percent of which is now owned by the government, defended its bonuses, arguing that they were promised last year before the crisis and cannot be legally canceled. In a letter to Mr. Geithner, Edward M. Liddy, the government-appointed chairman of A.I.G., said at least some bonuses were needed to keep the most skilled executives.

“We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury,” he wrote Mr. Geithner on Saturday.

Are you kidding me?   What planet do these "executives" live on?  You guys ran AIG into the ground through your mismanagement and irresponsible stupidity.

If the United States treasury owns about 80% of AIG these days, does that mean we have 80% of the seats on the board of directors of the company?  If so, it seems to me that Treasury Secretary Geitner should be able to tell Liddy to shelve the bonuses... or fire his ass.

Of course, I only took Econ 73, the intro level course, and that was in 1978.  So I may have this wrong.

You have to think Citigroup is f***ed if a share of their stock is worth less than the fee they charge to use one of their Citibank ATMs

Yes, indeed.  Citigroup common stock dipped below a dollar today.

Shares of Citigroup, once the nation's most powerful bank, hit an all time low of 97 cents on Thursday. It is a 95.56% drop from the same period last year. The bank's 52-week high was $27.35 on April 28, 2008. According to WSJ's Market Watch, the stock reached an all-time high of $57 a share on Dec. 18, 2006.

Ouch.  From the most powerful bank in the country to swirling the financial toilet bowl.

It now costs more to order an item from the dollar menu at McDonald's than buy a share of this monument to failed economic policy and ultra-lax regulatory oversight.

Huffington Post offers a brief slide show of the things that cost MORE than a share in Citigroup, including dental floss and an episode of Family Guy off iTunes.

And remember, somewhere around 36% of this financial albatross belongs to the US taxpayers.  Can we pick 'em or what?