Category Archives: Politics

Of Presidents and Booze

A friend of mine recently pointed out that a drinking game has been published in anticipation of tonight’s State of the Union Address by George W. Bush. While I am, as a general policy, in favor of anything that encourages the irresponsible binge drinking of this country’s youth, there are certain qualities that must be borne in mind when creating such a list.

  • The rules must be conducive to a hard-line interpretation of what “1 drink” means. 1 drink is a single ounce of hard liquor or a 12-ounce beer. Wine isn’t for drinking games.
  • With the first guideline in mind, the list of triggers for a drink must be simple enough to keep track of while inebriated. No unnecessarily-nuanced or specific rules should be introduced.
  • The human body is only capable of processing so much alcohol before its toxic effects will prematurely end the drinking game, possibly resulting in a slurred call to the paramedics, followed by a stomach-pumping or funeral. The anticipated total number of drinks should not exceed the limits of human physiology if roughly 3/4 of the rules are scrupulously obeyed. This is why most versions of the Star Wars Drinking Game are totally unacceptable.
  • When compiling a list of rules, a great deal of editorial control is necessary in light of the above. Specifying a rule that can be reasonably expected to cause a drink to be consumed more than once per minute is simply unacceptable.
  • The subject of a rule should be ironic or anthemic in a way that is readily-identifiable by those expected to participate. An excellent example of this would be “Drink any time half of congress gives a standing ovation” or “Drink any time a member of the opposition party is shown conspicuously not applauding.”
  • Multiple-drink rules should be rare. These should be reserved for trigger conditions that are either highly ironic, likely to only happen a single time, or highly unlikely. Examples would include “Drink twice if the president commits sepukku,” “Drink twice if the Vice President chokes a puppy to death,” or “Drink twice if the Presidents mentions that his big Social Security Reform push fell flat on its face,” or “Drink twice if the President mentions Casey Sheehan by name.” Examples of things likely to happen only once would be “Drink twice if the President introduces an Iraq War veteran seated within two seats of the First Lady.”
  • On that subject, the follow should be present: “Drink thrice if the token Iraq War veteran is not clearly of a minority ethnicity or female.”

Continue reading

Kevin Martin Speaks

[Kevin Martin] Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an interview with Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC. The bulk of the discussion was regarding his take on the regulatory framework that encourages, influences, and inhibits broadband access in the United States. In it we see Martin’s underlying values in supporting the FCC decisions recently ruled upon in the US Supreme Court.

I think its important when companies invest capital in purchasing equipment and deploying service to customers they’ve got to be able to have a regulatory environment that let’s them recoup in the long run that investment or they won’t make that investment. That’s one thing the commission and I’ve been focused on to make sure companies have the opportunity to invest and upgrade their infrastructure and recoup that investment if they’re willing to make it and bring those new services. We have the benefit today that both the cable and the phone companies are trying to deploy and upgrade their infrastructures.

In light of the ongoing pricing wars between ILECs and local cable companies, it seems clear that low profit margins on line-sharing is not a real disincentive for these companies at all. All that this deregulation is accomplishing is limiting the choices we as end-consumers have in regards to the services we enjoy in a broadband environment. In California, SBC currently offers DSL lines wholesale to independent ISPs at prices that are at roughly 50% of the old tariff. This is being done not only voluntarily, but it was SBC’s idea. If artificial competition is whittling away at these companies’ margins to such an extent that they cannot deploy more infrastructure, why would they go out of their way to reduce their margins even further? I smell a rat.

Cable Hegemony

This week we learned that six out of nine Supreme Court Justices don’t understand the nature of the relationship between information services and telecommunications. Yesterday in a six-three decision, Associate Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, ruled that the FCC was within its statutory authority to rule that cable broadband providers are not required to share their facilities with other ISPs, even though telcos that provide a similar service (DSL) and are required to. Associate Justice Scalia wrote the dissent, with Ginsburg and Souter also dissenting:

It is indeed a wonderful new world
that the Court creates, one full of promise for administrative-law
professors in need of tenure articles and, of course, for litigators. I would adhere to what has been the rule in the past: When a court interprets a statute without Chevron deference
to agency views, its interpretation (whether or not asserted to rest
upon an unambiguous text) is the law. I might add that it is a great
mystery why any of this is relevant here. Whatever the stare decisis effect of AT&T Corp. v. Portland,

216 F. 3d 871 (CA9 2000), in the Ninth Circuit, it surely does not
govern this Court’s decision. And–despite the Court’s peculiar,
self-abnegating suggestion to the contrary, the Ninth Circuit would already be obliged to abandon Portland‘s holding in the face of this Court’s
decision that the Commission’s construction of “telecommunications
service” is entitled to deference and is reasonable. It is a sadness
that the Court should go so far out of its way to make bad law.

The full text of the decision and dissent is available for you to read for yourself.

Just in case you thought this only affects cable access, Commissioner Abernathy’s comments on the ruling may dispel any illusions:

I am gratified that the Supreme Court has deferred to the Commission�s finding that cable
modem services are �information services.� As I stated when the ruling upheld today was
adopted, this classification accords the Commission the flexibility it needs to craft a minimal
regulatory environment that promotes investment and innovation in a competitive marketplace.
Now that the Court has resolved lingering uncertainty regarding the regulatory treatment of
cable-based Internet access services, I am hopeful that the Commission will act quickly to
establish a similarly forward-looking approach for competitive wireline xDSL services.