..out of the dark

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9136926/Wireless_service_costs_too_much_and_all_but_the_carriers_agree

Computerworld - Criticism of U.S. wireless carriers has reached a peak during the dog days of summer, with cries that carriers are charging too much for wireless voice, data and texting even as consumers have benefited lately from cheaper smartphones.

The outcry against wireless carriers follows recent plans by government agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission and Congress, to investigate exclusive smartphone deals by the carriers, including AT&T Inc.'s sale of Apple Inc.'s iPhone.

Consumer groups, such as the nonprofit Free Press in Washington, have linked exclusive smartphone deals to helping carriers justify higher wireless prices to customers. Higher prices are charged even at the same time that network technology investments by carriers have decreased overall, Free Press argued.

"We have a lot of concerns over voice and data plan costs, not just that they are too high, but there is demonstrated evidence that as the wireless carriers' revenues are rising, their wireless capital investments are decreasing," Free Press Policy Counsel Chris Riley said in an interview. "Wireless carriers are charging more, but not improving the quality of network service with network buildouts and coverage."

No! Is that so, mr. Holmes! How did you figure that out? Blimey, I'm completely clueless, me, you have to /explain/ in more simple terms, suitable for a man of modest intellectual capacity like myself.

*sigh*

Thursday, Arlen Specter announced he would switch parties, and join the Democrats. Impacts? Possibly a filibuster- proof majority in the Senate. Others - no obvious ones. And, since any other senator not intent on sending half of the states into bankruptcy will agree that the stimulus package needs to happen, even if they disagree with how ideologically pure something it is, it.. sure makes sense to switch if you're at odds with your party... But this was the same way everyone else voted when Bush was in office - they crafted excuses to vote and do the opposite of what they "philosophically" were committed to. It was just necessary to keep the economy going, etc. So then what's the point? Shouldn't Specter just go riding the GOP line for votes, and keep voting the same way?

I've written before about Specter's problems in the Judiciary committee - his argument that he was unable to push for certain things in committee, since the republicans were not backing him - that was probably honest enough. We of course wanted to see Specter respond to the crisis by standing on principle and push along with some of the democrats (who happened to find their arse with both hands for once).

But the practical point then as now is that if he wanted to do this, he would be pushed out of the party. That was made perfectly clear, and was his real argument then as well. He could not simply spite his constituency, or what the GOP relied on for a constituency, because then he would not be reelected. He was, and they knew, that he was dependent on appearing like an old GOP stalwart to woo the GOP votes needed. And at that time, this meant supporting Bush in hushing everything up, and doing the right thing for protecting the country, and so on. So in a strong democratic state, it makes sense for Specter to switch parties, and try his platform with the democrats.

So is Specter just riding the polls? Or is he finally getting fed up with philosophically committed to one thing for votes, and deliberately doing another? Sure could seem there's a bit more to it than polls with the torture issue, or the legal justifications he's been hated pretty harshly for actually attempting to fish out of the Justice department about the torture practices, and so on.

And now he can do the same thing as before, and perhaps even succeed because of the majority - as well as gain support from the voters who lean towards the democratic party. Instead of losing votes with the GOP.

Obviously, it's not getting much real commentary in the US. Most of it seems like descriptions of something unexpected that people don't know what means - or it's completely predictable, because Specter is always going for the popular vote, etc.

It made someone wonder about whether the GOP is in a "philosophical" crisis over at the Wall Street Journal, though. And the answer is: apparently not.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113372096875105.html

That's not to say the GOP doesn't need to work this through, and soon. But to do it productively, as one wise Republican put it to me, the GOP needs to be "clear about the difference between philosophy and message."

*shakes head*

If we look at this practically, and accept that these people are insane, the situation looks like this: when Lieberman switched caucuses and eventually went independent - it of course had nothing to do with his actual policies, but with appearance. He couldn't be on the team of the democrats if he wanted to vote with the GOP in practice. But he needed the appearance of being a moderate, and it was popular with the GOP and the local voters to appear being a moderate that joined with the GOP. And that's basically the reasoning behind the switch.

They're not so good at actually describing the mechanism their party works on, though, because they lack the clarity mentioned above. Because when Specter leaves the party and does the same thing as before - it's of course an indication of how far right the message and philosophy of the GOP has actually become.

I.e. - not only do you have to say crazy shit to be in the GOP - you need to be philosophically committed to it as well. And the only way to rescue the party, as the Op-ed suggests above, is to be "clear" about what to do, and how that's different from what's being said.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=12509

For the record, I really do not care about Joe the Plumber’s background. All he did was ask a candidate for President a question, something I wish everyone got the chance to do at least once in their life.

Unfortunately, commenters on the former kool- aid divers' blog can't seem to get the point. Because Joe Schmoe appeals to some undocumentable quality in the American Psyche (read: he appeals to stupid idiots who can't think for themselves) - when accusing Obama of ruining small businesses in little America. And that means he's not just someone who receives loads of air- time and plugs from the McCain campaign - oh, no. That makes him a public persona, who is fair game when it comes to entirely legitimate personal character assassination. Which was completely and utterly not all right before when the Frosts (Democratic poster- family for subsidized health- care with predictable benefits for the insurance companies) received that same horrendous treatment from the Right.

In fact - comparing what happened to the Frosts - hiding in their yard and digging through their trash - is completely different from exposing mr. Joe Average as a /possible hypocrite/ and tax- evading scumbag without credibility. Because this time, it's an election, and so much is at stake; there's an election coming, you see. Where the fate of the entire world will be decided(!).. or something.

So just meeting the Joe Plumber reasoning with - you know, facts and stuff. Explaining that increasing the tax- burden on the big businesses and higher earners will first of all not affect the smaller businesses (like, sub a small African country budget smaller). And that increasing the tax burden, as well as creating a progressive tax- system - is Obama's clever trick for magically financing a more broadly available health- service (read: a subsidized insurance plan. And thus releasing small businesses from part of the cost of employing people).

I mean, can't be having with that either. Because... people are too stupid to get it. Ha.. ha. *sigh*

And everyone is pissed at Clinton for poisoning the last few weeks with another bout of personality- based trash, and so driving on the Obama campaign's "we're not like them" narcissists, and removing any and all debate from the public sphere.

Oh, wait. Not everyone.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/coda-by-digby-apologies-for-dearth-of.html

The election of the first African American president will signal the end of the era of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. And nothing could be more fitting.

Also, congratulations to Senator Clinton, who in my view showed Democrats what a fighter looks like. This is the closest primary in history and despite what the bloviators and the gasbags have been saying for months, she had not only a right, but a duty, to fight on until the end for the half of the Democratic party that supported her. Clinton too was an historic candidate who inspired millions of people and she has my admiration.

If I might digress a bit and say one word about the Clintons, who to many are personas non grata in the Democratic Party now. Whatever happens, Bill Clinton will still be the 42nd president of the United States and the first two term Democrat since Roosevelt. That's never going to change.
(...)
Clinton will officially end suspend the campaign on Friday, (which is perfectly in keeping with the usual timing of these things contrary to the gasbags' ahistorical and overwrought blathering of last night.) We will see what the Republicans have in store for us. And maybe we can start behaving like ourselves again.

You mean, and vote for Bush twice because you're scared to death and want big brother to take away your rights, kill the brownies, save the world, and make it all better?

Family fights are always painful, but they are usually easily healed as well. Here's to the end of the Long March of 2008. It's been real.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Now.. This is an actual ad. McCain's campaign paid for the production of this. And then paid people to put this on the TV. Presumably believing that it'll have an impact on those who watch it.

I don't know - but if his mother spanked him silly, screaming "You shall not bomb Iran or screw over your own country! Naughty boy!". And then finishing off by saying: "If you vote for my son in November - he'll behave. I promise." - then we're maybe getting somewhere.