Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Annals of Mind Control

Posted on April 26, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

They had a special event over at the 7th grader’s middle school yesterday, in which a special guest speaker lectured students on the “dangers of the Internet”.

This is something like the fourth program this year for parents or students about the evils of high technology. So far we had the evils of violent video games, the dangers of instant messenger, something or other about how you should never surf bad places or the gremlins will get you and more that I forget. (The stupidest by far was the violent video games talk, by one Jack Thompson. I wrote a letter complaining about that one.) The other talks have been optional evening events, but this one was during school hours, so it was the first one that one of us actually attended.

The 7th grader found it all rather dull. He had on board the idea that it would not be too bright a move to agree to meet a stranger that one ‘met’ online (and indeed is mostly interested in single-player games at the moment). He found the repetition of this idea for more than 50 minutes to be rather boring.

“She talked for the entire period,” he moaned. “And after the first few minutes I just sat there and thought ‘you won’t get me with this Jedi Mind Control’“.

I more than half suspect he is thinking the same thing when we talk to him…

Posted in Internet | 3 Comments

This is Amazing

Posted on April 25, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

Sometimes there really is a conspiracy:

The multimillion-dollar lobbying effort to repeal the federal estate tax has been aggressively led by 18 super-wealthy families, according to a report released today by Public Citizen and United for a Fair Economy at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The report details for the first time the vast money, influence and deceptive marketing techniques behind the rhetoric in the campaign to repeal the tax.

It reveals how 18 families worth a total of $185.5 billion have financed and coordinated a 10-year effort to repeal the estate tax, a move that would collectively net them a windfall of $71.6 billion.

The report, available at www.citizen.org, profiles the families and their businesses, which include the families behind Wal-Mart, Gallo wine, Campbell’s soup, and Mars Inc., maker of M&Ms. Collectively, the list includes the first- and third-largest privately held companies in the United States, the richest family in Alabama and the world’s largest retailer.

These families have sought to keep their activities anonymous by using associations to represent them and by forming a massive coalition of business and trade associations dedicated to pushing for estate tax repeal. The report details the groups they have hidden behind – the trade associations they have used, the lobbyists they have hired, and the anti-estate tax political action committees, 527s and organizations to which they have donated heavily.

Please note: this is NOT posted to the politics:tin-foil category.

Posted in Econ & Money | 3 Comments

Where Evil Predators Pick Their Victims

Posted on April 24, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

This little ditty from the Daily Mail explains what is going to happen if you go on to the Internet today. Really funny!

Posted in Completely Different | Comments Off on Where Evil Predators Pick Their Victims

Interim VeepStakes

Posted on April 24, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

L.A. Times Editorial Calls for Cheney’s Ouster: A Los Angeles Times editorial Sunday called for a “far more audacious” makeover of President Bush’s administration, saying he should send Vice President Cheney into early retirement.

Let me start by saying that I don’t think President Cheney will allow this to happen.

But, just for the fun of it, let’s suppose that we wake up one day and for whatever reason we find ourselves de-Veeped. That raises two questions:

  • Who would Bush be most likely to appoint?
  • Who of the people Bush might conceivably appoint would be most politically destructive for the Democrats?

The media is already having a field day with the first question, and thinks the answer is Dr. Rice. But since I think that even if she were to become the Veep, I don’t think she’d run for President (or would be that hard to beat if she did), I don’t think that she is the answer to the second question.

The Democrats’ worst fear has to be the appointment of a viable Presidential candidate into the heir apparent role. Not only does this person get tons of free media and get to look more Presidential, but a new veep would get a leg up in the otherwise internecine primary fights.

So I think the answer to the second question is probably John McCain. It’s just conceivable Bush would pick him (they seem to have made some sort of deal in 2004). He would benefit the most from being anointed as the heir apparent, as it would allow him to drop his self-destructive run to the right. And a McCain who isn’t destroying himself, and doesn’t have to take full part in the rough-and-tumble of a primary (with the chances to lose one’s cool) would be a formidable candidate in 2008.

(I do note the Machiavellian argument that says Dr. Rice is the answer to the second question too, because that would ensure that Senator Clinton would become the Democratic nominee. I don’t quite buy it, but it worries me.)

Posted in Politics: US: 2008 Elections | 17 Comments

Let Us Pray

Posted on April 24, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Posted in Politics: The Party of Sleaze | Comments Off on Let Us Pray

On ‘Saving the Internet’

Posted on April 23, 2006 by Michael Froomkin

Everyone will be linking to Save the Internet.

The potential commercial censorship problem is real. The potential commercial prioritization of traffic is also worrying. So I agree with the cause. (Although I hate the name.)

I’m concerned about strategy. Because (as I’ve noted previously) I believe the whole “net neutrality” problem is due to a competitive failure, the existence of a legacy telco DSL/cable duopoly (at best) in most the broadband market. The source of that failure is a totally misguided regulation by the Bush administration which killed off competition in the DSL market; I think the solution is NOT some more regulations trying to undo the ill effects of the original rule, but rather the repeal of the rule that caused the problem, and return to the previous rule which made legacy telcos share some of the lines. The telcos hated this of course, and the Bush people li$tened.

It’s not clear to me how “Save the Internet” will come down on this. Regulating ISPs as to how they prioritize and deliver content is I think deeply second-best to true competition in the broadband services market for all sorts of reasons.

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on On ‘Saving the Internet’