Tag Archives: policy

Fed Lowers Rates, Wall Street Tumbles – Yahoo! Finance

Posted on by
Reply

What do people expect. There is no free lunch, nor quick fixes available.

Fed Lowers Rates, Wall Street Tumbles: Financial News – Yahoo! Finance

Fed Drops Key Rate for Third Time This Year; a Disappointed Wall Street TumblesWASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve dropped its most important interest rate to a nearly two-year low on Tuesday and left the door open to additional cuts to prevent a housing and credit meltdown from pushing the economy into a recession.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and all but one of his colleagues agreed to trim the federal funds rate by one-quarter percentage point to 4.25 percent.

The rate reduction, the third this year, was needed to energize national economic growth, Fed officials said. The deepening housing slump is affecting the behavior of consumers and businesses alike, the Fed said.

“Economic growth is slowing, reflecting the intensification of the housing correction and some softening in business and consumer spending. Moreover, strains in financial markets have increased in recent weeks,” the Fed said in a statement explaining its decision to cut rates again. The three rate cuts ordered thus far “should help promote moderate growth over time,” the Fed added.

On Wall Street, stocks tumbled, reflecting disappointment among some investors who were hoping for a larger rate cut. The Dow Jones industrial plunged more than 200 points.

The funds rate affects many other interest rates charged to individuals and businesses and is the Fed’s most potent tool for influencing economic activity.

Here comes everyone’s favorite friend … INFLATION! Wasn’t cheap credit as a result of low interest rates the primary cause of the real estate (inflation) bubble?

Court: Gay couple can’t divorce in Rhode Island – Yahoo! News

Posted on by
Reply

It appears the gay community were just given an opportunity to challenge the Federal Defense of Marriage Act along with state bans on same-sex marriage.

Court: Gay couple can’t divorce in RI – Yahoo! News

A lesbian couple that married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in their home state of Rhode Island, the state Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The court, in a 3-2 decision, said the state’s family court lacks the authority to grant the divorce of a same-sex couple because Rhode Island lawmakers have not defined marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman.

“The role of the judicial branch is not to make policy, but simply to determine the legislative intent,” the court wrote.

Cassandra Ormiston and Margaret Chambers wed in Massachusetts in 2004 and filed for divorce last year in Rhode Island, where they both live. But opponents of same-sex marriage said the court correctly avoided taking a step toward recognizing such unions.

Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, restricts the unions to residents of states where the marriage would be recognized, and a Massachusetts judge decided last year that Rhode Island is one of those states.

No law specifically bans same-sex marriages in Rhode Island, but the state has taken no action to recognize them. The justices said Rhode Island laws contain numerous references to marriage as between a woman and a man.

Without knowing more details, I think this couple has a valid challenge under the Privileges and Immunities clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, as well as Equal Protection Clause. As much as I feel for this couple though, I don’t think they should challenge the Rhode Island ruling. Stronger and more favorable cases will come along with more sympathetic plaintiffs. This couple were residents of another state, Rhode Island, who had a drive-through wedding in Massachusetts. I think it will play differently in the courts if the couple had lived in Mass. but moved to another state for job or other reasons. It would also be more powerful if it were a state that bans same-sex marriage rather then Rhode Island which appears mostly neutral, except for the 3-2 ruling today. A statute passed specifically to discriminate against gays will also allow courts to add teeth to the rational basis standard of review they are likely to use. If that is the case, hopefully the decision resembles Romer v. Evans in which the Supreme Court said the state constitutional amendment was â??born of animosity toward the class of persons affectedâ? and further that it had no rational relation to a legitimate governmental purpose.

Even while studying for other exams, I can’t get ConLaw out of my head.

Science, houses, stones, and creation …

Posted on by
Reply

We had a lively debate today in Constitutional Law regarding a series of cases regarding creationism in school science curriculum. The primary case is Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, (1987), a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1987. In it, the Court struck down a Louisiana law that required ‘creation science’ to be taught whenever evolution was taught as part of science curriculum, and vice versa. The Court held the law was a violation of the Establishment Clause, part of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …” It held that the law was passed specifically to require teaching of creation science in public schools with the purpose of advancing and endorsing a particular religious doctrine.

Also mentioned was a more recent case from Pennsylvania in which a school district required ‘intelligent design’ to be taught in science classes. That law was struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause by the local Federal district court because, among other reasons, evidence existed that the textbook publisher cut ‘creation science’ and pasted ‘intelligent design’ in its textbook after Edwards. One typo, as relayed in class, was “crintelligent designce.”

The point of my post is this: Creationism is not science and does not belong in a science curriculum. I’m glad courts have been able to see past the smoke and excise creationism from public school science curriculum. Even my Catholic high school taught evolution in science classes without any need to add disclaimers or to limit the scope of the subject. Then again, it was college preparatory with an eye towards building young men who were ready for college.

Here is a good quote I just ran across that I think sums the whole debate of creationism versus evolution in school:

“Science is facts; just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science.” – Henri Poincare

Seeing that quote is actually what prompted me to make this post.

I’d like to make an additional note regarding this case. Justice Scalia, in his dissent, showed he really doesn’t care as much for original intent as he claims he does in other cases and his public speeches. He says in several places that determining original intent is nearly impossible.

  • “discerning the subjective motivation of those enacting the statute is, to be honest, almost always and impossible task.”
  • “legislative histories can be contrived and sanitized, favorable media coverage orchestrated, and postenactment recollections conveniently distorted.”
  • “determining the subjective intent of the legislators is a perilous enterprise.”

Fun stuff. 😉

John Edwards and Obama both call for an Open Media For The 21st Century

Posted on by
Reply

I need to say that John Edwards understands America’s communications policy needs. He’s been open for months about his thoughts regarding what he calls Open Media. Now Obama has picked up on Edwards’ message and has introduced his own policy guideline/pledge and tied an open media to innovation and the economy. I like the sound of what both say. I can only hope it isn’t just smoke and mirrors.

John Edwards for President-One America, Many Voices: Open Media For The 21st Century
“The basis of a strong democracy is a diverse and dynamic media. It’s time to take away the corporate media bullhorn and let America’s many voices be heard.” â?? John Edwards

  • Fighting Media Concentration
  • Restoring the Public Interest to the Public Airwaves
  • Building a Universal, Affordable Internet
  • Keeping an Open Internet
  • Tuning in Thousands of Communities with Low Power Radio

Barack Obama ’08 Blog: Obama rolls out innovation agenda
â??I will take a backseat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality. Because once providers start to privilege some applications or web sites over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out, and we all lose. The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history. We have to keep it that way.â? – Barack Obama

  • Ensure the Full and Free Exchange of Information through an Open Internet and Diverse
    Media Outlets

    • Protect the Openness of the Internet
    • Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership
    • Protect Our Children While Preserving the First Amendment
    • Safeguard our Right to Privacy
  • Create a Transparent and Connected Democracy
    • Open Up Government to its Citizens
    • Bring Government into the 21st Century
  • Deploy a Modern Communications Infrastructure
    • Deploy Next-Generation Broadband
  • Employ Technology and Innovation to Solve Our Nationâ??s Most Pressing Problems
    • Lower Health Care Costs by Investing in Electronic Information Technology Systems
    • Invest in Climate-Friendly Energy Development and Deployment
    • Upgrade Education to Meet the Needs of the 21st Century
    • Create New Jobs
    • Modernize Public Safety Networks
  • Improve Americaâ??s Competitiveness
    • Invest in the Sciences
    • Make the R&D Tax Credit Permanent
    • Reform Immigration
    • Promote American Businesses Abroad
    • Ensure Competitive Markets
    • Protect American Intellectual Property Abroad
    • Protect Intellectual Property at Home
    • Reform the Patent System

I haven’t seen any similar commitments from the Republican candidates.

Comcast to FCC: Network neutrality is DEAD

Posted on by
Reply

Comcast has decided to make its case against network neutrality by hindering bit torrent downloads. The problem with its policy is that the debate is far from over and this move will anger customers who are likely to have other options for broadband.

Comcast blocks some Internet traffic – Yahoo News

NEW YORK – Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.

The interference, which The Associated Press confirmed through nationwide tests, is the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider. It involves company computers masquerading as those of its users.

Not to mention, Comcast’s moves are underhanded and deceitful.

Comcast’s technology kicks in, though not consistently, when one BitTorrent user attempts to share a complete file with another user.

Each PC gets a message invisible to the user that looks like it comes from the other computer, telling it to stop communicating. But neither message originated from the other computer â?? it comes from Comcast. If it were a telephone conversation, it would be like the operator breaking into the conversation, telling each talker in the voice of the other: “Sorry, I have to hang up. Good bye.”

By spoofing (pretending to be another computer), Comcast is undermining the credibility of its network. Its behavior resembles that of a Chinese ISP, doing its part to maintain the Great Firewall of China, rather than an American ISP (or am I giving Comcast too much credit?). Comcast is also strengthening arguments for the FCC to label it a common carrier so it doesn’t interfere with the network traffic of its customers. Ultimately, the FCC needs to step up and slap Comcast for its spoofing, which is absolutely not in the public interest.

If Comcast wishes to limit the amount of bandwidth used by its customers, it should cap download speed and total bandwidth available for X time period. It then needs to appropriately set expectations by communicating such limits with customers and providing tools for customers to monitor their usage. The last thing it should be doing is filtering or interfering with traffic based on application type, destination, recipient, etc.

A note about Bit Torrent. It is a file sharing tool that, although used for illicit purposes, does have legitimate uses. For example, Silkroad Online, a free massively-multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), is distributed using BitTorrent. To get the game, you download a 865 MB file. Normally, you would download the game from a single server. That server would be limited by the number of simultaneous connections it has available. For sake of argument, let’s say it has 100 available connections. If 200 people try to download the same file, the first 100 will take all those connection slots. The other 100 users attempting to connect will get an error message to that effect. Each person will need to wait for a slot to free up before they can download the game. Because it takes a long time (one or two hours) for each person to completely download such a large file, those second 100 people will be waiting for quite a long time before they can begin their downloads. Making the game available as a BitTorrent distributes the game more efficiently and limits those error messages game users receive. Instead of setting up several servers to handle traffic for those few people, the company can set up a few seed computers and distribute its game to many more (theoretically, at least).

FCC to ease some broadband rules for AT&T

Posted on by
Reply

The FCC has decided to give AT&T a break and allow it to raise rates for business customers and other companies using its facilities.

FCC eases some broadband rules on AT&T | Benton Foundation

I find the FCC’s reasoning less than compelling. For example, Commissioner McDowell suggests the deployment of wireless technologies is legitimate competition for broadband.

“As competition in the broadband market continues to grow, especially through the deployment of new wireless technologies, less regulation should be required. However, many parties allege that competition in the special access market is uneven and is limited to certain urban areas, thus creating supply bottlenecks that favor incumbent local exchange carriers in the business broadband and wireless markets. Despite requests for better data to help us resolve disputes of these material facts, the Commission still has inadequate information to determine whether allegations that competition is scarce in certain segments of the special access market have merit.”

Commissioner McDowell’s statement, particularly the reference to wireless technology, makes me think the FCC doesn’t have enough data to support assertions that legitimate broadband competition exists enough to relax broadband rules for AT&T. WiFi Networks, such as Google WiFi, are available in only a few select cities, have spotty coverage areas, are testing an unproven business model. As the industry stands today, the FCC is counting chickens before they hatch if relying upon WiFi Networks as reason to relax rules for AT&T. Coffee houses, hotels, and some other service companies provide wireless access however those are limited in scope and reach, therefore not providing any real competition in broadband. And wireless Internet access via mobile phones should not be considered broadband at this stage.

The more I learn about mass communication technologies, the FCC, and the overall regulatory environment, the more I believe the conduit (wires, cables, spectrum used by wifi and satellite, etc.) should be regulated to provide full access to competition. The companies that connect to people through those conduits should each be considered common carriers. Then competitors would be guaranteed full access to the consumer and a reasonable profit margin would be guaranteed (10% sounds about right) to the owner of the conduit. Otherwise, we end up with uncontrollable monopolies that stifle innovation and ream the pocket books of consumers, neither of which are in the public interest.

Verizon Wireless, Privacy, and new Customer Agreement

Posted on by
Reply

I received a notice from Verizon that it is changing the Customer Agreement Terms and Agreement for my wireless account. Most specifically, it is changing its privacy policy to share my customer information with its “affiliates, agents, and parent companies (including Vodafone) and their subsidiaries.” Amorphous if you ask me. I’m fine with agents since those companies work on behalf of Verizon. But I wonder how they define affiliates. How many companies are included? And does that include all companies affiliated in any way with Verizon, including parties to huge marketing deals? I’d prefer it post a list to its web site, updated once or twice a year, identifying all its ‘affiliates.’

Not knowing what affiliates means, I did what any sane customer interested in limiting spam does — I opted out by calling the number provided: 800-333-9956. It was simple. It asked for my phone number, zip code, and the last four digits of my social security number. It even let me enter multiple phone numbers.

If you’re a Verizon customer, I suggest you also opt-out. That is, unless you want more snail mail to shred. 😉

U.S. Senate slams free speech

Posted on by
Reply

It seems to me that some elected representatives to the Federal government don’t respect the free speech rights of citizens to criticize government officials. Sadly, one of those is my elected representative, Dianne Feinstein.

Senate Approves Resolution Denouncing MoveOn.org Ad – New York Times

WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 â?? The Senate approved a resolution on Thursday denouncing the liberal antiwar group MoveOn.org over an advertisement that questioned the credibility of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq.

At a White House news conference, President Bush called the advertisement disgusting and said it was an attack not only on General Petraeus but also on the entire American military.

General Petraeus is a government official. As such, he is valid subject of criticism. Here, MoveOn felt it necessary to pay for an advertisement pointing out that the General has not been forthcoming to the American people in his evaluations of the war and, as policy, waters down essential statistics used to evaluate the war so things appear more rosy.

I disagree with President Bush that this is an attack on the American military. First, he’s overused and abused the “attack on the military” rhetoric. It seems that the Bush Administration categorizes every criticism of the war as an attack on the military and each soldier. Time to turn off the broken record that cries wolf. Second, criticism of the war itself and the officials leading the war does not equal an attack on the soldiers fighting the war. The attack here is levied at the policies of the military brass, particularly its leader General Petraeus, who make the decisions about how to wage this unpopular war. The ad brings up several good points regarding statements the General has made, his role in the war, and his policies that understate how many people have died. Nothing in the ad appears to criticize the ground troops. Third, the only reason the President finds the ad disgusting is because he’s directly responsible for the policies the ad criticizes the General for.

With that in mind, the Senate resolution is a travesty and violates the spirit of our Constitution, if not the actual text. It is irresponsible for the Senate to consider rebuking any critique of how the government operates, no matter how crude, rude, indecent, or obnoxious it gets. The First Amendment was enacted specifically to give citizens the freedom to criticize the government. The Founding Fathers themselves had a nasty habit of criticizing the English Crown when it was their government and felt it prudent to explicitly provide free speech rights to all when creating their fledgling government.

I am not a member of MoveOn, have never given it money, and don’t really like its tactics. That said, it is the right of the MoveOn membership to criticize our military leaders for their policies and statements.

Also covered in: The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times.

Suggested reading: Animal Farm

USC Enforces Guidelines for Vendors

Posted on by
Reply

I’m proud of USC (my alma mater) for taking steps to help ensure companies working on behalf of the school creating USC branded products are socially responsible. I hope that other universities follow SC’s lead.

USC Enforces Guidelines for Vendors

USC has implemented a strict new requirement of vendors supplying USC licensed products for retail: Conduct an audit or lose your contract with the university.The guidelines â?? among the strongest in the nation for higher education â?? are meant to ensure that companies with which the university does business are socially responsible in regards to workersâ?? rights.
…

Prior to implementing this new initiative, USC had about 250 vendors on its licensed retail product rolls â?? creating everything from USC-branded mustard (for tail-gate parties) to clothing at the USC bookstore. This past summer, the university dropped 88 vendors after the firms failed to sign agreements to produce independent audits to ensure decent conditions for workers creating the products.

An indecent Fox in the hen house

Posted on by
Reply

By now, you’ve probably heard that Fox’s censors were kept busy during the Emmy awards, though they were a little too trigger happy. It appears to me that Fox making a big fat statement that it intends to over-censor if the indecency laws aren’t changed. I’ll bet Fox conveniently chose to take its stand during a show without an audience since Family Guy and The Simpsons have each undoubtedly made similar statements in the past.

First is Sally Field who said: “Let’s face it, if mothers ruled the world there would be no goddamn wars in the first place.”
Here is the censored version from Fox – Watch at 1:50.

Here is the uncensored version from elsewhere – watch at: 1:25

Second is Ray Romano who said: “Frasier is screwing my wife.” I could only find a copy of the censored video. The quote is found in quite a few places including SF Gate.