Liberals, Conservatives Wary of Time Warner and Comcast Merger

What could bring conservatives and liberal-leftists to, if not arm in arm cooperation, at least shouting distance agreement?  The impending merger between Time Warner and Comcast, the cable company currently ruling the NBC empire of networks.

Media Research Center's Newsbusters, a conservative media watchdog site, sounded the tocsin this week.  It warned readers that the combination of two cable giants could bring competitive benefit to Comcast's prize NBC products.  These would wield "even more influence."

Senator Al Franken, a former media figure in the employee of NBC during his years on Saturday Night Live, wrote to the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and Federal Communications Commission. Franken related his "serious reservations" about the merger.  He went on to say " Unfortunately, a handful of cable companies dominate the market, leaving customers with little choice but to pay high bills for often unsatisfactory service."

Gizmodo related larger concerns.  With cable dwindling, the size of the new conglomerate could control broadband access, since internet relies on the same wiring to get into the house.  In the short term, a near monopoly in the cable market (Gizmodo compared it to Coca Cola buying Pepsi-Cola) could enforce bad deals on not only cable channels like The Weather Channel, but also the major networks.  Fearing loss of market when television viewership as a whole is down, networks and channels could possibly be bent to the will of the new company much more easily.

Or this could be another case of Time Warner hitching itself to a fading star.

Back in what seems like a generation ago, there was once a company called AOL Time Warner.  Time Warner endeavored to combine with the most prominent name in internet providers, raising fears of media monopoly.  No one could speculate the impact of a single company across a spectrum of media.  Certainly almost no one guessed that AOL was on the verge not of omnipotence, but irrelevance. 

History may not repeat itself exactly in this case.  But the history of monopolies in a free market shows a pattern.  Monopolies, unless backed by government favor or power as in the example of the 1770s British East India company, are inherently unstable.  They act sluggishly, only innovate slowly, and usually either shrink or break apart due to pressures from competition.  

Monopolies rely on what worked in the past while ignoring the future.  IBM was fated to lose technological dominance the day it ignored Bill Gates.  Comcast's dominance of cable may be akin to a hypothetical carriage monopoly in 1900.  They may win today and be a footnote tomorrow.  

Advances in technology are the biggest enemy of monopoly and market dominance.  Giant companies fear the change that smaller companies embrace and drive. The many technological alternatives to cable render fears of a monopoly moot.  AT&T once dominated the long distance telephone market.  Had Congress not broken AT&T up in the 1980s, the internet and cell phones would have undermined their market control. Time Warner itself struggles to figure out how to make sure profits on some of its traditional holdings.  

After all, in the 21st century, Bleacher Report is worth more than the Washington Post.  It's a new day.

Conservatives worry about the possible outsized influence on media and politics of their MSNBC nemesis.  Liberals and leftists fear the old bogeyman of monopoly, this time in media form.  At the end of the day, even if this merger goes through, history shows that there will be sound and fury.  But market mechanics remain.  Consumers will demand to be satisfied, or they will turn to satellite television, the internet, or some other source even more than they do now.

In the cable TV market, the cable companies do not rule the consumer.  Increasingly, they will face the fact that they must serve the market or disappear.

Cato Institute Study Details Rise in West Virginia and Some Other States' Welfare Payouts

This week, Cato Institute released its 2013 version of "The Work Versus Welfare Tradeoff."  This study shows the growth of welfare state by state since the last time the study was undertaken almost twenty years ago.

Twenty years since the highly touted welfare reform brokered by Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress, welfare still looks like a better deal than work.  Cato says that "welfare benefits continue to outpace the income that most recipients can expect to earn from an entry level job."

In over 35 states, welfare pays more than minimum wage.  In 13, it equals a staggering $15 per hour or more.  Cato research found that welfare recipients would prefer to work, rather than receive payouts. On the other hand, they are reluctant to apply for what opportunities are available.

Cato focused its research not only on the Temporary Aid For Needy Families, or TANF.  These cash payouts tend to be relatively low.  By looking at the entire spectrum of programs, Cato saw a more complete picture of welfare's costs.

The study examines the problem from many angles.  For instance, Cato found that West Virginia's annual welfare benefit, after accounting for inflation between 1995 and 2012, rose by over $4,700 per year.  In 2012, the full welfare package equaled $27,727 in cash.

West Virginia ranked 28th on the list.  The top states and the District of Columbia paid staggering amounts, up to nearly $50,000 per year.

Not every state saw increases.  Eighteen states actually saw their payouts decline, most of these in the South and West.

West Virginia wages, however, only increased by $1,900 to $24,900 between 1995 and 2012.

Cato detailed changes in the food stamp program, housing assistance, medical assistance, and other programs when forming their conclusions.

Common Core Resistance Growing More . . . Common

Underlying themes for the rambling wreck of Obama's presidency can be hard to spot.  But one looks pretty clear.  Obama and his followers believe that the federal government can take better care of Americans than state and local governments, or even the individuals themselves.  Obamacare represents one initiative designed to yank decision-making within the beltway.  Farther under the radar lies the Common Core initiative.

Common Core attempts to create national standards of student achievement in key subjects.  It relies heavily on standardized testing to quantify learning outcomes.  

But now, several states have opted out of the program.  

Last week, Georgia joined Alabama, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Oklahoma in making the decision to use their own standardized tests instead of the common national test advocated by Common Core.  With such a large defection of key populous states from different regions, Common Core backers complain that the sampling (now at 22) will be unable to give experts a handle on what national standards ought to be.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that state education officials cited cost and efficiency in their judgment to not implement the test.  An official said “Georgia can create an equally rigorous measurement without the high costs associated with this particular test. Just as we do in all other branches of state government, we can create better value for taxpayers while maintaining the same level of quality.”

States originally signed onto the program to receive a bribery grant from the Department of Education related to the Race to the Top program.  Since receiving the money, many states have balked at certain aspects or dragged their feet.  According to a Breitbart evaluation, the tests are long, cost too much money, and assume a higher level of technology than many school systems have.

In other words, Washington education bureaucrats designed something perfect for their suburbs, but not the inner cities or backcountry districts.  

The Cato Institute accuses advocates of Common Core of purposeful silence on the issue of how deeply Washington experts were involved in establishing the standards.  They say that Common Core may be hoist by this petard.  The standards depend upon state testing participation.  If states do not participate, the system collapses.

Opposition to Common Core testing does not just come from conservative and libertarian groups.  A National Education Association delegate expressed concern over "overtesting and the diminution of instructional time."  California Teachers' Association president Dean Fogel adds his concern that "There's nobody in this room, in any town in the whole country, that doesn't understand that this high-stakes testing has raged way out of control. It's time for NEA to tell the truth and be that voice. We have to come out strong and be very clear with people that this high-stakes-testing mania has got to stop."

Why do opponents want to kill Common Core?  Besides the expense and time involved, testing in more subjective areas, such as English, could be biased against students from backgrounds different than suburban and affluent urban areas.   For example, different regions and communities have different usages of words that are still proper English, but of different usage than elsewhere.  States and local districts have a better chance of constructing a test, or different tests, fair to the students in their care

Common Core relies heavily on testing to demonstrate its effectiveness.  With opposition coming from teachers' unions and state legislatures to that very thing, national standards advocates may have to go back to the drawing board.

Or the federal government can look at its long record of failure in education  and give up its self-assumed role as guider of state and local policy.

Is PRISM Harming America's Foreign Trade? And also, what exactly is PRISM?

Last month, Britain's The Guardian and the Washington Post, via the famous/infamous Edward Snowden, reported on a mysterious government information collection program called PRISM. 

PRISM is an ongoing government effort to collect information from the internet about both foreign and domestic targets. Concerns about the collection and use of this data have produced a backlash from people and businesses around the world.  Many fear the effects, use, and possible misuse of information.

The National Security Agency somehow (it is not known how) obtains information about certain targets (it is not known who or why or how they are selected) from major internet entities, such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, and others. All three of these companies, among others, strongly deny that they have granted access to the federal government for any information collection.

According to a Washington Post summary of known information:

We know that PRISM is a system the NSA uses to gain access to the private communications of users of nine popular Internet services. We know that access is governed by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in 2008. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tacitly admitted PRISM’s existence in a blog post last Thursday. A classified PowerPoint presentation leaked by Edward Snowden states that PRISM enables “collection directly from the servers” of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and other online companies.

 It goes on to say that

The (New York) Times says that major tech companies have systems that “involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company’s servers.”
Data is “shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk,” the Times reports. The scheme is “a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data.”
A source told CNet’s Declan McCullagh that PRISM is “a very formalized legal process that companies are obliged to do.” A source — perhaps the same one — says that “you can’t say everyone in Pakistan who searched for ‘X’ … It still has to be particularized.”

Additional reporting by Cato Institute writer Julian Sanchez raises more concerns.  The law which pertains to PRISM removed the constitutionally necessary provision that a warrant must be obtained if the main target was a non citizen.  However, information collected about a US citizen in the process is allowed to be stored until someone proves that it is worthless.

The NSA itself makes the determination on the worthiness of the information.

Furthermore, information under some circumstances can be obtained and kept even if the only people involved are US citizens.

The knowns, unknowns, and what is unknown that is unknown have introduced uncertainty into the equation.  As US and foreign media scurry to gain further insight on the scope and target of the program, other countries may be setting up what defenses they can.

Companies involved in data collection and security, along with their home countries, fear intrusion by American intelligence services. At a recent panel held by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a guest speaker pointed out that some countries may follow Brazil in passing laws to protect digital information and commerce.  This measure passed by countries fearful of surveillance could backfire in restricting information to places with archaic security.

Furthermore, it is difficult to estimate how many foreign nationals may try to avoid doing business with American firms because of PRISM and the lack of understanding about it.

Most agree that speculation about PRISM is driven in part by fear of the unknown, as well as the potential for abuse.  It remains to be seen what the world's reaction will be, as well as what the full scope of the program actually is.  

Marijuana, the Conservative Movement, Republican Politics, and the Art of Thoughtful Reconsideration

Almost ten years ago, William F. Buckley penned a powerful column that reflected on a key issue of the time and the conservative movement in general.

In it, he included a powerful indictment of ossification of thought, saying "intelligent deference to tradition and stability can evolve into intellectual sloth and moral fanaticism, as when conservatives simply decline to look up from dogma because the effort to raise their heads and reconsider is too great."

At the time, he referred to the strong resistance among conservatives and Republicans to loosening the marijuana laws.  Buckley tended to oppose all of them, but most strongly advocated for the use of cannabis  for medical purposes. 

Opponents of loosening the laws on marijuana generally agree with the writer of this CNBC piece from 2010. The laws work.  They reduce consumption while supposedly preventing higher rates of drug impaired driving.  Opponents of marijuana use for medical purposes point out that such a policy could increase the incidence of recreational use.

The state of Missouri, in association with the National Crime Prevention Council, released a PDF at some unknown point that lists points of "damage" associated with use. These include lowered testosterone for men, higher testosterone for women, frustration, isolation, increased appetite, paranoia, and "exposure to illegal drug culture."

Cato Institute in 2010 reported on peer reviewed studies on marijuana use and risks.  They found that the scientific community generally concluded that marijuana, while not risk free, brings fewer problems than most other drugs.  Even most of the risk factors disappear when pot is consumed in some other way than smoking. 

Some of the "damage" listed by occasional government warnings appear questionable.  Does marijuana make some people paranoid, frustrated, and socially averse?  Or do paranoid, frustrated, and socially averse people try to self-medicate with marijuana?  It would be impossible to prove that cannabis caused these behaviors unless studies found a large sample of non users, then illegally induced them to use over a long period of time. 

Even the idea that medical users of drugs may be tempted to use them recreationally supports legalization. People will abuse medical drugs after prescribed use, no doubt.  No one argues that marijuana use is nearly as dangerous as narcotic drugs such as Oxy Contin, which have destroyed families and lives at devastating rates.


Some question keeping marijuana illegal even for recreational purposes. Critics of recreational pot use talk about reducing motivation and raise the specter of drugged driving. People foolish enough to drive around while intoxicated won't be stopped by the fact that pot is illegal.  They will just drive drunk.  And while it is definitely true that people high on pot have reduced motivation, this actually argues for its social utility.  Drunk people are more likely to leave the house than high people.

Buckley's point was that doctrinaire conservatives must keep looking at the evidence supporting or disproving principles.  Also, does support of one principle violate a more important one.

If a conservative advocates for states' rights and smaller federal government, how do federal marijuana laws fit into this picture?

If a conservative believes in maximum property rights, how can we justify the outlawing of a plant that God saw fit to put in the ground?

If conservatives define Bloomberg's health crusade and 1920s Prohibition as excesses of Progressivism, what does that say about the costs to taxpayers, society, and freedom of choice in terms of pot laws?

A cost-benefit analysis of marijuana enforcement must include the fact that states spent  $3.6 billion on enforcement in 2010 alone.  This includes the costs of arrest, incarceration, and trial. Can this money spent on mostly non violent offenders be spent in better ways, or sliced entirely from budgets?

Another problem lies in the credibility of law.  If evidence of all kinds shows an illegal substance to be less damaging than many that are legal, the law looks absurd in the eyes of the people.  Overall respect for law drops.

Since Buckley's 2004 piece, Republicans have tended to step back from the legalization debates.  Like gay marriage, the issue has an aura of inevitability.  Unlike gay marriage,  Republicans have no constituency bothered enough by pot use to push them to fervently act to prevent legalization and/or decriminalization.

Old hippies and left-liberal college students find themselves in the odd position of having their favorite cause slapped down hard by the former chief of the choom gang.  It cannot be comfortable for them to agree more with Buckley and George Will than with their idol president. 

Good politics and good policy do not always combine.  Here, the Republican Party can take a stand that can help cut budgets, increase individual liberty, and force the hand of the establishment Democratic Party.