Those were the words of Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.) yesterday regarding the XM-Sirius plan to lease 4 percent of their radio spectrums, or 12 channels, for programming run by minorities and women. Congressman Cummings and the rest of the Black Caucus believes that number should be 20 percent. And where did they get that 20 percent figure from? The WaPo reporter helpfully explains:
[Rep. G.K.] Butterfield [(D-N.C.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus’s working group on satellite radio] said he got the idea for the 20 percent set-aside for minority-owned companies from Georgetown Partners, a minority-run private-equity firm based in Bethesda, and its managing director, Chester Davenport.
The firm, which has invested in wireless and media companies, objected last year to the merger, arguing that a monopoly could limit opportunities for minority programming.
But Davenport said that if regulators give the marriage a green light, the combined company should be required to turn over some channels to a minority-controlled entity. He said he hoped Georgetown Partners would fill that role, making it a competitor to the merged company.
But of course.
Lest anyone is naive enough to believe that Georgetown Partners is patiently waiting to jump on a major investment opportunity, grow up. Georgetown has already invested $420,000 where it counts– in lobbying. Shortly after the XM-Sirius merger was announced, Georgetown began to ramp up its spending. They were the largest campaign donor to Cummings’s Maryland colleague on the Black Caucus, Albert Wynn. Chester Davenport has personally spread $5,600 among Black Caucus members, including Chairman Butterfield, as well as over $28,500 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, all in the last year.
Butterfield said that black caucus members planned to meet today with Karmazin and Nate Davis, chief executive of XM. “We’re going to close the door and have a very honest and open dialogue about the merger,” Butterfield said.
If it’s truly honest and open, it will sound something like this:
That was pretty much the bitter rejoinder on the Irish EU vote from the former Belgian prime minister, who helped draft the original EU constitution that went down in France and Holland.
The defeat of the original constitution led to the newer, slightly stripped down version that the Irish rejected on Friday. The main differences between the Lisbon Treaty and the previously rejected EU constitution appeared to be (a) changing the name from a “constitution” to a “treaty,” and (b) preventing as best as possible its submission to a popular vote.
Unfortunately for the Eurocrats, the Irish constitution required such a vote, so at least their people had a voice in the matter.
Let’s be clear about why the Lisbon Treaty went down in flames: The people couldn’t understand it. The treaty comprised 356 amendments to the existing EU charter, as well as various other protocols, declarations, and other gobbledygook that made sense to no one outside of Brussels. So, the Irish people were forced to look to their leaders for an indication. But they couldn’t–or wouldn’t–explain what it meant. In fact, their leadershad not read it either. Instead, the people got an earful from their elected officials, and those from the rest of Europe, telling them how they had to vote. The people weighed their trust in these endorsements, and voted “No.”
The vanity of politicians is that since the people vote for them, the people must like them and believe in them. They forget that most people regard elections as an unpalatable choice.
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 8, 2008 under Politics | Comments are off for this article
I think a McCain-Obama roadshow is a great idea. The media will hate it because it greatly reduces their starring role, wherein they shake the candidates around and upside down in order to collect any sound-bites or “gotcha” moments that might fall out. What we’ll get, instead, is a discussion. Heck, the networks may not even show up for that.
If they somehow end up in 10 traditional debates/sound-bite war, I will begin to campaign for choosing our president by lot. Seriously.
Posted by Marc Hodak on June 4, 2008 under Politics | Comments are off for this article
Barack Obama had flatly rejected the idea of being Clinton’s VP during the primaries. I don’t recall that Clinton has ever rejected the idea of being Obama’s VP nominee, though most people had assumed during their battle that she wouldn’t condescend to be anyone’s VP.
In game theory, Obama’s position would be considered to border on brinkmanship. “If you want me, you’d better vote me to the top of the ticket.” Clinton’s position would be considered as hedging. “I want to be the presidential nominee, but I won’t rule out the second spot, just in case.” In a sense, Clinton’s position doesn’t seem as strong; her hedge opened up the possibility of voters who are on the fence going for Obama; that way, they might get both.
On the other hand, Clinton has known for a while now that she was likely to lose the presidential nomination. She has been arguably playing for “rebound position” since Super Tuesday, where if the shot doesn’t go into the basket, i.e., Obama has a serious slip up, or worse, she’s ready with her sharp elbows to catch the rebound. Angling for the VP slot might simply be a continuation of the rebound positioning, which could continue right through an Obama presidency.
That might work better for Bill, too. I never believed that Bill was rooting for his wife in this campaign, no matter what he said or did. His multi-million dollar earning power would be lost for the most productive period of his life. Screw that. Bill would probably find being second-husband far less constraining than first-husband.
Posted by Marc Hodak on May 30, 2008 under Politics | Comments are off for this article
Examination of a Witch, Thompkins H. Matteson, 1853
The government’s witch hunt for those behind the surge in oil prices continues. The CFTC, a regulatory agency, began its own investigation:
“The Commission is taking the extraordinary step of disclosing this investigation because of today’s unprecedented market conditions,” CFTC Acting Chairman Walt Lukken said in the statement. The Washington-based regulator, which generally conducts inquiries on a confidential basis, didn’t say when the probe will end. The CFTC did not name any companies being targeted and said details of the investigation were confidential.
Translation: “We’re publicly announcing our investigation of the oil markets because this is the most effective way for us to communicate to Congress that we’re ‘doing something’. We can’t actually tell you anything about this investigation because it’s supposed to be confidential. Actually, it’s because we’ve got nothing, but can hide that fact by claiming confidentiality. Even though we’re talking to you in front of cameras and microphones. Confidential, you see.”
Of course, this new phase of the witch hunt won’t be costless:
The regulator will require traders to give monthly reports about their index-based trading and it plans further reviews of how these traders are classified, how they report their trading activity and how they behave, according to the statement.
“(The high rate of foreclosures) is a serious problem all across Las Vegas, all across Nevada, all across the nation,” the Illinois senator said. “A lot of this wouldn’t have happened if we would have done a better job regulating banks.”
Later, talking to supporters here at the College of Southern Nevada, Obama returned to the theme, noting that McCain said early in the campaign that “economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should have.”
Obama is accusing McCain of being weak on economics? Maybe the article should have been titled “Economics, Obama campaign on different planets.” Obama is clearly failing to distinguish economics and politics.
Economics is about relationships between X and Y. For instance, it might be economically true that greater regulation of banks would have led to fewer foreclosures. On the other hand, it’s at least as possible that the degree of bank regulation had no net impact on foreclosures, or that the regulation that existed may have enhanced the likelihood of foreclosures. I can 100 percent guarantee that Obama doesn’t know which is true. He is only asserting something that sounds good to his audience. That’s politics, an area in which Obama is clearly strong. McCain at least admits he is ignorant about economics, which may or may not be good politics.
Politics is about government intervention in private decisions. Such intervention has economic consequences, but it is not itself “economics.” For instance, let’s assume that Obama is right that better bank regulation might have forestalled the mortgage crisis; two questions remain about the wisdom of such regulation. First, all government interventions–like treatments for an ill patient–have central effects and side effects. The side effects of government intervention are generally known as unintended consequences. Assuming they are known, however, it’s a reasonable question to ask if the side effects will be worse than the central effects in this instance. Second, all government action is subject to non-economic considerations. So, what makes Obama so certain that better regulation in this instance will even create the intended central effects? Maybe that’s what he means by the audacity of hope.
A steep descent brings Clinton’s plane to Charleston’s hilltop airport. After an appropriate wait, she steps from the plane and pretends to wave to a crowd of supporters; in fact, she is waving to 10 photographers underneath the airplane’s wing. She pretends to spot an old friend in the crowd, points and gives another wave; in fact, she is waving at an aide she had been talking with on the plane minutes earlier.
What most people don’t consider is the fact that this is normal, not exceptional, presidential politics. She didn’t learn to be this kind of an actor just after Indiana.
BTW, we all know where she learned the “point and wave” trick. Some people can pull it off brilliantly.
Some can’t.
Don Boudreaux had the best depiction of the what drives a person to such ignominy.
Peggy Noonan, among the finest writers alive, laments the treatment of middle-aged women by the TSA.
All the frisking, beeping and patting down is demoralizing to our society. It breeds resentment, encourages a sense that the normal are not in control, that common sense is yesterday.
Having just spent another week on the road, I will add only this: The president and his fear hawks will say “Noonan doesn’t get it. (Or, Hodak doesn’t get it.) This is a war against terrorism.”
It isn’t, Mr. President. It’s a war against your own people. Osama bin Laden created only few hundred criminals. You created a nation of criminals. As Noonan points out:
But America knows not to ask. America is guilty until proved innocent, and no one wants to draw undue attention.
2 Comments to Read 
