Monthly Archives: April 2006

Interim VeepStakes

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

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’

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’

Worst President Meme in Rolling Stone

No less than Sean Wilentz has an article in Rolling Stone, asking if Bush is The Worst President in History?

You saw it here (much less well) first: Worst President Ever?. Incidentally I agree with the commentators on that earlier post that the guy to beat is Buchanan. But GWB sure is making a run for it. One attack on Iran or a good big collapse of the dollar, and we’re there, aren’t we?

Here’s one guy who is worrying that Bush will take the country down with him. When people start talking like that, it’s a crisis, isn’t it?

Posted in Discourse.net | Comments Off on Worst President Meme in Rolling Stone

E-bay Moves to the Dark Side

Here's a very interesting blog posting on why e-bay's “second chance” program is a move to the dark side.

Not Bad For a Cubicle » No such thing as a Second Chance: people have been looking for bargains and taking advantage of one another for thousands of years. What can be changed, however, is the information available to play the ebay game.

The mere existence of “Second Chance” is interesting because it indicates to me that ebay has significant enough outtrade and settlement risk issues that they’re losing a significant number of sellers, so they’ve created Second Chance as a mechanism to help sellers better mitigate settlement risk. Unfortunately, they’ve tilted the balance in favor of unscrupulous sellers in the process.

Look at the risks of Shill Bidding from the seller’s perspective. If they get too greedy, they will exceed the limit of their bidders and wind up “winning” their own auction. This costs them whatever the listing fee on the item was and they still have to re-list (and re-pay the fee), doubling their transaction cost and hope that they don’t overbid the auction again.

Now, thanks to Second Chance, ebay has effectively provided a safeguard which mitigates the risk to a greedy seller of exceeding the buyer’s maximum price. The dishonest seller can now safely discover the real winning bidder’s limit without having to double their transaction fee to obtain the information.

The sad thing about this problem is that there is an easy solution. Just add some transparency to the whole process. This would allow bidders to decide if a seller had a higher outtrade rate than they were comfortable with. Allowing the buyer to make an informed decision about whether or not a seller seemed to have an unacceptably high rate of outtrades or Second Chances would introduce a more objective mechanism than the reputational parody called feedback.

Lots more where that came from…

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on E-bay Moves to the Dark Side

I Hope He’s Exaggerating

Here’s how one local anonymous lawyer-blogger sees the Jeb Bush administration’s approach to state judicial appointments:

WANTED: ONE APPELLATE COURT JUDGE.

QUALIFICATIONS: MEMBER OF THE BAR. REPUBLICAN OR TO THE RIGHT OF REPUBLICAN. Cannot have practiced criminal defense law. Cannot have ever said anything nice about a criminal defense attorney or a defendant.

The ideal applicant will be a Judge who has never granted a motion to suppress, a JOA, or sentenced a Defendant to anything under the top of the guidelines. Having never granted a motion for a defense continuance is a plus.

Must work well with Judge Rothenberg and be willing to overlook, ignore, or explain away at least eight of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Legal research skills must be limited to the late 1700’s case law, as only those candidates that promise to apply only the original intent of the framers will be considered, especially in cases involving the internet, computers, telecommunications, or searches of automobiles.

Membership in organizations that espouse the belief that the United States Of America is a Christian Country, and that separation of church and state is an outmoded concept will receive a favorable and expedited review.

Democrats, people who read books other than the Bible, and defense attorneys need not apply.

Pay flexible based on experience.
Ask about our “per curiam affirmed” bonus program for criminal appeals!!!!

Posted in Florida | Comments Off on I Hope He’s Exaggerating