Cross-posted at dailykos...

How about this for some non-fuzzy-headed rhetoric on Iran for 2006?

1. Everyone acknowledges it is a dangerous situtation. Americans of all political pursuasions understand that a nuclear armed Iran has serious implications for US security and diplomacy.

2. It is also complex situation. Making good decisions in a dangerous and complex situtation requires unbiased analysis of the facts, careful planning for all contingencies, and competent execution of the plan. It also requires acknowledging that while Americans disagree about the best course of action, we all recognize the need for an honest debate.

3. Based on past experience, do you feel that the current administration would be able to assess this dangerous and complex situation without bias, plan for it effectively, and execute the plan competently?

4. Based on past experience, do you feel that the current administration will honestly present the situation to the American public (even allowing for the protection of sensitive and classified information)?

5. Do you believe that a strong independent congress can and should assert itself to demand from the administration better and more transparent decisions that are in the interests of American citizens and the brave men and women who defend the country?

5. Based on past experience, do you believe that the current congress has demonstrated strength and independence? Or do you, like many people, believe that the the current congress has too often served as a rubber stamp when close scrutiny was required. 6. Do you, like many people, see the current congress operating not in the interests of citizens and soldiers, but rather in the interests of lobbyists and large corporations like Halliburton?

Most Americans, including many who voted Republican in the past will answer these questions honestly to themselves. And when they do, they will see that it is time to put some grown-ups in charge of congress!

Posted at January 16, 2006 10:04 AM in response to Say Anything

I meant to reply to this post, but accidentally posted here.

Hope it's helpful.

Posted at July 28, 2005 10:27 AM in response to Another Voice For A La Carte

I havent really thought this issue through and through, but you've been mentioning it (since pre-tpm days), could you point out some site/articles that talk about this in some detail?

Here are a few very readable discussions that people might find interesting. They all have links to more information.

Ernest Miller covered

some relevant issues

on his blog last year and also pointed to

this post by Tyler Cowen
.
The previous link also links to this post by Tyler Cowen. Arnold Kling also has

this short observation.

For something a bit longer, try this excellent piece by Andrew Odlyzko. And for something much longer, the book "Information Rules" by Carl Shapiro and Hal Varian is probably a good source.

The take-away message from these sources seems to be that bundling content together as cable providers do allows them to practice a form of price discrimination, which is not only in the providers' interest, but also increases overall welfare. Note that 'welfare' in the previous sentence refers to a fairly narrow economists definition of welfare that says, e.g., getting two things for the price of one is better than getting just one. This definition of welfare may be inappropriate for thinking about cable pricing issues at times. For example, Ross Douthat's observation (cited by Matt above) that ala carte pricing would help him regain the welfare lost to his weakness for channel surfing (a weakness I share) certainly implies that, for him at least, more is not necessarily better when it comes to cable channels.

Posted at July 28, 2005 10:16 AM in response to Another Voice For A La Carte