Not A Warm Fuzzy Feeling

It's interesting that we can hardly find products to buy in this country that are made here, but the tear gas canisters found on the street in Cairo say "Made in USA." No wonder much of the world distrusts us, at best.

Widely reported, see here.

Broadcast Noise

I understand that the fans play an important role at athletic events, like football and hockey games. I understand that the crowd noise can be an advantage to the home team. However, if I haven't shelled out $150 or more to see a game in person, and I'm watching it at home on TV, is it really necessary for the broadcaster to deliver all the crowd noise to my home?

I think not. If I happen to attend a game, I can bring ear plugs. If I'm at home attempting to follow the game on TV, I'm finding I can hardly hear the play by play announcers over the crowd's "white noise." It's not very enjoyable. Why can't broadcasters filter out some of the noise?

In a similar vein, is it necessary for TV shows and movies to have the background music no longer in the background? That is, why does the music so often drown out the actors?

Banks and Profits

In this recent (12/16/10) story on Marketplace, we learned that the Federal Reserve is proposing to cap fees that banks can charge retailers for purchases made with debit cards.  In the current system, retailers are charged 2% per transaction for purchases we make with debit cards, with no limit on the fee.   If you buy something for $1, the fee is about 2 cents.   If you buy something for $100, the bank collects $2, and for a $500 purchase, the bank hauls in $10.  These fees are paid by the retailer, but the cost is undoubtedly factored into the prices the retailer charges customers.

The banking industry response (via Scott Talbot, chief lobbyist for an industry trade association) to the proposal is to threaten to make up the lost profits in other ways:

As the banks that are involved in the transaction are unable to recoup their costs for operating this service and allowing merchants to accept debit cards, we're worried that those costs will be shifted down to the consumers.
He says some debit cards may soon charge annual fees. Others may charge a fee for each debit card transaction.

So Mr. Talbot says that with a cap on the fees, banks will be "unable to recoup their costs."  Most of these transactions are electronic, so is Talbot implying that the transaction costs change for a $1 purchase vs. a $100 purchase?  If so, I'd love to hear more about how that works.  If not, and I suspect that it does not, Talbot and his banks can whine somewhere else about how they're going to continue to fund their multimillion dollar bonuses and unconscionable profits.  

Every few years, banks go through cycles in which they decide that the small balance accounts are not generating enough profit and those customers lose their free accounts.  These less profitable customers are simply forced out of the bank to find banking services elsewhere.  Threatening that banks will start raising other fees doesn't impress me.  They've already done that in response to the financial reform law last year.

Banks (mostly) have no loyalty to customers, so we customers will gladly take our business elsewhere when they start charging annual fees for debit cards.

A Lesson Never Learned

Time after time, Americans experience tragic shootings in which dozens of people are killed by gun violence.  Time after time, we have "memorial" services and "pray" for some intangible "peace."   Time after time, we are confronted with another shooting and we still do nothing to stop the madness.  

Cartoonist RJ Matson captures the process:

Murders In Arizona

The State that prides itself in having citizens routinely carrying loaded weapons around, experienced multiple murders today at a shopping center.  The target was Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford, who was critically injured, while several others, including a 9 year old girl and a Federal judge, were killed.   The NY Times, as well as every other newspaper in the country, has a detailed report.  It contains a rather remarkable comment by the Tucson Sheriff, on a possible cause for the shootings.  As reported by numerous outlets, including the Huffington Post, Sheriff Dupnik told reporters:

"When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government. The anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous," said the sheriff. "And unfortunately, Arizona I think has become sort of the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry... All I can tell you is that there's reason to believe is that this individual may have a mental issue. And I think that people who are unbalanced are especially susceptible to vitriol."

Well said, Sheriff, well said.

Filibuster Reform - Again

Reform of the US Senate's filibuster is back on the "to-do" list for the Senate (see my 10/5/10 post on this topic). While still holding a majority in that House of Congress, Democrats need to do something strong to reduce the Party of No's (PON) frequent use of this technique to stall debate and action in the Senate.  See my list of filibuster votes near the bottom of this page.

Some Democrats are attempting to change the rules to more closely follow the original filibuster procedure, which required the person blocking some action to hold the floor of the Senate and talk, for hours or days if needed. Under current rules, the filibuster can be invoked by merely threatening to block action. The Credo Action lobbying group provides examples of how this technique was used in recent years:

The filibuster is why health care reform didn't contain a public health care option similar to Medicare; it's why no meaningful climate legislation was passed; why even non-controversial judges were denied confirmation despite a crisis in the judiciary; and why even the bipartisan DREAM Act wasn't even brought to the floor.

The proposed changes are not perfect, but they're a step in the right direction.

Sens. Udall, Merkley and Harkin have proposed a number of provisions to limit the ability of the Republicans to game the rules and bring the Senate to a grinding halt. Their proposal includes:

1. Making those who filibuster actually stay on the floor and talk, like Jimmy Stewart in the famous scene of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
2. Reducing the opportunities to filibuster
3. Expediting the nominations process for relatively uncontroversial nominees
4. Eliminating secret holds

For whatever good online petitions do, this one is worthwhile. Anyone who believes in the democratic process should support this effort.