Political Irony

NBC has an interesting article “A New Kind of Gridlock: Why Congress Is More Broken Than Ever“. I’m usually skeptical about articles like this, because we are always seeing people claim that things are getting worse, when in general, things are actually getting mostly better. The number of wars is going down, tolerance for other races and sexual identities is going up, we are getting rid of stupid victimless laws, like the ones that were putting people in jail just for smoking marijuana.

But the article does make a good point. Here’s the first paragraph:

Yes, Congress has typically been divided over ideology (liberal vs. conservative) or geography (North vs. South, big states vs. small ones). And, yes, partisan flare-ups in the summer of an election year are hardly new. But here is why this Congress appears more broken than past ones: It can’t even seem to do the small, bipartisan things anymore. Case in point is the legislative dysfunction surrounding the responses to 1) the unaccompanied minors crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, and 2) reforming the VA hospitals across the country. Almost every member — Democratic or Republican — said the situation at the border was a humanitarian crisis that needed a response. But passing emergency spending (between $2 to $4 billion in aid) has become such a difficult lift, and looks less likely by the day. Last month, every member of Congress said VA hospitals needed to better serve veterans, and the Senate (by a 93-3 vote) and House (426-0) passed legislation to reform these hospitals. But they’ve been unable to come together in a conference committee to reconcile the two bills. Folks, we’re not talking about overhauling the nation’s health-care system, enacting comprehensive immigration reform, raising taxes, or changing entitlement programs — all of which have sparked fierce ideological battles in the past. We’re talking about the small stuff, actions that either have near-universal support or that cost relative drops in the federal budget. That’s why this gridlock is different.

And indeed, even the Wall Street Journal is pointing out that as Congress adjourns for the entire month of August, they have accomplished almost nothing so far.

As an executive at a public affairs firm put it “We’ve reached the point in Washington where compromise is the equivalent of collaborating with the enemy,” thanks in part to election-year dynamics. “You’ve got everybody jockeying for position and they’d rather have issues than solutions.”

When did win-win become a filthy word in Washington?

Stephen Colbert is brilliant, just brilliant:

Yes, that’s twice this week I’ve done postings about Sarah Palin. But I have an explanation: with all the mess and bad news both internationally and domestically, we need some comic relief.

You can’t get a much better example of why American business sucks.

Forbes magazine just published an article “5 Reasons Why You Should Admire Comcast“. If I didn’t know better, I would think it was satire, but it isn’t.

First, the article is so full of misinformation it isn’t even funny.

Like one of their reasons to admire Comcast is because they have made lots of money while “waging war on competitors like Time Warner”. Hmmm, so that’s why when Comcast recently applied for federal permission to merge with Time Warner they claimed that it was OK because Time Warner is not a competitor because their service areas don’t overlap.

Or when the article spins the recording that went viral of one of Comcast’s customer-service representatives who the article admits was a “over-zealous, super-aggressive maniac”. But they spin this example of extremely bad customer service to try to claim that “Comcast stands behind their employees” because they “defended him, saying that he was only doing what he was trained to do”. Well, except that Comcast didn’t defend the employee in public. That statement was internal and was leaked to Consumerist by other disgruntled employees. Or as Consumerist put it:

If your only evidence of Comcast “standing behind its employees” is a memo that was leaked by employees who don’t feel supported by the company, you’re standing on shaky ground.

Second, the article paints an incredible picture of what is wrong with American business. They applaud because “Comcast is a ruthless, competitive, take no prisoners tech company… and good for them.” Their evidence of this? “They are employing teams of lobbyists, marketing experts and PR consultants whose job is to persuade us that the growth of their company is good for America and not anti-competitive.” Is this what we see as a successful, admirable company? Yes, this article even praises Comcast because “They are fighting the net neutralists, battling the press” all while not really competing against Time Warner and Verizon.

But the really ironic part is this:

We hate them because of their success and power over us. And we’re jealous of them – just like we’re jealous of the reach, power and success of Microsoft, Apple, Google and the like. But I have to admit – I admire their success. … Aren’t they the example of what a successful tech company is all about?

Again as Consumerist points out, Comcast operates a regional monopoly. Unlike Comcast:

Consumers aren’t told “you must have an iPhone if you live in this ZIP code” or “your only choice for video game consoles in this city is Xbox.”

Most customers of Comcast have no alternatives for cable or high-speed internet. This is competition?

And this is also an indictment of American media. Why did Forbes print this? Did Comcast pay them? Is a monopoly that overcharges their customers, gives them bad service, and then treats them extremely poorly their idea of what business should be? I hope not, because if it is we are asking for trouble.