Here are a few that may turn out a little differently than its proponents had hoped for:
Scott Cleland over at the PrecursorBlog has an interesting analysis of what the FCC’s recent Report & Order regarding Comcast’s hidden traffic management activities means to the future of Net Neutrality. While NN proponent Larry Lessig seems to think it a big success, Scott Cleland sees the order as having “reined in the net neutrality movement much more than it advanced their agenda.” I haven’t had a chance to full parse the R&O, but I suspect that Scott is right.
~
Heard this NPR story on the radio about the Bush Administration’s latest attempt to shoehorn more government regulation into private lives. This time, it wants to use the power of the government to give special rights to certain minorities bar private employers from taking any disciplinary action against an employee who claims that he doesn’t want to perform his duties because of his religious beliefs. Can we safely presume, now, that Republicans will be consistent and recognize that it’s legitimate to balance some public interest concerns against the private freedom of contract? Yes? No?
Heh.
~
There appear to be a number of people (including lots of Democrats) who support a return of the Fairness Doctrine. The short description of the Fairness Doctrine is that when a controversial subject of public importance is discussed on broadcast television, a balanced presentation is made. Now, try and clearly nail down a definition of every word in that last sentence after “when”. Kinda tough, eh? So who does it? Why, the FCC, of course! Do you see the problem? Well, lots of Dems don’t – which sort of boggles me, considering the lesson in ideological manipulation of the levers of government we’ve gotten in the past 8 years. Why would you want the government to get involved in even more censorship than it does already?
The original argument was that since they were using the public airwaves, there was a public interest obligation that justified this intervention.  Now, as a legal theory, I find that acceptable (in fact, it’s a theory that underlies a lot of regulation). But as a practical matter, it’s a really bad idea. And, apparently, it’s an idea that almost 30% of people in a recent poll would like to see extended to the Internet (and blogs, in general). Think about that.
~
Update: I figure that this is as good a place as any to put myself on the careful what you ask for hook, wrt the Obama VP selection. My own worst to first: Clinton (for many many reasons, none of which involve the question of her ability to be President). Bayh would be an awful choice (primarily for the reason noted here). Kaine doesn’t inspire me, but would be acceptable (and a good campaigner). I am surprised to find myself coming around on Biden (but still shudder at the thought of him actually being President). But I’d still like to see Brian Schweitzer (Governor of Montana) top the list.
*I know, I left off Sebelius, but I still haven’t managed to form an opinion of her.