Letter from Senator Edwards to FCC's Powell

May 28, 2003

The Honorable Michael K. Powell
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

Dear Chairman Powell:

I write to urge you not to increase the national
broadcast ownership cap and not to proceed with the
rulemaking scheduled for June 2.

Diversity in the media is enormously important to our
democracy. As consumers, Americans should have
choices in the music they can hear and the television
programs they can watch. As citizens, Americans
should have access to different ideas and points of
view. The government has a responsibility to foster
this diversity of expression. Unfortunately, the
FCC�s new rules are likely to undermine it.

The effects on rural America could be particularly
harmful. People in rural communities and small-town
America have distinctive interests, and local stations
offer programming that responds to these interests. In
recent years, local stations in rural North Carolina
have offered prime-time broadcasts of Atlantic Coast
Conference basketball games, Billy Graham crusades,
and muscular dystrophy telethons. All Americans can
appreciate the importance of offering local
programming tailored to local concerns. By
undercutting this diversity, the FCC�s new rules will
do a disservice to all Americans.

I have heard you suggest that with the growth of cable
and satellite television, broadcast diversity is no
longer important. That may be true in some affluent
communities, but many Americans do not have cable and
satellite television, especially in rural areas.
These Americans depend on broadcast news and
programming, and their programming should offer real
choices that are responsive to their interests.

I am especially troubled that your agency is
implementing these proposals without permitting
further public discussion. The FCC does not have a
mandate to make controversial decisions without giving
the public a full opportunity to comment. The fact
that two Commissioners have requested a delay should
signal to you that the prudent course, at the least,
is to postpone the vote and permit open public
discussion.

Thank you for you consideration of this request.



Yours sincerely,
John Edwards

cc: Commissioners Abernathy, Adelstein, Copps, and
Martin

..via Lessig's blog, but i'll try to get a direct link as well.

I'm about three months behind in wading through the weeklies that came to my door over the spring. Hence, i am only now wanting to point all interested eyes to the Paul Berman article from the New Republic- coming from the issue on liberalism and power.
Its...really good. No way I can say much more than that. It grounds some of the dissenting views on Bush's handling of the modern era in philisophical context. I reckon i'll find an example...
"In arguing that liberal democracy would, in fact, endure, Lincoln did not invoke any kind of external or more-than-human force--the power of God, perhaps, or of providence. Nor did he cite the practical advantages of Northern industrialization and economic power or the size of the Northern population or some other material fact. Nor did he ruminate on "human perfectibility," in Tocqueville's mocking phrase. Lincoln considered that the United States was going to endure because it chose to do so--because of an act of will: "We here highly resolve"--that was his message."
...
"Right now, we need to summon people around the world to express a "devotion" (in Lincoln's word) to liberal ideals--a devoted enthusiasm for those ideas among the schoolteachers in every impoverished immigrant suburb of Europe, among the editors in every Arab newspaper office, and among the professors in every Muslim university. We need the cooperation of millions of people, who, in their idealism, will rush out to argue with their own students and neighbors and readers. But the U.S. government, which knows how to twist the arms of Turkish politicians, does not know how to inspire the schoolteachers and newspaper editors and professors, not to mention the European masses, not to mention the American masses. Worse, the American leaders don't even try to inspire people around the world, which is shocking to see, considering that our current problem is 90 percent political and only 10 percent military."

These snipets, I know, are merely that...but I hope a hint is given for the fun of this piece. Go read...

That old worn-out class issue...pooh
As the tax cut is signed, we might pause to remember Krugman's recent words:
"But balancing the books without tax increases will require deep cuts where the money is: that is, in Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
The pain of these benefit cuts will fall on the middle class and the poor, while the tax cuts overwhelmingly favor the rich. For example, the tax cut passed last week will raise the after-tax income of most people by less than 1 percent � not nearly enough to compensate them for the loss of benefits. But people with incomes over $1 million per year will, on average, see their after-tax income rise 4.4 percent."
As the AP says today,
"Democrats also have criticized the package as a giveaway to the wealthy, stressing its cuts on taxes on capital gains and corporate dividends rather than its lower income tax rates and increases in the federal child credit. Frist dismissed that emphasis as "the old, worn-out, tired, class warfare issue."

Ah yes...the old worn out class warfare issue.

Hearing that GOP line everytime a person tries to point out this cut's disparate imapact sounds to me like defending a suspect Caligula policy with:
"oh...that old, worn out, tired, 'crazy-emporer' issue."

Abortion:

Michael Dorf has another good article on FindLaw today. The jist is this: we ought not cloud the debates on fetus status, and whether a crime should carry harsher penalties where a fetus is destroyed with the abortion debate.
Here are some tidbits:
"In my judgment, the pro-choice movement ought actually to support strict laws against feticide. The whole point of an abortion right, after all, is that a pregnant woman--not the state or anyone else--decides whether to have an abortion. A woman who plans to give birth, but is attacked by someone who kills her fetus in the process, is violently deprived of the right to choose not to have an abortion.
Certainly pro-choice activists would oppose government-mandated sterilization. For similar reasons, they should support punishing feticide.
...
There are two satisfactory answers to the worry that supporting anti-feticide laws undermines Roe.
First, laws treating feticide as murder do not need to define fetuses as persons. California's law is illustrative. It defines murder as the killing of a human being or a fetus.
Second, there is nothing especially troubling about permitting the law to define the word "person" differently for different purposes. Statutes routinely define various words, including "person," so that they will mean exactly what the legislature intends in a particular context."

There's much more, so follow the link to read the entirety.
I'm glad that Dorf offers to both sides the notion that a fetus might carry different meanings in different circumstances. However, such argument, I'm guessing, will only carry weight with those that do indeed think that a fetus can mean different things...other than a living person status.
Through my worldview, this is the case- a fetus is not yet a living human until some unknown point during pregnancy. (As an agnogstic on the meaning of life, the "unknown point" is up for debate.) But for most anti-abortion folks, there's no such question on the status of a fetus- and thus this argument can't morally be appreciated; in that, if life begins with conception, there is no room for a definition other than murder. (I hope to get feedback, though, on whether Dorf's legal argument can be appreciated form this perspective.)

I'm with Safire (yeah, Safire):
In his opinion today, I'd have to say Safire puts some good language to the huge issue and the huge bypassing of said issue- the media rules upcoming from the fcc. And i like that he starts the essay with a nod to North Carolina's gift to the FCC- the FCC's Sandra Day O'Conner, Mr. Martin:
"His name is Kevin Martin. He and his wife, Catherine, now Vice President Dick Cheney's public affairs adviser, are the most puissant young "power couple" in the capital. He is one of three Republican members of the five-person Federal Communications Commission, and because he recently broke ranks with his chairman, Michael Powell (Colin's son), on a telecom controversy, this engaging North Carolinian has become the swing vote on the power play that has media moguls salivating."
Safire, as has been Eric Alterman, Atrios, Eschaton, and almost every other blog i read, is wondering where the uproar is...and then realizing no one in the popular media is reporting no the upcoming change.
"Must broadcasters of news act only on behalf of the powerful broadcast lobby? Are they not obligated, in the long-forgotten "public interest," to call to the attention of viewers and readers the arrogance of a regulatory commission that will not hold extended public hearings on the most controversial decision in its history?"

Ah, but i save the best for last. Safire takes a break in the middle of his write-up to respond to the obvious question: aren't you a conservative? how come you're siding with the dmocratic members on the FCC here?
"Does that sound un-conservative? Not to me. The concentration of power � political, corporate, media, cultural � should be anathema to conservatives. The diffusion of power through local control, thereby encouraging individual participation, is the essence of federalism and the greatest expression of democracy."
At the risk of sounding patrioniz-istic, i really enjoyed that bit. It seems Safire recognizes that Republicans don't match consistantly to an idea of conservativism in the same way democrats so often stray from progressivism. And such inconsistency, i would assert, is perfectly ok. but that's another story.

Sorry for the recent absence. Been on the move lately celebrating the finish of two thirds of my graduate work. yeehaw. but back to the news.
It seems important that if we are to gain the real vood that is possible in iraq, we've got to stay atuned to the place. Tom Friedman worries we are "Bored With Baghdad � Already," and i share his fear. He writes:
"I am sure things will improve. But after traveling around central Iraq, here's what worries me: The buildup to this war was so exhausting, the coverage of the dash to Baghdad so telegenic, and the climax of the toppling of Saddam's statue so dramatic, that everyone who went through it seems to prefer that the story just end there. The U.S. networks changed the subject after the fall of Baghdad as fast as you can say "Laci Peterson," and President Bush did the same as fast as you can say 'tax cuts.'
...
"Iraqis are an exhausted people. Most seem ready to give us a chance, and we do have a shot at making this a decent place � but not with nation building lite. That approach is coming unstuck in Afghanistan and it will never work in Iraq. We've wasted an important month. We must get our act together and our energy up. Why doesn't Mr. Rumsfeld brief reporters every day about rebuilding Iraq, the way he did about destroying Saddam?
America is in an imperial role here, now. Our security and standing in the world ride on our getting Iraq right. If the Bush team has something more important to do, I'd like to know about it. Iraq can still go wrong for a hundred Iraqi reasons, but let's make sure it's not because America got bored, tired or distracted."

This seems to me a sensible article. We all know Friedman has supported this war- but with the carefully pronounced caveat that his support was for the ideal carrying out of the war that Friedman laid out over several op-eds; namely, he bought into the grand scheme notion that this could trigger progressive/secular governments in the mid-east. (If you disagree regarding my interp of Friedman, please comment).
Now I see Friedman saying "uh oh...will we really go through the tough work to carry out my ideal?" One need only click over to Altercation today (see link to right) to hear the "i told you so's ringing out."

Here's an important article: The China Syndrome; it is Krugman's take on the media. Included are discussion of upcoming FCC deregulation and the problems of huge corporation media.

DO IT NOW:
Go to MoveOn.org and sign an online petition to stop the FCC's proposed deregulations. Need something to be worried about?
"The rule changes could allow your local TV stations, newspaper, radio stations, and cable provider to all be owned by one company. NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox could have the same corporate parent. The resulting concentration of ownership could be deeply destructive to our democracy.
When we talk to Congresspeople about this issue, their response is usually the same: "We only hear from media lobbyists on this. It seems like my constituents aren't very concerned with this issue." A few thousand emails could permanently change that perception. Please join us in asking Congress and the FCC to fight media deregulation."
You have the link.

Well, at least we secured the oil?!

Here's some pretty disturbing news:
"TWO VERY SUSPICIOUS trailer rigs turned up last week in Mosul. The Pentagon called them mobile bio-labs. Maybe, but although they �looked like a duck and walked like a duck,� as one U.S. officer put it, they didn�t quack. The first of the huge, truck-drawn labs, intercepted at a roadblock, had been swabbed clean. The other, discovered Friday, was stripped by looters before U.S. troops found it. So far there�s a lot more belli than casus.
Looters outran the WMD hunters almost every time. �Once a site has been hit with a 2,000-pound bomb, then looted, there�s not a lot left,� says Maj. Paul Haldeman, the 101st Airborne Division�s top NBC officer. In the rush to Baghdad, Coalition forces raced past most suspected WMD sites, and looters took over."
My very suspicious concern is this: Our troops were being very careful to cover all tracks- but, as the sluggish pace of a careful war increasingly looked bad on American TV, the US (per someone's decision) decided to skip over the careful work of containing Iraq and charged straight into Baghdad in order to show clearly just how string we are. While the show of muscle worked (the media went from wondering in the critical sense to wondering in the ohh ahh sense as it watched our troops pull down statues and our president play Hollywood), i wonder if the haste will cost us. Did we skip over WMD sites in order to get on to Baghdad? That's just me being an armchair cynic...but one wonders.
In any event, I am convinced that we had cause to be alarmed that weapons were being pursued by Iraq. Because of that serious concern, I supported an inspection regime that, even if it failed to effectively oust Hussein, would effectively make him impotent. With war comes chaos. It is quite predictable that unsecured WMD sites would scatter into the winds. They have. We are in more danger for it. Thanks Bush.

Byrd's Words

'This is the speech delivered by Senator Byrd on the floor yesterday.
A glimpse:
"As I watched the President's speech, before the great banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," I could not help but be reminded of the tobacco barns of my youth, which served as country road advertising backdrops for the slogans of chewing tobacco purveyors. I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw.
...War is not theater, and victory is not a campaign slogan. I join with the President and all Americans in expressing heartfelt thanks and gratitude to our men and women in uniform for their service to our country, and for the sacrifices that they have made on our behalf. But on this point I differ with the President: I believe that our military forces deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, and not used as stage props to embellish a presidential speech."

Go read the entirety.

It is nice to know that our administration has its plans so well set out. Thank goodness they secured the oil fields in order to hand them over to Halliburton with some non-competitive contracts.
"The Army Corps of Engineers has said a contract awarded without competition to a subsidiary of Halliburton Co. basically gives the company the power to run all phases of Iraq's oil industry.
U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., who asked for more details on the Halliburton contract, said, "It now appears ... that the contract with Halliburton -- a company with close ties to the administration -- can include 'operation' of Iraqi oil fields and 'distribution' of Iraqi oil."

Indeed:
"Officials previously had said the multimillion-dollar contract dealt only with putting out oil well fires and performing emergency repairs as needed.
But responding to Waxman, Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said the company would: put out oil well fires and assess the facilities; clean up oil spills or other environmental dangers at the sites; repair or reconstruct damaged infrastructure; operate facilities; and distribute products."

Truth Matters

while you're at the Times site, don't miss Kristof on why we should care about the WMD search. An apt title, Missing in Action: Truth. Why?
"[Because it does matter, enormously, for American credibility. After all, as Ari Fleischer said on April 10 about W.M.D.: "That is what this war was about."
Moreover, i commend to you Mr. Hersh's work on the topic. A comprehensive "history" of a "small group of eight or nine people made the case and won."
The group? " They call themselves, self-mockingly, the Cabal�a small cluster of policy advisers and analysts now based in the Pentagon�s Office of Special Plans. In the past year, according to former and present Bush Administration officials, their operation, which was conceived by Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, has brought about a crucial change of direction in the American intelligence community."
What did they "win?" "By last fall, the operation rivalled both the C.I.A. and the Pentagon�s own Defense Intelligence Agency, the D.I.A., as President Bush�s main source of intelligence regarding Iraq�s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction and connection with Al Qaeda." (the president's ears)
Why does it matter? Read the article.
But back to Kristof. As my pops mentioned in conversation last night, it is sickening to watch both the President and hopeful-Lieberman repeat the same schtick that the US was directly threatened (presumably by weapons that Iraq would have no hesitation sending our way.) Indeed, Bush, and I assume Lieberman would chime in, was happy to let us assume that inaction would likely lead to a mushroom cloud somewhere over America. Well. I'll strap on a helmet and join the fight faster than Bush can hitch a ride to an aircraft carrier if that's the case.
But...was that the case? If not, (indeed even if there were quiet doubts) then it disturbes me that our leaders would assert something so confidently for the sole purpose of spooking us into support for the war. (and knowing that once it went by fairly quickly, we'd stop caring about the justification and only about images of toppled tyrants. remember, most voters don;t have to deal with angry diplomats and foreign relations.)
In sum, as Kristof writes, invoking a bit of history:
"The C.I.A. was terribly damaged when William Casey, its director in the Reagan era, manipulated intelligence to exaggerate the Soviet threat in Central America to whip up support for Ronald Reagan's policies. Now something is again rotten in the state of Spookdom."

Paul Krugman is so good, I may just have to link to everything he writes.

Affirmative Action and the War in Iraq
That's an empty header- but trust me, it'll make sense. There's a fine comment in FindLaw today that addresses the argument that affirmative action is morally equivalent to racist policies of old; to wit, Jim Crow laws. The article makes an analogy to the reasoning used by dissenters of American action in Iraq; arguing that the US violation of international law in attacking Iraq (if you dispute that, leave a comment and i'll get you a link) is morally equivalent to Iraq's violations of international law (if you dispute that, you read no news). The moral of the story is that both reasonings are wrong.
Here is Justice Thomas:
"I believe there is a "moral [and] constitutional equivalence" between laws designed to subjugate a race and those that distribute benefits on the basis of race in order to foster some current notion of equality."
and you've heard the arguments on Iraq: 'how can we justify invading Iraq because they've violated international law when in fact we will violate international law in such invasion?'
The problem is this, according to Amar and Brownstein (authors of article):
"Put simply, there is no moral or legal equivalence here. Suggesting there is shows only the arguer's myopia - the failure to look at purpose, intent, or effect, when a parallel is drawn. In this case, oversimplification - looking at one parallel but ignoring huge dissimilarities - leads to gross injustice."
And this problem exists for both the anti-affirmative action argument and the anti-war with Iraq argument.
Go read the article. I think it's main thesis is a need to judge these issues on government intent as opposed to a "myopic" analogizing.

Cause for Suspicion?
Eric Alterman: Altercation discusses the US failure to secure nuclear waste depositories in Iraq.
" How is an Iraqi radioactive waste repository like a museum of ancient Iraqi relics?

Answer: The U.S. invasion force can�t be bothered to look into protecting either one. Remember Iraq�s nukes and WMDs? Well, apparently it was all a big joke; something for suckers to get worked up about while Bush and company went to war for their own reasons. How else to explain that the U.S. military did not bother to inspect this Iraqi radioactive waste repository for an entire month, letting whoever wanted to have access to its potentially terroristic weapons? �Authorities could not rule out the possibility that deadly materials had been stolen� reports The Washington Post. They just didn�t think it important enough to check when it might have been possible to protect them"

Friedman in the Sunday Times:
I was worried this op-ed would only repeat some of Friedman's discussion on the nation-building project ahead of us in Iraq- but for whatever reason, the article put together thoughts in a nice way, very balanced.
My confusion, though, is this- Friedman's primary point is that this is not the time to abandon Iraq. Clear enough. But his analogy is of parents- Dems and Repubs should not "divorce" now. But later, he stresses the need for a clear, Democratic alternative to the Conservative's plans:

"This administration, with its deep mistrust for diplomacy and diplomats, may be way too ideological and Pentagon-centric for nation-building. We need alternative voices. What is the Democratic view on the proper role of the U.N. or NATO in rebuilding Iraq? How much emphasis do Democrats believe the U.S. should put into the Arab-Israeli peace process to support peace in Iraq? Is a principled and muscular internationalism now the private property of the Republican Party?"

So Democrats should feel free to "divorce" from the Bush plan- in order to construct their own plans, right?
"One senses, though, that liberals so detest Mr. Bush that they refuse to acknowledge the simple good that has come from ending Saddam's tyranny � good for Iraqis and good for America, because it will inhibit other terrorist-supporting regimes. Have no doubt about that. If Democrats' whole analysis of this war is determined by whether or not it helps Mr. Bush, then they are never going to play the role they must play � constructive critics of how we rebuild Iraq."

I think the point is that Democrats should not be overly concerned with how their position on Iraq will play out in the press. I fully agree.
But not all the Dems are so concerned. John Edwards, for instance. More, maybe, in him later.
Finally though, Friedman points out the problem of oversimplification.
"We have not fully liberated Iraq yet � we have created the conditions for its liberation. That is still hugely significant. But the feelings of Iraqis right now are a jumble of liberation, hope and gratitude, mixed with anxiety, humiliation, fear of lawlessness, fear of one another, grief for sons killed in the war and suspicion of America. Conservatives, though, are so intent on proving George Bush right and liberals wrong � so the Bush team can drive its radical right agenda at home � they have rushed to impose a single liberation story line on this much more complex reality."

If we have a media that allows such oversimplification, though, how are the Democrats ever going to present the subtle and complex ideas that are needed in times like this. Iraq presents a problem that will be solved only by such measures...ie, something beyond dragging statues around. I have confidence serious Democrats, (and well meaning Republicans) would like to present the complexities needed. I doubt the media, nor their campaign advisors, will let them.

Here is the story from American Prospect's "Tapped" with more info and links related to the post below.
I think photo ops are an inevitable part of politics. But there is a line to be drawn between photo ops and Hollywood. Rove-Bush cross(ed) the line.

How many of us think taking a helicopter out to Bush's Phot Op was impossible?

"President Bush didn't have to make a dramatic tailhook landing on this aircraft carrier. He could have flown here on a helicopter as presidents normally would, the White House said Friday....
Fleischer had said last week that Bush would have to fly out to the carrier by plane because the Lincoln would be hundreds of miles offshore, making helicopter travel impractical.

As it turned out, the ship was just 39 miles from the coast when Bush scored a presidential first by landing on the flight deck in a small S-3B Viking jet that was snared by a restraining wire. He climbed out of the cockpit wearing a flight suit and carrying a helmet under his arm and was swarmed by crew members. The scene was captured on live television and replayed again and again.
...Officials also acknowledged positioning the massive ship to provide the best TV angle for Bush's speech, with the vast sea as his background instead of the very visible San Diego coastline."
This paper reports the news, does yours?
For instance:
Here's the New York Times from the AP wires:
"Bush flew from the White House to California on Air Force One. Then, after exchanging his suit and tie for a flight suit and getting briefed on ejection procedures, he was ferried to the ship, still hundreds of miles off the California coast, by a tiny Navy plane."

Blog Watch:

Here's a new one, (for me). I've been enjoying reading "Archy" for a few weeks now. But especially today, coupled with a post from a few days ago. The posts offer the good and bad things going for the democratic party for the next presidential election.
Some of the bad news:
"Bush benefited from 9/11 to an extent that is positively obscene. He naturally benefited from the rally-around-the-leader effect. But that�s not the only advantage he gained. The attacks on top of the already weak economy, created a general sense of anxiety and insecurity in society. When people feel insecure they look for something stable. The very traits that made Bush look silly or contemptible before 9/11�his stubbornness and lack of imagination, his pompous and corny speaking style, his humorlessness�could now be recast as firmness, strength, and somberness. By constantly harping on how vulnerable we are through alerts, high profile arrests, saber rattling, and actual military action, the administration stokes that anxiety. By creating a constant state of emergency, they stifle any challenge to his actions. The �dissent equals treason� meme has been well planted in the American consciousness over the last year and a half."

And some of the good:
"The press might revolt - In 2000 the press hated Gore and took every opportunity to paint him as corrupt and insincere. While they sometimes portrayed Bush as a fool, they portrayed him as a sincere, moderate fool. Even his foolishness was sometimes spun as a sign of his just-folks simplicity. Anti-intellectualism always sells in America and in the Bush-Gore race this element was spun entirely to Bush's favor by the press.

Since then, that same press has had to put up with the administration's compulsive secretiveness, Ari Fleisher's contempt and rudeness, and the knowledge that they were used in the election. While many will no doubt continue with the "bold and decisive man for our times" storyline, there is a good chance that many will construct a new story, one that Bush may not like. The same events that have been spun as the man rising to the moment can also be spun as a tale of shameless opportunism and cynicism."

As you can see, I like his writing- read some posts for a more full picture.

Who's stronger on military issues?

Good article today gives some meat to chew on. Here's a snip:
"A memo that former Clinton hands are quietly circulating points out that the F-117 stealth fighter and the B-2 bomber programs were developed in the era of President Jimmy Carter. The Longbow Hellfire missile was tested and procured under Clinton. The Tomahawk Land Attack missile was a Carter-era program that the Clinton administration modernized and expanded."
give a read.