Scott McLellan on Letterman

Personally, I think Letterman is missing the point a bit, with his singular focus on Bush, Cheney and Co. The high perpetrators who currently occupy the Executive Branch have been enabled and emboldened by their counterparts in the Legislature — on both sides of the aisle. Our problems are bigger than politics; they are rooted in greed and economics.
My $0.02,
Cyril

McClellan on Letterman: We’re Screwed

By: Nicole Belle @ 2:50 PM - PDT

Download | Play Download | Play (h/t David)

Former Press Secretary Scott McClellan appeared on The Late Show with David Letterman to hawk his book, What Happened. Once again, Letterman proved that late night comedians have more testicular fortitude than any of the pundit class or corporate media for voicing what is overwhelmingly the public pulse on the Bush administration.

LETTERMAN: My feeling about Cheney–and also Bush, but especially Cheney—is he just couldn’t care less about Americans. And that the same is true of George Bush. And all they really want to do is somehow kiss up to the oil people so they can get some great annuity when they’re out of office. “There you go, Dick, nice job. There’s a couple of billion for your troubles.” ( applause ) I mean, he pretty much put Halliburton in business, and the outsourcing of the military resources to private mercenary groups, and so forth. Is there any humanity in either of these guys?

McCLELLAN: Look, I still have personal affection for the President. I can’t speak to the Vice President’s thinking that well because he’s someone that keeps things to himself and he believes in doing it his way, and he doesn’t care what anybody else thinks. He is going to do the way he feels is best—and that’s not always in the best interest of this country, as we’ve seen.

LETTERMAN: You told me backstage you thought he was a goon.

Full transcripts below the fold:

David Sirota in Oakland, June 11, 2008

Syndicated columnist and author, David Sirota will be in Oakland on Wednesday, June 11th to introduce us to his new book, “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington” (more info on this title is available here). Drop by the Rockridge Library, at 5366 College Avenue in Oakland (map). Please note that this visit with our friends from the Oakland Democracy for America Meetup in Rockridge will be held instead of our regular meeting at Luka’s on 6/11/2008.

Following is an excerpt from a review of David’s book which was provided by BuzzFlash.com:

We have known David since he worked as press secretary for then Congressman Bernie Sanders. Sanders, now a U.S. Senator from Vermont, is a big fan of BuzzFlash, and we are big fans of Sanders and David Sirota, who is now a syndicated columnist, author, and populist cheerleader working out of Denver.

Sirota is a youthful Jim Hightower, who chastises the D.C. establishment, whether Republican or Democrat, for caving into the influence of big corporate money on political decisions in the Capitol.

“The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington,” as usual is not influenced by any coziness between the author and the D.C. insiders — as is often the case, even with progressive journalists. Sirota is a true maverick, who isn’t awed by the scepters of power on Capitol Hill or in the White House. He’s cast his lot with the people who make up our democracy and against the corporations who buy our government.

Here, too, is a review of The Uprising from BookClubs.ca:

Job outsourcing. Perpetual busy signals at government agencies. Slashed paychecks. Stolen elections. A war without end, fatally mismanaged. Ordinary Americans on both the Right and Left are tired of being disenfranchised by corrupt politicians of both parties and are organizing to change the status quo. In his invigorating new book, David Sirota investigates whether this uprising can be transformed into a unified, lasting political movement.

Throughout the course of American history, uprisings like the one we are seeing now have given birth to powerful movements to end wars, protect workers, and expand civil rights, so the prospect of today’s uprising turning into a full-fledged populist movement terrifies Wall Street and Washington. In The Uprising, Sirota takes us far from the national media spotlight into the trenches where real change is happening—from the headquarters of the most powerful third party in America to the bowels of the U.S. Senate; from the auditorium of an ExxonMobil shareholder meeting to the quasi-military staging area of a vigilante force on the Mexican border. This is vital, on-the-ground reporting that immerses us in the tumultuous give-and-take of politics at its most personal.

We’ll look for you at the Rockridge Library on June 11th.

A “biofuel” which is NOT ethanol

Algae: a carbon-neutral energy platform fueled by sunlight. Photo by Steve Jurvetson.

In light of the skyrocketing cost of petroleum-based fuels, 100 years ago was now is an ideal time to look into the sorts of technologies which deserve more attention from you, me, the broader investment community, environmentalists, and our “government.” (That last one makes me want to both laugh and cry.)

One exciting new areas of research we should look into involves a technology called “renewable gasoline” and which is manufactured from algae — not corn. No food crops required. The folks leading in this technology are a San Diego-based company called Sapphire Energy, and their announcement of May 28, 2008 is noteworthy:

Pioneering effort alters ‘food vs. fuel’ debate, supports American energy independence with revolutionary platform that harnesses microorganisms, sunlight, CO₂

Leading investors commit over $50 million to scale effort; production innovator Brian Goodall hired, team leader behind first biofuel 747 flight

Sonoma, California – May 28, 2008 – Sapphire Energy announced today they have produced renewable 91 octane gasoline that conforms to ASTM certification, made from a breakthrough process that produces crude oil directly from sunlight, CO₂ and photosynthetic microorganisms, beginning with algae.

“Sapphire’s goal is to be the world’s leading producer of renewable petrochemical products,” said CEO and co-founder Jason Pyle, speaking from the influential Simmons Alternative Energy Conference. “Our goal is to produce a renewable fuel without the downsides of current biofuel approaches.

“Sapphire Energy was founded on the belief that the only way to cure our dependence on foreign oil and end our flirtation with ethanol and biodiesel is through radical new thinking and a commitment to new technologies.”

The end result — high-value hydrocarbons chemically identical to those in gasoline — will be entirely compatible with the current energy infrastructure from cars to refineries and pipelines.

Not biodiesel, not ethanol. And no crops or farm land required.

The Sapphire platform offers vast advantages – scientific, economic and social – over traditional biofuel approaches.

Company scientists have built a platform that uses sunlight, CO₂, photosynthetic microorganisms and non-arable land to produce carbon-neutral alternatives to petrochemical-based processes and products. First up: renewable gasoline. Critically important, in light of recent studies that prove the inefficiencies and costs of crop-based biofuels, there is no ‘food vs. fuel’ tradeoff. The process is not dependent on food crops or valuable farmland, and is highly water efficient. “It’s hard not to get excited about algae’s potential,” said Paul Dickerson, chief operating officer of the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy “Its basic requirements are few: CO₂, sun, and water. Algae can flourish in non-arable land or in dirty water, and when it does flourish, its potential oil yield per acre is unmatched by any other terrestrial feedstock.”

Scalability key to success

Sapphire’s scalable production facilities can grow easily and economically because production is modular, transportable, and fueled by sunlight – not constrained by land, crops, or other natural resources.

“Any company or fuel that hopes to solve the biofuel conundrum must be economically scalable – and that requires conforming to the existing refining distribution and fleet infrastructure,” said Brian Goodall, Sapphire’s new vice president of downstream technology. Goodall led the team responsible for the highly visible, first-ever Virgin Atlantic “green” 747 flight earlier this year. In addition to a three-decade career in the petrochemical industry, he is a corporate inductee at the National Inventors Hall of Fame.

[Press Release continues...]

In fact, Sapphire states that research is an introduction to an entirely new sub-category of fuel research that they refer to as Green Crude Production. See their take on

• The Problem
• The Solution
• The Potential

Even more encouraging is that this sort of research appears to be going in several directions at once. C|Net recently reported the following:

Sapphire said that it developed an algae process to avoid the controversy over using land for fuel crops instead of food crops.

But at this point, algae fuels are largely experimental and no company is making fuel on a commercial scale.

GreenFuel Technologies, which had to scale back a pilot site, said that it has landed a large European customer to make fuel from algae but has not shared any more information.

Sapphire is not the only company creating technology to make hydrocarbons from plants. Others include LS9, Amyris Biotechnologies, Codexis, and J. Craig Venter-founded Synthetic Genomics.

The advantage of this approach is that the fuels can be integrated into existing transmission infrastructure and can run in cars or planes without modification.

Let’s all keep our eyes on these companies and their technologies.

tekstone’s thought for the day

Earlier this morning, I received the following message from our old friend “tekstone.” In my opinion, some of his basic premises are a bit off base, but overall, I appreciate his opinion and respect his set of conclusions. I intend to expound on these issues in the very near future.

we already have bio-diesel cars that run on renewable biomass fuel - and have for a loooong time (see history of diesel engine)

and

we already have hybrid cars that allow the poor petroleum companies to be slowly weened off their $11billion profit per quarter habit. (don’t want to do anything too drastic now…)

so

why don’t we have bio-diesel hybrids dominating the roads? we would be free of foreign fossil-fuel dependence - making us safer - AND we would be cleaner and more efficient all at once!

the main reason we don’t have bio-diesel hybrids? one article puts it this way:

The only obstacle is profit. Making America a safer and more socially responsible country just isn’t cost-effective for two of America’s most important corporations. Or, even worse, making America safer isn’t even a concern.

this, my friends, is the thought for the day. feel free to forward to others. maybe if enough people realize how beholden we are to corporate profits at the direct expense of our national security and our potential survival as a species, we can set ourselves on a new course…

this is not about Democrat vs. Republican or what poor people are doing that the rich people don’t like or who is winning American Idol - so you won’t see this on the so-called news stations. but our dependence on foreign fossil fuel is the direct cause of the “terrorist” threats (real or perceived) and the “global climate crisis” - the two most serious issues facing us as a civilization that we have been “too busy” and too distracted to address.

yes, we are too busy arguing about whether gay people can marry or how we should keep Mexicans out of our country. but let the polar ice caps melt and keep giving billions of dollars to terrorist states for their oil.

we are a strange people aren’t we?

Should Congress renew the Clean Energy Tax Credit?

The following is from “inhabitat.com”:

World’s Largest Solar Power Plant Coming to Arizona in 2011

by Mahesh Basantani

The lucky sunny state of Arizona is about to become home to the world’s largest Solar Plant! Thanks to a just-announced contract between Abengoa Solar and Arizona Public Service Company (APS), the enormous solar plant called Solana will power up to 70,000 homes, and will be the first example in the country of a major utility getting the majority of its energy from solar. The 1900 acre plant will be completed by 2011 – IF AND ONLY IF Congress renews the clean energy tax credit that’s set to expire at the end of 2008.

This could be a momentous environmental energy venture for the US, so now is the time to get political — we should not let this amazingly positive opportunity slip through the cracks!

The Arizona solar power plant has been named Solana, which means “a sunny place” in Spanish, and will be located 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, near Gila Bend, and cover 1,900 acres. The capacity of the power plant has been projected at 280 megawatts — a capacity which could power 70,000 homes and create 1,500 jobs. The electricity generated by the plant will be sold to APS to the tune of around $4 billion for over next 30 years.

Solana will make use of Abengoa Solar‘s Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technology, which is based on solar radiation concentration to generate steam or hot air, which is used by an electric plant to run steam turbines.

The CSP technology uses three different approaches to concentrate solar rays: tower technology, parabolic trough technology, and dish Stirling technology. The Solana power plant would primarily employ parabolic trough technology.

Abengoa Solar is presently operating the world’s first commercial CSP solar tower plant in Spain - which we wrote about last year. This new enormoust solar power plant could be a huge boon for renewable energy, the environment, and the local economy with all the new jobs it will create. But there’s one catch- this week the house will be voting on the renewal of a clean energy bill which would shift about $18 billion in tax breaks from oil companies to renewable energy. Essentially, Abengoa’s ambitious solar plan hinges on the passing of this bill. The current clean energy tax credit will expire at the end of 2008, which would effectively make Solana impossible if it did. So while Solana would be a huge step in the right direction for our society, the fate of its realization lies in the hands of policy makers this week.

+ Abengoa Solar

Via BusinessWire via SolveClimate

Related Posts

• World’s Largest Solar Power Plant Coming to Arizona in 2011
• WORLD’S LARGEST SOLAR ARRAY Planned For California!
• SEVILLE’S SOLAR POWER TOWER
• STUDENT DESIGN TURNS HIGHWAYS INTO WIND FARMS
• Commercializing Solar Power with Molten Salt
• RENT YOUR OWN SOLAR PANELS

Health care for all Americans — when?

Please don’t believe for a moment that the concept of a national health care program was introduced within the last few years or even the last few decades. Way back on November 19, 1945, Harry S. Truman, America’s 32nd President asked Congress to help him usher in a whole new era of health coverage for all Americans. You’ll never guess what happened…

The American Medical Association (AMA) promptly vilified President Truman by implying he was promoting “socialized medicine.” Unfortunately, the political cost of the Korean War prevented Truman from continuing to promote his visionary plan. An aside, the bill was co-sponsored by Democratic senators Robert Wagner (N.Y.) and James Murray (Mont.), along with Representative John Dingell (D.-Mich) — unfortunately, the bill would popularly be referred to as the W-M-D bill. [Sigh.]

From the Truman Library:

On November 19, 1945, only 7 months into his presidency, Harry S. Truman gave a speech to the United States Congress proposing a new national health care program. In his speech, Truman argued that the federal government should play a role in health care, saying “The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility.” One of the chief aims of President Truman’s plan was to insure that all communities, regardless of their size or income level, had access to doctors and hospitals. The statistics in Harry S. Truman’s speech demonstrated the urgent need for such measures: “About 1,200 counties, 40 percent of the total in the country, with some 15,000,000 people, have either no local hospital, or none that meets even the minimum standards of national professional associations. “

President Truman’s plan was to improve the state of health care in the United States by addressing five separate issues. The first issue was the lack of doctors, dentists, nurses, and other health professionals in many rural or otherwise lower-income areas of the United States. Harry S. Truman saw that “the earning capacity of the people in some communities makes it difficult if not impossible for doctors who practice there to make a living.” He proposed to attract doctors to the areas that needed them with federal funding. The second problem that Truman aimed to correct was the lack of quality hospitals in rural and lower-income counties. President Truman proposed to provide government funds for the construction of new hospitals accross the country. To insure only quality hospitals were built, the plan also called for the creation of national standards for hospitals and other health centers. Harry S. Truman’s third initiative was closely tied to the first two. It called for a board of doctors and public officials to be created. This board would create standards for hospitals and ensure that new hospitals met these standards. The board would also be responsible for directing federal funds into medical research.

The most controversial aspect of the plan was the proposed national health insurance plan. In the November 19th address, President Truman called for the creation of a national health insurance fund, to be run by the federal government. This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. Participants would pay monthly fees into the plan, which would cover the cost of any and all medical expenses that arose in a time of need. The government would pay for the cost of services rendered by any doctor who chose to join the program. In addition, the insurance plan would give a cash balance to the policy holder to replace wages lost due to illness or injury.

Harry S. Truman’s health proposals finally came to Congress in the form of a Social Security expansion bill, co-sponsored in Congress by Democratic senators Robert Wagner (N.Y.) and James Murray (Mont.), along with Representative John Dingell (D.-Mich). For this reason, the bill was known popularly as the W-M-D bill. The American Medical Association (AMA) launched a spirited attack against the bill, capitalizing on fears of Communism in the public mind. The AMA characterized the bill as “socialized medicine”, and in a forerunner to the rhetoric of the McCarthy era, called Truman White House staffers “followers of the Moscow party line”.* Organized labor, the main public advocate of the bill, had lost much of it’s goodwill from the American people in a series of unpopular strikes. Following the outbreak of the Korean War, President Truman was finally forced to abandon the W-M-D Bill. Although Harry S. Truman was not able to create the health program he desired, he was successful in publicizing the issue of health care in America. During his Presidency, the not-for-profit health insurance fund Blue Shield-Blue Cross grew from 28 million policies to over 61 million. When on July 30, 1965, President Lyndon B.Johnson signed Medicare into law at the Harry S. Truman library, he said that it “all started really with the man from Independence”.

Believe me, I don’t think President Truman was a perfect President nor that this particular plan was ideal, but on this issue, he was way ahead of his time.

I’m concerned that despite the seemingly endless rhetoric expended on this issue, that we don’t have any leaders with a solid plan, the opportunity, the financial and moral independence AND the intestinal fortitude to deliver on such a vision.

I hope I’m wrong.

Top 10 Myths About Iraq in 2007 from Juan Cole

Thank you, Professor Cole:

Top Ten Myths about Iraq 2007

10. Myth: The US public no longer sees Iraq as a central issue in the 2008 presidential campaign.

In a recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll, Iraq and the economy were virtually tied among voters nationally, with nearly a quarter of voters in each case saying it was their number one issue. The economy had become more important to them than in previous months (in November only 14% said it was their most pressing concern), but Iraq still rivals it as an issue!

9. Myth: There have been steps toward religious and political reconciliation in Iraq in 2007. Fact: The government of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has for the moment lost the support of the Sunni Arabs in parliament. The Sunnis in his cabinet have resigned. Even some Shiite parties have abandoned the government. Sunni Arabs, who are aware that under his government Sunnis have largely been ethnically cleansed from Baghdad, see al-Maliki as a sectarian politician uninterested in the welfare of Sunnis.

8. Myth: The US troop surge stopped the civil war that had been raging between Sunni Arabs and Shiites in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad.

Fact: The civil war in Baghdad escalated during the US troop escalation. Between January, 2007, and July, 2007, Baghdad went from 65% Shiite to 75% Shiite. UN polling among Iraqi refugees in Syria suggests that 78% are from Baghdad and that nearly a million refugees relocated to Syria from Iraq in 2007 alone. This data suggests that over 700,000 residents of Baghdad have fled this city of 6 million during the US ’surge,’ or more than 10 percent of the capital’s population. Among the primary effects of the ’surge’ has been to turn Baghdad into an overwhelmingly Shiite city and to displace hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the capital.

7. Myth: Iran was supplying explosively formed projectiles (a deadly form of roadside bomb) to Salafi Jihadi (radical Sunni) guerrilla groups in Iraq. Fact: Iran has not been proved to have sent weapons to any Iraqi guerrillas at all. It certainly would not send weapons to those who have a raging hostility toward Shiites. (Iran may have supplied war materiel to its client, the Supreme Islamic Council of Iraq (ISCI), which was then sold off from warehouses because of graft, going on the arms market and being bought by guerrillas and militiamen.

6. Myth: The US overthrow of the Baath regime and military occupation of Iraq has helped liberate Iraqi women. Fact: Iraqi women have suffered significant reversals of status, ability to circulate freely, and economic situation under the Bush administration.

5. Myth: Some progress has been made by the Iraqi government in meeting the “benchmarks” worked out with the Bush administration. Fact: in the words of Democratic Senator Carl Levin, “Those legislative benchmarks include approving a hydrocarbon law, approving a debaathification law, completing the work of a constitutional review committee, and holding provincial elections. Those commitments, made 1 1/2 years ago, which were to have been completed by January of 2007, have not yet been kept by the Iraqi political leaders despite the breathing space the surge has provided.”

4. Myth: The Sunni Arab “Awakening Councils,” who are on the US payroll, are reconciling with the Shiite government of PM Nuri al-Maliki even as they take on al-Qaeda remnants. Fact: In interviews with the Western press, Awakening Council tribesmen often speak of attacking the Shiites after they have polished off al-Qaeda. A major pollster working in Iraq observed,

‘ Most of the recent survey results he has seen about political reconciliation, Warshaw said, are “more about [Iraqis] reconciling with the United States within their own particular territory, like in Anbar.
. . . But it doesn’t say anything about how Sunni groups feel about Shiite groups in Baghdad.” Warshaw added: “In Iraq, I just don’t hear statements that come from any of the Sunni, Shiite or Kurdish groups that say ‘We recognize that we need to share power with the others, that we can’t truly dominate.’ ” ‘ ‘

The polling shows that “the Iraqi government has still made no significant progress toward its fundamental goal of national reconciliation.”

3. Myth: The Iraqi north is relatively quiet and a site of economic growth. Fact: The subterranean battle among Kurds, Turkmen and Arabs for control of the oil-rich Kirkuk province makes the Iraqi north a political mine field. Kurdistan now also hosts the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) guerrillas that sneak over the border and kill Turkish troops. The north is so unstable that the Iraqi north is now undergoing regular bombing raids from Turkey.

2. Myth: Iraq has been “calm” in fall of 2007 and the Iraqi public, despite some grumbling, is not eager for the US to depart. Fact: in the past 6 weeks, there have been an average of 600 attacks a month, or 20 a day, which has held steady since the beginning of November. About 600 civilians are being killed in direct political violence per month, but that number excludes deaths of soldiers and police. Across the board, Iraqis believe that their conflicts are mainly caused by the US military presence and they are eager for it to end.

1. Myth: The reduction in violence in Iraq is mostly because of the escalation in the number of US troops, or “surge.”

Fact:Although violence has been reduced in Iraq, much of the reduction did not take place because of US troop activity. Guerrilla attacks in al-Anbar Province were reduced from 400 a week to 100 a week between July, 2006 and July, 2007. But there was no significant US troop escalation in al-Anbar. Likewise, attacks on British troops in Basra have declined precipitously since they were moved out to the airport away from population centers. But this change had nothing to do with US troops.

Labels: Iraq

posted by Juan Cole @ 12/26/2007 06:35:00 AM

Liar, Liar…Giuliani caught, again

(Click photo above to view video)

“America’s Mayor,” Rudy Giuliani is, once again impeached by his own words.

LOCAL ACTION ALERT- Alameda County

Following is a some timely information I received from Jerry Berkman, a local voting rights activist friend of mine. Please read below how and where you have the opportunity to “interact” with John Tanner from the Department of Justice on the afternoon of Thursday, October 18th at UC Berkeley. (Jerry’s website is Election-Reform.org, check it out.)

John K. Tanner is the Chief of the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Voting Rights Section.  He has recently made outrageous statements about race and voting. He will be speaking at UC Berkeley, 109 Moses Hall, Thursday, Oct. 18, 3:30-5:00 pm with a reception to follow. Hopefully you will attend and ask him some hard questions, or notify others who could do that.

The event is described at:

http://blogs.lib.berkeley.edu/whats-new.php/2007/10/11/election_administration_and_voting_right

Some background:

TPMMuckraker.com has an article:"DoJ Vote Chief Argues Voter ID Laws Discriminate against Whites", which says:

Tanner explained that "primarily elderly persons" are the ones affected by [voter ID] laws, but "minorities don't become elderly the way white people do: They die first." So anything that "disproportionately impacts the elderly, has the opposite impact on minorities," he added.

    [and]

Tanner told the [Georgia NAACP] that minorities were actually "slightly more likely" than non-minorities to have a photo ID.

Also, BradBlog.com has video of Tanner's recent speech:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5145

YearlyKos Panel: The Future of the Media

From ‘malcontent’ in Chicago…

Panel: The Future of the Media
(co-hosted by SaveTheInternet.org and FreePress.net)

Michael Copps (D) FCC Commissioner since 2001 // Craig Aaron (FreePress.net), moderator // Matt Stoller (OpenLeft) // Art Broadsky (Public Knowledge (Washington DC) & Talking Points Memo)

Introduction:

Commissioner Copps is one of the sole dissenting voices in the FCC, who is fighting against the Chairman Michael Powell’s policies at the FCC. He recently spoke out against the recent effort by the News Corp. (Murdoch) effort to purchase the parent of the Wall St. Journal. Robert McChesney, a co-founder of FreePress.net, says Commissioner Copps is the most progressive member of the FCC.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps’ remarks:

The FCC is playing Russian Roulette with the future of broadband and all of the media. The newspaper industry is the going around crying “the sky is falling,” which is a veiled cry for more media consolidation. If all of us really care about an open internet, we must also care about open communication [across] all of the media.

Commissioner Copps came to the YearlyKos Convention to ask for our help to fight for the [winnable] battle to save media. The FCC recently re-designated the broadband internet as Title 1 communications/information ( instead of Title 2). Consumer protections no longer apply. An FCC committee recently decided to only uphold half of the protections, which were originally reserved for broadband internet technology. Those Commissioners and staffers have opened the door to an internet filled with toll booths and various traffic management mechanisms.

Copps’ understanding of American history tells him that if someone has the technology and a business interest to do so…they will. We have to find a way to get the public and industry to work together. He hearkened back to the effort to build the transcontinental railroad. That is the way to grow industry in a healthy manner. All this business about deregulation is complete nonsense.

The OECD recently rank the USA at 15^th in broadband penetration, down from 12th. (This is preposterous.) We should study the successful policies of the14 countries which are ahead of us. Generally, all of them have a national broadband strategy. The USA does not!! There must be some over-arching strategy, in order for us to establish a framework to build this out for everyone, in all communities.

The FCC is currently looking at “ownership” of media. Under Powell, the Commission passed radically new rules in the area of media consolidation. Copps refers to “net neutrality” as “internet freedom.” The internet is headed down the same road as the traditional media. There is an attempt to fuse content with conduit. This threatens the quality of information we are offered across all of our media.

In the last couple of days, Copps smells “something fishy” at the Commission. There are more and more hearings and an increase in attention paid to this in their office. He fears this is an effort to push media consolidation, sooner instead of later. There is likely a very short window for public comment on this issue. His advice is to be prepared. We have to be prepared to fight like our future depends on it, because it does.

“The way to win is to take this story, not just to capital Hill, but all across America. Talk about it, write about it, blog about it.”

Copps closed with, “[if] we fight this battle well, we will be able to celebrate media of, by and for the people.” And don’t forget that there is a “Future of the Media” hearing” in Chicago on September 20, 2007. There are only going to be a couple more other these across the country, before the Commission will vote on this issue. Anyone who can

Panel Discussion:

(Q: Rupert Murdoch and ownership consolidation) Copps mentioned that some are arguing that the FCC should not involve itself in “regulation” of this open industry. This is both national and a local issue, since it affects the ownership of newpapers in New York. Nationally, the implications are obvious. The FCC has to get a handle on what its legal authority is in this area. If we only relied on precedent, we would still have “separate but equal” policy in place.

(Q: the 700mHz spectrum) This is the beach-front property of the public spectrum, which will be abandoned by the big broadcasters, as they move to digital format(s).
On February 18^th, 2009, the FCC will auction this off. He addressed that in addition to the market implications, the FCC also needs to address the public safety needs of the nation. The FCC has proposed to repurpose They did not open up any of it for “open access,” which is what many of the other countries who are ahead of us have done to build their spectrum outreach.

(Q: impact of public outreach) “Citizen action works, it can make an impact.” There are more than 3 million who are likely to chime in this time around. These people need to be mobilized. There’s lots of lobbying power on the other side, but if we get the word out, and we can find creative ways, we can make a difference.

Craig Aaron: we can boil down the  FCC Chairman Michael Powell

(Q: how can the FCC reverse the affects of Chairman Powell) Copps: there’s a surprising amount of latitude that the Commission has to reverse the affects of the Powell era. Some of the rest of this will require a true, comprehensive national policy.

(Q: how is the public interest served by violent rhetoric / KSFO: Brian Sussman, et al.) Copps: there needs to be some legislative change to allow the FCC to weigh in here. “Hate crime” language language is another story. You’ve identified a real problem.

(Q: media democracy / women and diversity in ownership) Copps: this essential to the media debate. People of color own 4.6%, women 5%, while they make up roughly 35% and 51% of the population, respectively. Media is not a problem to be overcome, it is an opportunity. The current condition of ownership diversity is a national shame.

(Q: isn’t this a non-partisan issue?) The (Powell-run) FCC is proposing to change the rules of the game. Folks on both sides of the political aisle are talking about solutions, so we shouldn’t presume there can be no rational debate among citizens on this issue.

(Q: media consolidation, as compared to the days of the “robber barons”) there is anti-trust regulation which address this, but the FCC has a different authority

Craig Aaron: mentioned a book about “How to Talk Back to your Television Set,” which is about

(Q: how do we get a more progressive FCC?) Craig Aaron reminded us that the FCC Chairman and Commissioners are all appointed by the President.

(Q: what can we do online) Matt Stoller also indicated that “net neutrality” is a nonpartisan issue. Senator Durbin (D) promised to write one of his future bills completely online. Durbin went on Red State (yikes) to engage that community on how to treat them. Remarkably, the conversation was quite open and civilized.

(Q: should we just concentrate on new media) “No! These two areas are not mutually exclusive.” These misgiuded policies can be reversed.

(Q: how do we break up these (real or virtual) monopolies) There is some hope for the cynics in an unlikely ally in the device makers (Motorola, Nokia, etcetera). They realize they are currently relying on customers, such as AT&T, Verizon, Sprint etcetera. These cell phone manufacturers are chicken, and we need to turn up the pressure on them. We should work with them to give them a backbone transplant, because they should be working with us to put pressure on the various networks.

(Q: who sets the FCC policy) Stoller: We do! Why don’t we hear more about this from the Democratic Presidential candidates?! They need to address this issue publicly and clearly. We have the opportunity to steer the debate on this by pressuring the candidates to answer our questions in this area. They have limited information presented to them by the advisors, so we have to advise them, directly.

Powered by ScribeFire.