Follow Up on the FCC Giveaway to Fox, et. al.

Sat 01/31/04 at 9:50 pm

NOW with Bill Moyers. Transcript. January 30, 2004 | PBS

[L]et’s go back to last summer — to the story that you kept hearing about here on NOW … The decision by the Federal Communications Commission to change the rules on broadcast ownership.

With strong backing from President Bush, the FCC by a 3-2 vote gave the megamedia giants what they wanted — permission to get even bigger to own more TV stations across the country even to own newspapers, radio and TV stations in a single community.

To just about everyone’s surprise, the public rose up in outrage hundreds of thousands of letters and emails poured into the Commission and Congress.

CONGRESSMAN JIM LEACH, (R-IA): And it wasn’t as if there were Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other. It was everybody felt the same instinct: let’s have diversity, let’s not have concentration.

And the public is absolutely adamantly– in one camp. Interest groups are absolutely adamantly in another camp. And it’s a contrast that is as symbolic and as important as any set of contrasts I know in government today. …

SENATOR BYRON DORGAN (D-ND): I mean the FCC issued a ruling that goes well beyond what anybody would expect reasonable, even from an FCC that wanted to be particularly friendly to big business. This was you know the FCC hog rule. It’s let’s do everything that business wants, plus let’s add some.

BILL MOYERS: Senator Dorgan thinks that further media consolidation could lead to a cartel of power that would limit what Americans see, hear, and read.

DORGAN: What if the broadcast properties, television and radio, are in the hands of sufficiently few people in this country’s future to decide that these are voices we don’t like very much? …

BILL MOYERS: Unknown to Dorgan and other members of the conference committee … a new deal had been reached … This one between the White House and Republican leaders … a deal to protect the interests of the big broadcast companies.

DORGAN: My guess is that they kept working behind the scenes, and– that which had been concluded and decided by the Congress was then later negotiated by a few members of Congress with the White House.

BILL MOYERS: It quickly became apparent who would benefit from this new deal.

DORGAN: There were two very big enterprises. One is– Viacom, which owns CBS. The other is Rupert Murdoch’s empire which– which were over the cap. [over 3 years, 3 recent years, Rupert Murdoch’s company spent almost 10 million dollars on its lobbying operations in Washington]…

MOYERS: And so those 24 lines were quietly inserted in last week’s fine print [of the 1,182 page spending bill]. With those lines, the House and Senate agreement was overturned and the new cap was set just high enough to allow Viacom and Murdoch to keep all their TV stations. …

BILL MOYERS: What does it say to you about democracy? That almost a million citizens make themselves heard in support of overturning the FCC ruling. The Senate votes 55 to 40 to overturn those rules. And yet the House can’t vote on it. [because of Hastert and Delay]

SENATOR BYRON DORGAN: Why? Because the President supports the FCC rule. This is his Federal Communications Commission.

It’s classic politics. You know? I mean big interests have big sway in this town. And this is the high stakes, big interest issue. They have– there’s a great deal of money at stake, as you might well imagine. And the Majority Leader [Tom Delay], as he almost on all occasions does, is standing with the big interests.

Notice the classic Bush tactic: work stealthily around all obstacles to undermine the Public and benefit the Rich. mjh

mjh’s Weblog Entry - 06/02/2003: FCC Votes to Ease Media Ownership Rules


Wes Clark’s Consulting Success

Sat 01/31/04 at 9:15 pm

Clark, the Four-Star Businessman By Ben White and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writers

Clark’s lobbying was one of many business activities that, by his account, boosted his income almost 20-fold in the 42 months between his resignation from the Army and the start of his presidential campaign last September. …

In earning post-retirement income totaling at least $2.4 million, moreover, Clark was helped most of all by consulting arrangements with two politically connected investment banking firms, Goldman Sachs in New York and Stephens Inc. in Little Rock. His association with Goldman brought him more than $1 million, including stock benefits accrued since he announced his candidacy. …

Even with two bank accounts holding $500,000 to $1 million each on Dec. 15, according to financial disclosures made by Clark’s campaign, his declared assets of $2.6 million to $6 million are less than those held by rivals Sens. John Edwards (N.C.) and John F. Kerry (Mass.). Edwards and Kerry, respectively, have declared assets of $8.7 million to $36.5 million and $198.7 million to $839 million, according to the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit watchdog group. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has declared assets of $2.1 million to $5 million. …

Clark registered as a self-employed lobbyist for the firm in January 2002. In May of that year he registered as a lobbyist for Acxiom on behalf of SCL LLC, an entity created to keep Clark’s work for Acxiom separate from his work for Stephens. He was a lobbyist for Acxiom through Sept. 17 of last year, earning just under $500,000 total for his work, according to lobbying disclosures.


Bush Costs Us Too Much

Sat 01/31/04 at 1:11 pm

Bush Touts Budget at Meeting With GOP By ALAN FRAM, AP

President Bush says his 2005 budget will balance national security, social needs and fiscal responsibility, but Democrats say his policies have wounded the economy and prompted sky-high federal deficits.

Bush plans to send Congress an election-year budget exceeding $2.3 trillion on Monday. Officials revealed new details including more money to fight AIDS in poor countries, and a spare 0.5 percent increase for nondefense, nondomestic security programs as part of his effort to halve record deficits by 2009. …

In his weekly radio address, Bush said he will propose a 3.5 percent pay increase for the military and an 11 percent boost in the FBI’s budget, including $357 million more for counterterror. …

Documents obtained by The Associated Press showed the Pentagon’s $401.7 billion request for next year [a 7 percent increase over this year] excluded operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The papers said the Defense Department expects to request extra money for those campaigns, but not until 2005 — after this November’s elections.

According to the documents, Bush will request $9.2 billion for national missile defense, $1.5 billion more than this year [mjh: vital in a war against people using granade launchers from donkey carts!]. He will also seek money for a new Virginia class attack submarine [mjh: essential in the desert]; for 1,153 unmanned aerial vehicles used heavily in Afghanistan and elsewhere; and for 24 FA-22 Raptor stealth fighters, a program Pentagon officials have considered reducing because of cost overruns [mjh: ie, even the Pentagon doesn’t want this]. …

[Bush’s proposals include] reviving procedures making it harder for lawmakers to increase spending without paying for the costs with budget cuts elsewhere. Tax cuts would not have to be paid for. [mjh: oh, my, of course not!]

Who is getting rich from the ”War on Terror”? mjh


True Conservatives May Stay Home

Sat 01/31/04 at 1:11 pm

Conservatives grumble over Bush’s policies By Ralph Z. Hallow, The Washington Times: Nation/Politics

In interviews and speeches, lawmakers and rank-and-file activists said they believe Mr. Bush is a conservative but is heeding advisers who want him to chase votes in the political center and even left of center, including Hispanic votes.

Although this year’s CPAC audience is critical of the president and the Republican Congress on some issues, it is not in full rebellion, like audiences at past CPACs.

In 1972, CPAC activists were in revolt over the liberalism of President Nixon [mjh: LOL!] and spawned a movement to run Sen. John Ashbrook against him for the Republican nomination. In 1976, a majority at the CPAC supported Ronald Reagan over President Ford, another Republican liberal. And in 1992, CPAC activists supported conservative stalwart Pat Buchanan over the first President Bush.

But for some veteran conservatives, the president is in more trouble with his core supporters than he may realize.

“He has alienated his conservative base,” said former Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican. “By pursing the same policies he is now, he nearly lost the 2000 election — by blurring distinctions between Republicans, the conservative party, and Democrats, the liberal party.”

Trouble on Bush’s right? Cal Thomas

It would be difficult to find a more committed supporter of President Bush than Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.). Pence, who is in his second term, is a self-described “Christian-conservative-Republican, in that order.” He is the essence of the Bush base, which is why his Jan. 22 speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) gathering in Washington ought to cause concern at the White House. After testifying to his pro-Bush (and pro-Reagan) credentials, Pence suggested that the “ship of conservative governance has gone off course.”

Pence’s indictment included this line: “… many who call themselves conservatives see government increasingly as the solution to every social ill and - let us be clear on this point - this is a historic departure from the limited-government traditions of our party and millions of its most ardent supporters.”

Congressional Republicans and the Bush administration apparently believe they can buy the votes of a number of groups - including the elderly (prescription drug benefits) and Hispanics (amnesty for illegal aliens)….

Are they listening at the White House? Perhaps they think they can dismiss conservatives with the familiar, “Where else can conservatives go?” They can “go” into inaction or they can stay home and not vote. It has happened before.

Ask President Bush No. 41, who raised taxes after promising he wouldn’t. He later said it was a major mistake, but too late to win him reelection. In a close election people of principle can mean the difference between victory and defeat.

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: Conservatives grumbling — like the rest of us


The Dishonorable Scalia

Sat 01/31/04 at 12:34 pm

AP Wire | 01/31/2004 | Democrats Press Scalia on Cheney Case

Democrats are increasing their pressure on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to step aside from considering a case involving his friend, Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Supreme Court agreed last month to take up Cheney’s appeal in a case that involves his refusal to disclose the identities of members of his energy task force. Three weeks later, Scalia and Cheney went duck hunting together in the marshes of southern Louisiana.

Scalia maintains there was nothing improper about the trip … “I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned.” …

In addition to the duck hunting trip this month, Scalia had dinner with Cheney in November after Bush administration lawyers had asked the court to consider his case. …

Robert Destro, a law professor at Catholic University of America, who specializes in legal ethics … predicted that Scalia will stick with his decision to hear the case, and not respond to what Destro called “a bunch of hooey.”

The case probably will be argued in April, although a date has not been scheduled.

Search this blog for Scalia


Your Safety is Unprofitable

Sat 01/31/04 at 12:17 pm

Nuke safety rules may be revised

The Bush administration is moving to replace government safety requirements at federal nuclear facilities with standards written by contractors — after Congress directed the government to start fining the contractors for violations.

Long-established government minimum standards at the more than two dozen nuclear weapons plants and research labs around the nation would become unenforceable guidelines under the Energy Department proposal.

Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., an author of the 2002 legislation ordering the fines, accused the administration this week of distorting Congress’ intent with a plan that “will likely decrease worker protection.”

John Conway, chairman of an advisory board overseeing safety at the Energy Department, said the proposal would weaken safety standards covering more than 100,000 workers at the facilities.

Bush relentlessly changes everything he can to benefit corporations. There may be thousands of examples like this one. mjh


Bush Fights For Patriot Act

Fri 01/30/04 at 1:45 pm

Veto Threatened on Bill to Restrict Powers Under Terrorism Law By ERIC LICHTBLAU, NYTimes

The Bush administration, stepping up the debate over its antiterrorism policies, threatened on Thursday to veto a pending bill that would scale back the government’s powers under the USA Patriot Act.

Attorney General John Ashcroft told reporters that the bill, sponsored by Senate Republicans and Democrats, “unilaterally disarms America’s defenses” against terrorists and that President Bush intended to veto the measure if Congress passed it.

The threat of a veto represents an unusual pre-emptive strike by the administration. The bill has not even come up for a vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Look at Asskraft’s (sic) hyperbole about ‘unilaterally disarms America’s defenses.’ What a liar.

Note that Duhbya has had zero vetoes, a modern record. Will his first veto be an attack against the Legislature’s attempt to rein-in the out-of-control Executive? mjh


That Smarts!

Fri 01/30/04 at 1:30 pm

Democratic Contenders Attack Bush on Iraq, Terrorism, Trade and Economy

”A president has to be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time,” said Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, arguing that Mr. Bush had focused on the war on terrorism at the expense of other domestic needs.

A cutting remark from the nice guy, but not quite up to his earlier dig. mjh

mjh’s Weblog Entry - 05/05/2003: Big Belt Buckle

”Just because you speak the language of regular Americans does not mean your agenda is not the agenda of corporate America. Just because you walk around on a ranch in Texas with a big belt buckle doesn’t mean you understand and stand up for rural America.”


Will Your Vote Be Counted? Or Changed?

Fri 01/30/04 at 12:19 pm

Security Poor in Electronic Voting Machines, Study Warns By JOHN SCHWARTZ, NYTimes

Electronic voting machines made by Diebold Inc. that are widely used in several states have such poor computer security and physical security that an election could be disrupted or even stolen by corrupt insiders or determined outsiders, according to a new report presented today to Maryland state legislators.

Authors of the report — the first hands-on attempt to hack Diebold voting machine systems under conditions found during an election — were careful to say that the machines, if not hacked, count votes correctly, and that issues discovered in the “red team” exercise could be addressed in a preliminary way in time for the state’s primaries in March. …

The authors of the report said that they had expected a higher degree of security in the design of the machines. “We were genuinely surprised at the basic level of the exploits” that allowed tampering, said Mr. Wertheimer, a former security expert for the National Security Agency.

William A. Arbaugh, an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Maryland and a member of the Red Team exercise, said, “I can say with confidence that nobody looked at the system with an eye to security who understands security.” …

In the security exercise, members of the attack team said they were surprised to find that the touch-screen machines used by voters all used the same physical key to the two locks that protect their innards from tampering. With hand-held computers and a little sleight of hand, they found, the touch screens could be reprogrammed to make a vote for one candidate count for an opponent, or results could be fouled so that a precinct’s tally could not be used.

In addition, they said, communications between the terminals and the larger server computers that tally results from many precincts do not require that machines on either end of the line prove that they are legitimate, an omission that could allow someone to grab information that could be used to falsify whole precincts worth of votes.

And the server computers do not have the latest protection against the security holes in the Microsoft operating systems, and they are vulnerable to hacker attacks that would allow an outsider to change software, the group found.

The authors of the report also said smart cards that are shipped with the system for voters and supervisors to use during elections have standard passwords that are easily guessed. …

Mr. Wertheimer said the application of security was inconsistent, with encryption applied in some places without the accompanying technology of authentication to ensure that the machines that are communicating with each other are the ones that are supposed to be communicating and that an interloper has not jumped in. “It’s like washing your face and drying it with a dirty towel,” he said. …

There is much more to be done, Mr. Arbaugh said. Working on the exercise for just a week to prepare for the one-day attack, he said, “we got the tip of the iceberg.”

He added, “It seemed everywhere we scratched, there was something that’s pretty troubling.”

The panel recommended that election officials take several steps to improve security, including placing tamper-proof tape on vulnerable parts of voting machines and installing software that will alert officials to any changes to the machine.

If those steps are taken, Mr. Arbaugh said, “the assurance of this election will be comparable to that of past elections.”

The report can be found at www.raba.com.


Ignorance is Double-plus Good

Fri 01/30/04 at 12:04 pm

Georgia Takes on ‘Evolution’ By ANDREW JACOBS, NYTimes

A proposed set of guidelines for middle and high school science classes in Georgia has caused a furor after state education officials removed the word ”evolution” and scaled back ideas about the age of Earth and the natural selection of species.

Educators across the state said that the document, which was released on the Internet this month, was a veiled effort to bolster creationism and that it would leave the state’s public school graduates at a disadvantage. …

A handful of states already omit the word “evolution” from their teaching guidelines, and Ms. Cox called it “a buzz word that causes a lot of negative reaction.” She added that people often associate it with “that monkeys-to-man sort of thing.” … [mjh: yeah, ignorant people]

“Evolution” was replaced with “changes over time,” and in another phrase that referred to the “long history of the Earth,” the authors removed the word “long.” Many proponents of creationism say Earth is at most several thousand years old, based on a literal reading of the Bible. …

In the past, Ms. Cox, has not masked her feelings on the matter of creationism versus evolution. During her run for office, Ms. Cox congratulated parents who wanted Christian notions of Earth and human creation to be taught in schools. …

“Creation is not science, so it should not be taught in science class,” said Dr. Ayala, a professor of genetics at the University of California at Irvine. “We don’t teach astrology instead of astronomy or witchcraft practices instead of medicine.”

Do you think it is a coincidence that barriers between church and state are being torn down by the born-again President? Is it coincidence that the same people who say there is no science supporting global warming also believe there is no science supporting evolution? Is it coincidence that education is declining as Christian radicals attack it right and left? An ignorant populace is more easily lead, especially by unscrupulous tyrants. Welcome to “faith-based democracy” (ie, a theocracy). mjh


New Englander Bush

Fri 01/30/04 at 11:49 am

In a Visit to New Hampshire, Bush Sounds Campaign Themes By ELISABETH BUMILLER, NYTimes

In the evening, at a lucrative drop-by in Old Greenwich, Conn., the state of his birth, Mr. Bush raised $1.1 million for his re-election campaign. The checks brought his fund-raising total to more than $130 million, an amount that dwarfs the $40 million raised and mostly spent by the next-biggest fund-raiser of the 2004 campaign, Howard Dean.

The major no-show at the event was Gov. John G. Rowland, a Republican who is enmeshed in a corruption scandal over free renovations to his lakeside cottage. Bush campaign officials did not say whether they had asked Mr. Rowland to stay away. …

In Old Greenwich, Mr. Bush was introduced by his cousin Debbie Stapleton, the Connecticut finance chairwoman of his campaign, who happily described the president as a Northeasterner with Ivy League roots.

“You may associate him with the Lone Star State, boots and spurs,” Ms. Stapleton said, “but I knew him in his earlier Connecticut days of family gatherings, Yale Bulldogs and Old Blue.”

Mr. Bush recalled his years at Yale as well as members from his class of 1968 who had turned up to see him.


Bush is Accountable

Fri 01/30/04 at 11:40 am

Op-Ed Columnist: Where’s the Apology? By PAUL KRUGMAN, NYTimes

So where are the apologies? Where are the resignations? Where is the investigation of this intelligence debacle? All we have is bluster from Dick Cheney, evasive W.M.D.-related-program-activity language from Mr. Bush — and a determined effort to prevent an independent inquiry. …

In any case, the point is that a grave mistake was made, and America’s credibility has been badly damaged — and nobody is being held accountable. But that’s standard operating procedure. As far as I can tell, nobody in the Bush administration has ever paid a price for being wrong. …

These people politicize everything, from military planning to scientific assessments. If you’re with them, you pay no penalty for being wrong. If you don’t tell them what they want to hear, you’re an enemy, and being right is no excuse.

Still, the big story isn’t about Mr. Bush; it’s about what’s happening to America. Other presidents would have liked to bully the C.I.A., stonewall investigations and give huge contracts to their friends without oversight. They knew, however, that they couldn’t. What has gone wrong with our country that allows this president to get away with such things?


The Stench Alone Should Defeat Bush/Cheney

Fri 01/30/04 at 11:32 am

Op-Ed Columnist: The Halliburton Shuffle By BOB HERBERT, NYTimes

[Halliburton] adamantly denies that its offshore subsidiaries are used to shift income out of the U.S. But it’s indisputable that somebody is doing a dandy job of limiting Halliburton’s tax liability. When I asked how much Halliburton paid in federal income taxes last year, a company spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, said, “After foreign tax credit utilization, we paid just over $15 million to the I.R.S. for our 2002 tax liability.”

That is effectively no money at all to an empire like Halliburton. Less than pocket change. Dick Cheney must be having a good laugh over the way his old company, following his road map, is taking the U.S. for such a ride.

In the early 90’s, when Mr. Cheney was defense secretary under the first President Bush, he hired the Halliburton subsidiary Brown & Root to determine what military functions could be outsourced to private profit-making companies. Brown & Root came up with myriad ideas in a classified study and was handed a lucrative contract to implement its own plan.

Mr. Cheney took over as chief executive of Halliburton in 1995, and the defense contracts just kept on coming. When he returned to government as vice president in 2001, no firm was better positioned than Halliburton to cash in on the billions of dollars in contracts that resulted from the war on terror and the conflict in Iraq.


The NEW Welfare Party

Fri 01/30/04 at 11:23 am

Op-Ed Contributor: Givers and Takers By DANIEL H. PINK, NYTimes

Republicans seem to have become the new welfare party — their constituents live off tax dollars paid by people who vote Democratic. Of course, not all federal spending is wasteful. But Republicans are having their pork and eating it too. Voters in red states like Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are some of the country’s fiercest critics of government, yet they’re also among the biggest recipients of federal largess. Meanwhile, Democratic voters in the coastal blue states — the ones who are often portrayed as shiftless moochers — are left to carry the load.

For President Bush, this invisible income redistribution system is a boon. He can encourage his supporters to see themselves as Givers, yet reward them with federal spending in excess of their contribution — and send the bill to those who voted for his opponent. It’s shrewd politics.

This is an intriguing take on a different national division. mjh


#
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds. 51 queries. 1.030 seconds. Back to Top