...more recent posts
Monday, Jun 23, 2003
Dr. Paul does not suffer fools gladly
Wolfowitz on ABC's Good Morning America, February 28, 2003
Diane Sawyer: Yesterday, you got kind of taken to the woodshed by some members of Congress who really went after you saying, you've told the president how much you expect it to cost, but you won't tell them. And --U.S. Senators Say Five Years in Iraq Likely
Wolfowitz: Well, first of all, we haven't told the president. We've told the president the very wide range of different ways of figuring out costs. As Secretary Rumsfeld said, if it lasts six days, it's one cost; if it lasts six months, it's something else. If we have to occupy Iraq for years, as some people are foolishly suggesting, it's one cost. If, in fact, as the Iraqi Americans in Dearborn are saying, we're going to be greeted as liberators, it's a very different and much lower cost. We won't really know the cost; that's an unfortunate fact.
Reuters -- June 23, 2003
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON - Leading U.S. senators from both parties said on Monday American troops could be in Iraq for at least five years but the White House cautioned it was too soon to set a time limit on U.S. involvement in Iraq.Iraq to Get New Army, Senators Warn of Long U.S. Stay
The senators, members of the influential Senate Foreign Relations Committee who are on a fact-finding visit to Iraq, said they expected a long-term commitment of U.S. troops and urged the White House to be more open with its plans.
"I think we're going to be here in a big way with forces and economic input for a minimum of three to five years," Sen. Joseph Biden, the committee's ranking Democrat, told reporters in Baghdad.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, agreed with Biden that five years was a realistic figure as did committee chair, Republican Richard Lugar of Indiana.
"I think that the numbers, the years that Chairman Lugar has talked about, Senator Biden -- a five-year time frame -- I think that's realistic," Hagel said in an interview with U.S. network ABC's "Good Morning America" show.
Reuters -- June 23, 2003
By Alistair Lyon
Richard Lugar, a Republican, urged President Bush to do some "real truth-telling" to explain to his people how much commitment and money would be needed to rebuild the country from the ruins of war and 35 years of Baathist rule.Related story ...
War by other means: the "reconstruction" of Iraq
Daily KOS -- June 22, 2003
Sunday, Jun 22, 2003
UHF Discount
I didn't know what to think about Michael Powell for the longest time. Being in the communication industry, I would come across statements by Powell on the internet, satellite TV, cell phones, etc. He came across as a smart guy, but I couldn't tell where his interests lay.
But now all doubt is gone. Not only is he beholden to corporate interests, but he's got the shpiel down pat. In justifying the new 45% market rule for the station group owners, he spoke of competition from other media: newspapers, cable, radio, satellite. The man is smart enough to know that this is specious. The station group owners who wield the most power are those who have major holdings in the "competing" media. Further, FCC rulings over the past decade point towards consolidation of the various mass media outlets into fewer hands.
The new 45% rule allows a station group owner to have stations in markets (called DMAs) that serve 45% of the country. According to the LA Times, some group owners were already in violation of the old 35% guidelines.
A little-noted provision of the rule is that UHF stations are still counted at only 50% of the size of a DMA. Thus, a station holder with UHF-only portfolio could own local stations reaching 90% of the country.
One can only hope that the UHF discount, a relic from the early days of UHF, is overturned before the mandatory switch to digital broadcasting. A large percentage of current VHF stations have UHF carriers for their digital broadcasts. If the UHF discount is still in place when they decide which of their two carriers to keep, which one do you think they'll keep?
With a few favorable rulings, one could see a single individual running the dominant satellite TV provider, several major cable channels, a major television network, local stations serving DMAs that cover 90% of the country, additional "second tier" stations in those DMAs, major newspapers in those DMAs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.