Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts

Monday, June 08, 2020

A Response to Racism

A Response to Racism in America
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, June 8, 2020, p. A6
[As submitted; bracketed words deleted by The Gazette from hard copy edition for space]

Racism, like COVID-19, is [also] a global pandemic. It has been a systemic element of American culture for 400 years. Like the virus there is neither vaccine nor treatment, it spreads throughout the world in billions of incidents [every day], and as we’ve just been reminded, it can also kill. (Reproduction of handbill advertising a Charleston, South Carolina, slave auction in 1769. Credit: public domain, Wikimedia.org.)

What can we do?

One more impassioned speech or “study” won’t eradicate racism. But, as Thomas Paine said, "words pile up and then people do things." His words in "Common Sense" caused them to fight the Revolutionary War. Words are the "first step in a journey of a thousand miles" – [a journey] seldom completed on the first try.

Following similar protests for similar reasons, in 1968 President Lyndon Johnson created the Milton Eisenhower Commission with members capable of putting the national interest above political advantage. Their remarkable staff produced both the Commission's final report ("To Establish Justice, To Insure Domestic Tranquility") and 11 Staff Reports exposing [our] racism [pandemic] in numerous institutions.

Two [of those 11] volumes addressed "Violence and the Media."

As [an FCC commissioner] a Federal Communications Commission member at the time, I brought the [life] experience of being raised in the 1930s and ‘40s as an “anti-racist” in the midst of Iowa City's "northern racism," plus my disgust at the “southern racism” during my 1950s stay in the South. [during the 1950s.]

At the start [beginning] of my FCC efforts, broadcasting was one of the [single] most racist and sexist [among] American industries.

Change required improving licensees’ hiring practices, putting blacks [Blacks] in front of as well as behind the cameras, increasing the odds of blacks [Blacks] owning a radio or television station, enforcing station licensees' responsibility for meaningful community service, providing public access to [the] mass media (e.g., license renewal challenges, Fairness Doctrine, public access channels on cable, and low power community FM stations [, like KICI in Iowa City]) -- and much more.

It's time to do this again -- focusing on police practices and blacks' [Blacks] disproportionate incarceration, yes, but the other dark corners of systemic racism as well: food, housing, healthcare, child care, education and training, employment, transportation, payday loans. [– and much, much more.]

And fueling racism is how those enjoying white privilege [perceive and] use language; how we think, talk and teach our children. As [the lyrics of] “You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught” explained in the 1958 musical “South Pacific,” “You've got to be taught/Before it's too late/Before you are six/Or seven/Or eight/To hate all the people/Your relatives hate ..." [/You've got to/Be carefully taught.”]

[Is there hope?] Can it be done? [It has been done; progress] Progress was achieved in my little corner of the media’s racist ruins. Of course, much of that progress was undone once I left -- along with [President] Johnson's much more significant progress.

[President] Johnson was fully aware of the political consequences for the Democratic Party from his civil rights efforts. [(a party long dependent on the support of the southern states).] As he put it to an aide, "There goes the South for a generation." How many of our current elected officials can you imagine being willing to do the equivalent for the good of the nation?

What do we need? More political and institutional leaders willing to put the defeat of racism above politics, profits, and position. More understanding of the thousands of forms and locations of the racism virus. More willingness to change each of them, one at a time – and to keep at it as long as it takes.

Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City, was an FCC commissioner from 1966 to 1973. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org
# # #

Note: On this morning's (June 8) Gazette editorial page I share the space with but one other author, Condoleezza Rice. So far as I can find out now, her column is not now available online. If I later find that it is, I will put a link here. Meanwhile, she and I end what each of us have to say on a similar note. She concludes, "What is your question about the impact of race on the lives of Americans? And what will you do to find answers?"

# # #

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Pete Seeger and An Antidote to Apathy

February 2, 2014, 1:10 p.m.
"We Shall Overcome"

Why bother? What's the point? What difference can I possibly make?

Ever felt that way? Many do.

Yet others keep at it, whatever the odds, staring down defeat. What sustains them? What keeps them going?

One of those people was Pete Seeger. His example, commitment, and endurance was an inspiration to me as a young man -- and to millions of others during the past sixty-plus years. He was an icon, larger than life, and lots more fun. I never dreamed in those days that I would someday be sharing a stage with him at rallies, enjoying a private, quiet dinner and evening's conversation with Pete, and his wife, Toshi, in their Beacon, New York, home overlooking the Hudson River he was fighting for, or that he would be providing support for the National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting, for which I was the chair. [Photo credit: Bennett Raglin/Getty Images; multiple sources.]

What a life he led! Past tense because, as all but cave dwellers are by now aware, he died last Monday, January 27, at the age of 94. Jon Parelesjan, "Pete Seeger, Champion of Folk Music and Social Change, Dies at 94," New York Times, Jan. 29, 2014, p. A20. His wife, Toshi, predeceased him last year, Elisabeth Blair, "Toshi Seeger, Wife Of Folk Singer Pete Seeger, Dies At 91," New York Times, July 11, 2013 -- just shy of their 70th anniversary.

His death marks the end of an era, an era of folk songs and banjo, his leading audiences of thousands in song, energizing, organizing and raising our hopes that change was possible.

Memories of Pete Seeger flooded back again a couple of days ago as I read an email from a young man I know. It was going to require a response, and it got me to thinking about why it is that some are able to keep going for 94 years, while others give up after years and years of frustration.

First, here are some excerpts from what that young man wrote me:
Over the years I've written numerous letters to the editor, attended several public meetings, joined local non-profit groups and gone to their meetings, written directly to government officials (both email and postal letters), spoken with sheriffs and police chiefs, tried to change things at work by talking with management and working with the union, written gobs of blog entries, forum posts and comments on online newspaper articles -- on and on -- and essentially none of it has mattered. All my effort has amounted to practically nothing.

After one disaster in which people were killed and injured, I got the impression that no one wanted to know the truth. Perhaps there were enough people who might potentially get burned that they all just got together and buried it. When I try to bring things like this to the attention of local reporters they either never respond to my calls and emails, or don't seem to care. There is just a collective shrug. Crickets chirping.

I'm pretty much done fighting. I really don't see the point.

That's not to say there haven't been some advances in society over the last 50-100 years. Of course there have been, most of them involving civil rights. But it doesn't do anyone much good to be able to vote, for example, if powerful special interests are determining the candidates and the ship is headed for the iceberg.

Regardless of whether one thinks we are headed for nirvana or total annihilation, it really seems to me that the speed and the course are beyond the control of most individuals and groups. Any of us can rant and rave about the politics, WalMart, overpopulation, over-development, abortion, stem cells, guns, church/state issues, the Middle East, nuclear weapons, environmental destruction, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Maher, public education, and taxes, and it just does not matter. We're almost always either preaching to the choir and/or pissing off a large number of people (some of whom may be mentally unstable). It's exceedingly unlikely that one of the Waltons, or a bishop protecting pedophile priests, or a KKK member, or a cement head conservative would read something -- written by anyone really, but especially little ol' me -- and say to themselves, "You know, this guy makes a lot of sense! I realize now that I've been wrong my entire life. Gosh darn it, I'm gonna turn over a new leaf and do the right thing!"

The deck is stacked. Just one example from emails I received today -- efforts to stop the XL pipeline. I think we all know how that's gonna go. I doesn't matter how many people are against it -- there's too much money at stake. Obama will approve it.

Even in years past, for every JFK, Martin Luther King, or Gandhi -- every person who ever made a difference -- there were scores of others who worked, sacrificed, and suffered in vain. Not to mention that all of the above were eventually assassinated.
_______________

There are good reasons for millions of Americans to share that sense of hopelessness. And frankly, I don't know what the best response would be to those who feel that way. I'm sure there are many who could do a better job than I in coming up with a response. In any event, here was my feeble effort:
There are many potential responses to what you wrote.

Sadly, yours may be the majority view. Look at the voting turnout in Iowa City – the world’s third-selected “City of Literature,” a city one with one of the nation’s highest percentages of college graduates, one seen as so progressive as to be characterized as “The People's Republic of Johnson County” by those in Western Iowa. We often get turnouts of 5% to 10% of the eligible voters for city council, school board, and bond elections. Apathy rules.

There is certainly a lot of evidence to support your position. How many “public interest” organizations have shut down because their initial mission was accomplished?

(1) Strategy and Tactics. Those engaged in promoting change would do well to give more thought to strategies and tactics. When Dick Remington and I were co-directors of the Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy, we did a benefit-cost/triage analysis of where we might best put our time and money. We decided, in turn, to focus on (a) control of tobacco use, as it was the number one cause of death, (b) emphasize preventing pre-teens from taking up smoking (as more cost-effective than trying to get nicotine addicts off their drug), and (c) raising the price of cigarettes as the most effective way of discouraging children from taking up smoking. What are the causes that both hold the greatest potential for human betterment, and chance of accomplishment through the efforts of individual citizens? Success, a sense of accomplishment, what community organizers call "the fixed fight," are among the best antidotes for discouragement.

Some causes really are hopeless -– at least at a given time. “Pick your battles,” as my wife advises me. LBJ asked his presidential appointees to provide him with proposals for policies that would best serve the national interest. He said we should not make judgments about what is, and is not, possible -– he would make those judgments. As a congressman’s daughter in law, returning with the family from the south after Christmas, once put it, “Nick, some of those people are just going to have to die” -– not meaning that they should be killed, but that it is seemingly impossible to reason with them. As Thomas Paine explained a couple centuries earlier, “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason . . . is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” (From Thomas Paine, The American Crisis.)

(2) Words Matter. But Thomas Paine said something else that I often think of, that reflects his understanding of both what a long and hard road it is to bring about change, but also how important incremental efforts can be: “The words pile up and then men do things. But first the words.” (I can’t find the source of that right now.) His pamphlet, Common Sense,” played a major role in the American Revolution. As John Adams is credited with having said, “Without the pen of Paine, the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain.”

(3) Of Butterflies and Politics. Do you know about what’s called “the butterfly effect” (a butterfly flapping its wings in China might potentially contribute to the formation of a hurricane in North America weeks later)? Everything you say, every email you write, every letter to the editor you get published, every comment you make to the host of a call-in radio program, is at least the political equivalent of those butterfly wings flapping. Your words do have some effect -- even if so slight as to be immeasurable. It will certainly rarely be enough, by itself, to produce action or change.

Each leaf that fluttered to the bottom of the pool millions of years ago seemed insignificant, but it ultimately became part of a billion barrels of oil. Your support of ZPG (Zero Population Growth), and writing about global population, is an example; you have been a part of a growing global awareness that has, in fact, slowed population growth in many parts of the world.

Think tanks and various task forces and commissions come out with reports full of proposals to make things better. When they do, some people complain, “Oh, just another report to go on the shelf and gather dust.” My thought is, yes, more reports do come along every decade or so on this subject. But ultimately the time is right, a public official's staff person reads through all those old reports, gets the ear of his or her employer, and action follows.

Change is slow in coming. Very slow. As Paine began Common Sense, “Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.”

Think of how long it took to convince Americans that slavery was not cool, or that perhaps it was worth taking the risk of letting women vote, or that it was not folly to create a national park system, or Social Security payments.

(4) A Swinging Pendulum Moves the Clock Forward. The pendulum swings. It’s not always “two steps forward and one step back.” Sometimes it’s “one step forward and two steps back.” Sometimes it’s no steps forward. But even a sailboat can sail into the wind by tacking; the reformer’s job is to figure out the equivalent of tacking when sailing into overwhelming opposition. Even the very best professional baseball players don't get a hit, let alone a home run, every time at bat. When I was doing door-to-door selling I read that it's normal to be turned down at least ten times for every sale. Politics, and reform of public policy is like that. A realistic sense of what's possible reduces frustration.

(5) The Personal Return from Making an Effort. Finally, there is the impact on the person engaged in trying to bring about change. There is actually some psychological data on this, I think.

Being engaged in the passions of one’s time is good for your physical, mental and emotional health. It often involves working with others you would not otherwise have come to know. It energizes you, gives you a reason to get out of bed in the morning. Discouragement? Sure. But as President Kennedy said at Rice University, Sept. 12, 1962, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”

Want a little advice? Take a measured, realistic view of what anyone can accomplish, the causes that are hopeless, those that are going to take decades and yet have a chance. Don’t take on too much. Don’t stress yourself out with lack of sleep and perpetual frustration. Maintain a sense of humor about it all. Find additional activities that are predominantly pleasant. But you’ll continue to benefit, even personally, not to mention for others, by not giving up entirely on trying to improve the status quo -– Latin for “the mess we’re in now.” Help clean it up. It's worth it.

# # #

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Goldman, Sachs and Shearer

August 14, 2010, 7:45 a.m.

Given the recent exceptional popularity of "Living Outside the Box; From Thoreau to Ferentz," August 9, 2010, if that's the blog entry you're looking for you can find it here.

Entertainment, Social Commentary and Public Policy
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)

Harry Shearer is one of those guys in Hollywood who has excelled at virtually every form of creative endeavor -- with the possible exception of re-painting the Sistine Chapel.

The fulsome coverage of his career in Wikipedia describes him as "an American actor, comedian, writer, voice artist, musician, author and radio host." That scarcely does his creative and prolific career justice, but it does give you a simplistic sense of its variety and reach. "Harry Shearer," wikipedia.org. And see his Web site.

Among other things, he is a sensitive observer, and critic, of the American scene. As such, he is a contributor to the hundreds of years of involvement of entertainment in general, and music in particular, in the cause of social commentary and "activism" -- which is just another word for "democracy." The Sixties -- both the 1860s and the 1960s have been such times, with the hidden messages in Spirituals, and less well-disguised approach of the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" in the 1960s, John Stewart's "Daily Show" today, and Pete Seeger seemingly having been singing forever.

Another example, provided by Harry Shearer, and all too effectively hidden within his creative outpouring in my view, is a little song he wrote, recorded and released October 6, 2009, about the financial collapse in general and Goldman Sachs in particular. In it, he succeeds in explaining both what was going on, and the attitudes of those engaged in it -- which seem to me to bear at least some similarity to those exhibited in the ten year old movie "Boiler Room" (2000) and 1987 film "Wall Street" (from which the video clip, above, of the Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas) "greed is good" speech is taken).

The song is not exactly today's news, "more's the pity," and that's a part of my concern. Goldman Sachs' role in the global financial collapse from which we have yet to emerge -- like the BP's pollution of the Gulf of Mexico -- are seen by the corporations involved, as well as the media, as a "public relations" challenge. The solution? (1) Produce and televise some slick commercials proclaiming your sincerity and sorrow, and perhaps pay to underwrite some CPB programming. (I once proposed the best way to fund public broadcasting would be for the Department of Justice Antitrust Division to file more law suits, because every time it filed one the corporate defendant inevitably got its face out there as a "good guy" by funding a PBS or NPR program.) (2) Just wait it out; ultimately the public (and their representatives) will forget about it, having shifted their focus to a more current crisis.

Music, humor, films, and other forms of entertainment can stand and fight that tendency. (I recently watched a "Boiler Room" DVD again.) And Harry Shearer's "Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs" lively tune and lyrics keep running through my mind long after I've forgotten exactly what it was the New York Times' stories and editorials detailed about the firm's abuses.

The song is available from YouTube.com, iTunes and Amazon for 99 cents, and I recommend you give it a listen.

Its energized beat and bouncy and irreverent delivery can't be communicated by the lyrics alone. But here they are anyway, to give you a sense of the message. [If Harry Shearer wants me to remove them from this blog entry I will, of course, do so. But with no advertising on my blog, I have nothing to gain by making them available, and anyone who was a potential purchaser of the song before should be more, rather than less, likely to be so now. And if you find, and can correct, any errors in my transcription please put them in a comment on this blog entry.]

So here it is, . . .

"Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs"
Harry Shearer

When Mr. Goldman met Mr. Sachs
Business ran on railroad tracks
The world was simpler, you can't forget
When Mr. Sachs and Goldman met

Said Mr. Goldman, "For years and years,
Our guys have got the most between the ears"
Said Mr. Sachs, "Let's unhook some reigns,
And find new ways to profit off our traders' brains"

Spinning gold out of flax,
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

Spinning gold out of flax,
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

"Up to the Clintons," says Sachs with glee,
"Our former chief now runs the Treasury"
Slapped Mr. Goldman to Mr. Sachs,
"Everything's OK, we can relax"

"We're blowing bubbles," Mr. Goldman crowed,
"We making money out of money owed"
"On Wall Street our names should be up on plaques,"
Bubbled Mr. Goldman to Mr. Sachs

Balls so big they stretched the slacks
Of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

Balls so big they stretched the slacks
Of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

"The century's turning," Mr. Sachs opined,
"Our new kind of trains boggle the mind"
Bragged Mr. Goldman with a toss of his head,
"One of our guys runs the New York Fed"

Noted Mr. Sachs as the market soared,
"We're totally wired in each department and board"
"We regulate ourselves, the wind's at our backs,"
Said the jolly Mr. Goldman to a blithe Mr. Sachs

Their regulators are really claques,
For Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

Their regulators are really claques,
For Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

Said Mr. Goldman to Mr. Sachs,
"This sly little system is showing some cracks"
Mr. Sachs to Mr. Goldman said,
"We got it covered, go back to bed"

The hustle’s urbane Mr. Sachs recalled,
"We may get a haircut, but we won't go bald"
"Any bailout move will be comfy and lax,"
Mr. Goldman was reassured by Mr. Sachs

"Bear Stearns went down," Mr. Sachs told his friend,
"And Lehman Brothers met a harsher end"
"Merrill Lynch was sold off by a fax,"
A dour Mr. Goldman told Mr. Sachs

"It's time," Mr. Goldman said, "to pull some rank"
So presto, said Mr. Sachs, "We'll become a bank"
"We'll be covered by the payers of tax,"
Exhaulted Mr. Goldman to Mr. Sachs

Mr. Sachs explained, "We're insured by AIG"
Mr. Goldman responded, "That's fine with me"
"Our risky bets will be paid off in full,"
Said Mr. Goldman, more than ever a raging bull

"Unemployment is rising," Mr. Goldman observes
But their partnership is still riding on nerves
"Profits in the billions, ignore the attacks,"
Says a flush Mr. Goldman to a flush Mr. Sachs

Spinning gold out of flax
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

Spinning gold out of flax
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

Spinning gold out of flax
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

Spinning gold out of flax
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs

Spinning gold out of flax
Mr. Goldman and Mr. Sachs
And now to return to what some will consider the more mundane approach to economics policy, consider these excerpts -- and the column in its entirety: Froma Harrop, "Regulation Made Canada Fat and Happy," creators.com, August 12, 2010 (copyright by the Providence Journal and reprinted in numerous newspapers around the country):

Suppose the U.S. government had posted a budget surplus in 12 of the past 13 years. Suppose not a single major American financial institution had failed or needed a government bailout. Suppose the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 6.1 percent in the first quarter of this year, rather than at 2.7 percent.

Wouldn't that make you happy?

These cheering economic indicators happen to be reality in Canada. They did not come about because Canadians are more virtuous or they don't have subprime mortgages (they do) or they didn't keep interest rates very low (their rates were much like ours). What Canada had was a civic culture that wanted government to regulate financial activity.

What we have is an elite willing to risk everyone else's economic security to enable a few hotshots to win big at the casino of recklessness and fraud — while maintaining a variety of taxpayer backstops to reduce their risks. The joint never gets closed, also thanks to the large numbers of ordinary citizens trained to holler "socialism" every time the government tries to set a ground rule. A satanic belief in the rightness of free markets to punish the unsophisticated almost halted the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. . . .

So how are Canadian businesses doing these days relative to ours? It's true that the Standard & Poor's index of 500 large U.S. companies has done pretty well this year. But the Toronto exchange's index of large-cap Canadian stocks did 27 percent better.

Periodic booms and busts don't have to be Americans' fate. Some people get very rich off them. But for ordinary folk, slow and steady wins the race. Support for letting government install some speed bumps to enhance their financial stability has left Canadians fat and happy. We could live the same way.
As we reflect upon Wall Street's role in our global economic collapse we have options: we can sing about it, laugh about it, cry about it, or read and write public policy analyses and essays. Unfortunately (to return to singing about it), as in "you can't win, you can't break even, and you can't get out of the game," Simon and Garfunkel clarified our situation in "Mrs. Robinson,"
Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon
Going to the candidates debate
Laugh about it, shout about it
When you've got to choose
Ev'ry way you look at it, you lose
"And that's," as Walter Cronkite used to say, "the way it is, Saturday morning, August 14, 2010" (unless, as Ms. Harrop informs us, you move to Canada). ["Walter Cronkite," wikipedia.org ("Cronkite is well known for his departing catchphrase 'And that's the way it is,' followed by the date on which the appearance is aired.")]
_______________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Reforming the FCC

January 6, 2009, 5:30 a.m.

Can We Reform the FCC?
"Yes We Can!"


(Brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)

As Iowa Democrats' caucus choice for president is about to be inaugurated in Washington, and the state's population has recently exceeded 3 million Iowans, some 55,000 of them headed off to Tampa with their beer bongs, where the University's football team was invited to play, and then beat South Carolina 31-10, in the Outback Bowl. (Photo credit: Daniel Wallace, St. Petersburg Times.) Meanwhile, many of my colleagues (without bongs, and with a greater love for the law than for football) are in San Diego at the annual meeting of the American Association of Law Schools, and I am in Washington, participating as a panelist at a C-SPAN-covered conference on "Reforming the Federal Communications Commission."

Like President-elect Obama and his family, I am also staying in a hotel near the White House. Unlike Obama, there is a good reason why I am not staying at the Blair House. The reason why he is not there is less clear, and the consequences are a security nightmare in the neighborhood (compared to what they would have been within the security compound of the Blair House). AFP reports, "The president-elect, his wife Michelle and two daughters are staying at the luxury Hay-Adams Hotel, a stone's throw from the White House. Obama had requested to stay at Blair House, the government's official guest residence just across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, but the Bush administration said it was booked solid through January 15."

The purpose of the FCC conference is to provide the Obama Transition Team with some suggestions regarding reforms of the FCC's organization, management, process and administrative procedure -- a subject that turns out to be much more interesting, and significant for the U.S. economy (among other things) than one might first suspect.

Yesterday's (January 5) effort, held at the National Press Club before an overflow crowd, was only the beginning of what is already (January 6, afternoon) a Web site, http://fcc-reform.org, with links to the papers presented at the conference, bibliographies, and the opportunity for an ongoing discussion.

The event was organized, and smoothly executed, by two leading telecommunications public advocates, Gigi Sohn and Phil Weiser.

Gigi is the president and founder of an organization called Public Knowledge, which is offering the transition team some suggestions for substantive FCC policies as well (open broadband; balanced copyright; nondiscriminatory text messaging).

Phil is a professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the executive director of its Silicon Flatirons: A Center for Law, Technology and Entrepreneurship.

Here are the backs of their heads at the final event of the conference, presentations by former FCC chairs Reed E. Hundt and William Kennard. (For the fronts of their heads see photos below.) Photo credit: C-SPAN. Here is a link to the C-SPAN page for this portion of the conference, along with a link to the video of the presentations by Hundt and Kennard.

Rather than "presentations" by each panelist, the two panels were moderated by Gigi Sohn and Phil Weiser, who moved the discussions along with their questions of panelists.

The panel on which I participated, "Historical Perspectives on the Federal Communications Commission," or "The Past as Prologue: Lessons From History on the Road to Reform" was moderated by Phil, whose substantial paper (now available on the Web site) was the focus of the conference. The panelists included:
Kathleen Abernathy, Partner, Wilkinson Barker & Knauer/Former FCC Commissioner











Kathryn C. Brown, SVP of Policy, Verizon/Former Chief of Staff, FCC

Kyle Dixon, Partner, Kamlet Shepherd and Reichert, LLP/Former Media Bureau Deputy Chief FCC

Henry Geller, Former Administrator, NTIA

Ellen Goodman, Professor of Law, University of Rutgers-Camden/Of Counsel, Covington & Burling

Nicholas Johnson, Professor of Law, University of Iowa School of Law/Former FCC Commissioner
Here is the C-SPAN main page for the panel; and this is a link to the C-SPAN video.

Gigi Sohn opened the conference with introductory remarks at 9:00 a.m. and then proceeded to moderate the first panel's discussion, looking to the FCC's future, including its management of spectrum, net neutrality, and media ownership, called "The Future of the FCC as an Institution."

Her panelists included:
Mark Cooper, Director of Research, Consumer Federation of America

Pierre DeVries, Silicon Flatirons Senior Adjunct Fellow, University of Colorado

Mike Marcus, Marcus Spectrum Solutions

Jessica Rosenworcel, Senate Commerce Committee

Jonathan Sallet, Silicon Flatirons Senior Adjunct Fellow, University of Colorado/Partner, The Glover Park Group

Phil Weiser, Professor of Law, Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program, University of Colorado/Executive Director, Silicon Flatirons Center
Here is the C-SPAN main page for this first panel; and this is a link to the C-SPAN video.

For a blogger's running report of participants' comments see also Mehan Jayasuriya, "Liveblog: Reforming the FCC," January 5, 2008.

And now here's Jay, with our 2008 "Year in Review," and all our best wishes and intuition that by the standard of "compared to what?" 2009 will produce a very Happy New Year for all of us . . . compared to 2008:


__________

* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.

# # #