Noonan is a thoughtful conservative--few exists anymore. She loves great music, art, literature etc--unlike the current crew who want to make this country into a theocracy.

>> And for whoever was ragging on PBS for shooting HD-- for the record, we shoot HDCam. It's not so much about gov't funding... it's the fact that the other networks have got their heads so far up their butts in regards to HD, it's embarassing. We're pretty much the only 'network' (again, we're all decidedly loosely affiliated with each other) that's putting together anything with any shelf life in HD. The local ABC station just upgraded their cameras... and they went XDCam, not HD.

Nobody is expecting the necessary market penetration w/ HD & Digital for another 10 years. Mark my words... the conversion deadline is going to get pushed back at least twice more.
<<

I'm in the SF Bay area so things may not much match the rest of the US, but the whole digital TV thing is surprizingly disappointing.

The big PBS station here is KQED and they were among the first to get on the digital bandwagon. They were broadcasting HDTV before any of the local network stations were even paying attention. KQED is the only station that seems to have its HDTV OTA broadcasts under control. The other stations have various problems all the time.

The local ABC station had two big hit shows last season: Desperate Houswives and Lost. I started watching them because they were decently done HD programs and they looked good. All season, I think the ABC station only got one or two broadcasts of these big shows done right. Wrong formats, sound out of sync, glitches, dead spots, etc. I wrote them a couple times and asked if these were technical problems or labor issues. Could be both, I think.

Recently ABC here got better on their digital signals not having major problems, but I think they made a recent change in their equipment or software. So in general they seem a bit better, but I think they changed something because, only on their broadcasts, I now see red noise "sparkles" in dark sections of some images on the left side of the screen. Two steps forward this time, but one step back. Could be my TV but I don't see it on any other stations.

So after that long blabber, my point is, only the PBS station KQED seems to have the technology or training of personel for HDTV under control. I guess I agree that the deadline has to be pushed back with the way it seems to be going.

J_C_F,

I wish it wasn't true, but I have to agree with your evaluation of what is going on in our current time.

I think part of what enabled the Nazis to get going before WWII was the horrible stress on the German society during the depression. If things are spinning out of control, it's a lot easier to get large parts of the population motivated to find groups to blame and go after them.

We seem to have an economy that is either redefining itself or is in trouble (too early to tell). Anyway lots of Americans are under new levels of economic or job-related stress. Throw the Twin Towers attack on top of that, and lots of people were ready to go out and kill somebody -- just tell me who. In the midst of that insanity its not hard to get many of us blaming each other and nasty clashes within the country. A great season for Bush and his buddies who already had the list of who to blame and why. Certain countries and segments of our own society needed to be brought under control. Now is the time to get the process underway.

So on a smaller part of this theme, it seems to me that when one of these discussions get started I always seem to find myself reading from some admitted right-leaning person, that you liberal people can never have a civil discussion. You always resort to name calling, etc.

From my point of view, I keep hearing stuff like you just quoted in your last post.

>> I very much want to save PBS and the CPB. Not so much for what it is now, but what it might be able to become.
<<

That's the kind of thinking that gives the bastards justification for these kinds of ugly things they are trying to do (and doing).

I want to save PBS because it already provides some of the best programming available. Definately the best programming available on the troubled over-the-air broadcast sector.

Frontline and Nova are, in my opinion, the consistantly best and most informative programs available in North America. Some here have been saying that if PBS dies, Discovery Channel and others will provide the same content. I say, then you must not be watching the good PBS programs.

There is also the broad spectrum of stuff PBS carries. As mentioned, the local stuff will be gone. Lots of the small shows will be gone forever. Independent or experimental video will be seriously hurt (POV, Independent View). I think Sundance and IFC were supporsed to be our window for that on cable. A few years ago I enjoyed them both. Lately I can't find anything that hasn't been showing for at least a year, and most of the programming is unwatchable.

So I am really upset by this latest slap. PBS may survive even if they make this current cut, but any business or organization that suddenly loses 35% (or more) of their operating budget is going to have to go into survival mode. We can afford billions of dollars for a stupid ill conceived war but a little chunk of money to feed the American brains with decent entertainment and information has to go.

As the other Rex implied, we are in deep shit with our current government. I think we are only a couple steps away from using our libraries to provide fuel for the next energy crunch.

Here is a transcript of PBS The News Hour Op-Ed portion with Jim Lehrer. Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and National Review editor Rich Lowry. David Brooks [conservatice columnist for The New York Times] was off that night.

Read it and tell me where it comes across as anything but balanced.
In fact Lowry participated in the LIE perpetuated by virtually all of mainstream media regarding the British meaning of the term "fixed" in reference to The Downing Street Memo meaning something different than it does here. Chris Matthews started that LIE on "softball" when he interviewed Condoleeza Rice on June 15. Rice eagerly agreed with Matthews's suggestion that in Britain the word "fixed" really "means JUST PUT THINGS TOGETHER." In the June 20 issue of the conservative Weekly Standard, contributing editor Tod Lindberg wrote of the memo: "'Fix' here is clearly meant in its traditional sense, in the sort of English spoken by Oxbridge dons and MI6 directors -- to make fast, to set in order, to arrange." Following that the rest of mainstream media got in on the act of perpetuating the LIE to cover for the Bush administration even further on the memo.


RICH LOWRY: I don't think so. The major phrase in there that is causing a big stir is the intelligence was fixed around the policy. And I think people are interpreting the word "fixed" the way you would say fixed the Belmont Stakes this weekend, which is not the way it was meant. I think it was meant in the sense that the intelligence is supporting the policy asking questions like what will a post-invasion Iraq look like and questions of that nature. Unfortunately, the intelligence was disastrously inadequate on those sort of questions so in that sense it wasn't fixed enough.


Shields, who plays the "liberal" on the show didn't argue the LIE.

So where is the "liberal" (whatever that means anymore) bent of the show?

John

PS: In case any of you support this LIE about the British meaning of the word "fixed", here, In a British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) documentary from March, which quoted the Downing Street Memo more than a month before the Sunday Times published it, BBC reporter John Ware explained: "By 'fixed' the MI6 chief meant that the Americans were trawling for evidence to reinforce their claim that Saddam was a threat." The headline of a Sunday Times preview of the documentary -- "MI6 chief told PM: Americans 'fixed' case for war" -- also makes it clear how the British understand "fixed."
And Similarly, Sunday Times reporter Michael Smith, who first disclosed the memo on May 1, ridiculed the notion that "fixed" has a different meaning in Britain in an online chat:.

SMITH: There are number of people asking about fixed and its meaning. This is a real joke. I do not know anyone in the UK who took it to mean anything other than fixed as in fixed a race, fixed an election, fixed the intelligence. If you fix something, you make it the way you want it. The intelligence was fixed and as for the reports that said this was one British official. Pleeeaaassee! This was the head of MI6. How much authority do you want the man to have? He has just been to Washington, he has just talked to George Tenet. He said the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. That translates in clearer terms as the intelligence was being cooked to match what the administration wanted it to say to justify invading Iraq. Fixed means the same here as it does there.

Moreover, when the Sunday Times first disclosed the memo on May 1, it noted the Bush administration's attempt "to link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks" as an example of "fixing" the intelligence around the policy:

The Americans had been trying to link Saddam to the 9/11 attacks; but the British knew the evidence was flimsy or non-existent. Dearlove warned the meeting that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

In a May 2 column in London's Daily Mail, political editor David Hughes argued that the meeting detailed in the Downing Street memo "led inexorably to the publication of the 'sexed-up' Iraq weapons dossier two months later," referring to a now-famous 2003 report by BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan alleging that a British dossier on Iraq had been "sexed up" to hype the Iraqi threat. Gilligan's report became the subject of intense controversy when British weapons expert Dr. David Kelley committed suicide following the revelation that he was a key source for that report. An official inquiry into Kelley's suicide criticized Gilligan, his report, and the BBC, which prompted claims that the inquiry was a whitewash.

craftech, if you haven't seen it, you should definitely read this.

The reporter for the Sunday Times of London who broke the DSM story had an online chat at the Washinton Post's website. It's quite provocative. He laughed at the idea that "fixed" meant something different to British ears than American ears.

He is very definite about the meaning of the documents. What US readers may not understand is that he not only has the documents but has been talking with the source who leaked the documents to him. So he says he there is no ambiguity about the meaning of the documents to him. His source is very high up, those documents were only released to a select few. So his source is probably one of the principals involved in the meetings.

He also castigated the US media for coming up with excuses not to cover this story when it broke over a month ago.
He says that in additional to the 8 or so documents that have come out there are others that will continue to come.
He says the most damaging item is lack of preparation for postwar security.
He identifies himself as Conservative voter for national elections and a Liberal for local elections. So in British terms that is right-center, i.e. he is not a Labour voter, he is not a Tony Blair fan.

Anyone who is interested in this issue should check it out too. He lays out the terms for what seems to be a long upcoming debate. To refute this documents you will need to deal with the issues he raises, semantic spin about what "fixed" means is not going to cut it.

Until PBS and NPR stop messing in political affairs (which they have no right to do with public funding), I say get rid of them.

I think its in the best interest of the major networks to get rid of PBS. Let's face it, that channel is the ONLY channel that parents can let their kids watch without any fears of exposure to any sort of commercialization. No ugly words, no nudity, no corp peddling their crappy toys, and best of all the programming is highly educational. Those viewers, mainly the poor kids that are bred on that channel, will be telling mommy and daddy to tune the tube to something worse: Disney channel, etc. They'll grow up even more influenced to what corp America will wants them to be: Consumers.

Until PBS and NPR stop messing in political affairs (which they have no right to do with public funding), I say get rid of them.

Let's say that we rule that PBS &and NPR are no longer allowed to cover elections or political races or any decisions made by the executive, legislative or judicial bodies.

That should take care of it, right?

Hmm, maybe not.

What if they talk to people in the street, and two of them turn out to be a gay married couple from Massachusetts? Yikes, that would be politics, can't have that.

Programs about our great heritage, the National Parks?
What if they interview a ranger in a national park, and he says numerous visitors over the last few years have been asking why they can no longer see across the park because of some kind of permanent visibility reduction? Unacceptable politics and nterference with Bush's Healthy Profits Initiative, can't have that.
Better say that PBS and NPR can no longer cover our national parks.

What about talking to people in the workplace?
No, no, no, absolutely not. These people are voters and might express an opinion, and, worst of all, it could be shown that a particular workplace is unsafe to work in, or there is a PVC-type problem (like years ago when they showed workers' hands slowly getting dissolved). Nope, no workplaces can be shown.

Schools maybe?
No, that could expose the then-current governments plan to demand better performance with continuously cut funding. Absolutely political, not good.

How about a program covering Americans' love for their automobiles?
Hmmm, what if somebody should mention that cars have tailpipes, that would be totally unacceptable. In addition to getting involved in the politics of Clear Lies (or is it really called Clear Skies?), showing tailpipes on television might also stimulate homosexuality in children. (Note to committee, we also need to ban the exposure of belly buttons like in the 1950s.)

How about knitting then, now THAT would have to be totally safe!
No, sorry, knitters are feminists who are just trying to show a false superioriority over the machines that generate America's profits. Can't have that.

How about just Big Bird around the clock?
That would be fine, as long as his manuscript is submitted to the SLORC (State Law and Order Restoration Council) at least two weeks in advance for editing.
(SLORC is the name of Myanmar's highest government, and the apparent current source of inspiration for our government.)

I have not been in favor of federal funding for CPB, but one post in this thread changed my mind. Somebody pointed out that without supplemental federal funding, not much would change in the big cities, because they have enough local members who could pitch in the difference. Outside of the top 4 cities however, the cuts wouldn't leave enough for local coverage, so they would just have a "Maytag" guy looking at a patch connecting a standardized and centrally approved national satellite feed to a local transmitter.

The good news is that the congress critters who set up the federal funding part for CPB foresaw that future politicians would from time-to-time agree/disagree with some particular program or programs and try to cut their funding. Their solution was to make it so that CPB would be funded two years out, which gave time for friends to come to the rescue.

Let's come to the rescue, and let's do it in the name of the Founding Fathers of this country.

These very wise men thought it was a good idea to a) allow freedom of speech, and b) to separate church and state.

Freedom of speech can be painful, but it's the only way to have a healthy society.

Why separate church and state? Because it was found that most people agree somewhat on the organization of the state, but there are huge disagreements on which church is the only right one. Better make the latter a personal choice.


With today's technology, it should be easy to create two virtual-reality parks:

One that faithfully recreates the old Soviet Union to be populated by neocons who would feel right at home and just love it. (No reference here to the real conservatives who actually fought the Soviet Union.)

The other park faithfully recreating a theocracy, it wouldn't even have to be one with Islamic law. Money could be saved by just going to one of the communities in rural Utah that broke out of the early Mormon church (and that are not recognized by it). When boys don't agree with everything the church says, their parents put them in the back of a truck and drop them off in the middle of nowhere to fend for themselves. They are condemned forever byt the community. What about any misbehaving girls, you might ask? No problem, they are "needed" later.
(a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050613/ts_latimes/losttotheonlylifetheyknew>Lost to the only life they knew)

Imagine a stereotypical married couple from the 1950s. Let's say Mom and Dad are 40, with a teenaged boy, Junior.

Dad is the football coach at a local high school. He's a big guy, has a crew-cut, served proudly in the Marines, and is no-nonsense. He grew up in Texas. He wears starched slacks, a short-sleeved white shirt, and a thin tie which almost chokes him. His face and neck always seem to be an odd shade of red.

Mom wears a nice dress as she putters happily around the house. She likes to listen to Broadway show tunes on the hi-fi. In her spare time she enjoys writing poetry.

Things seem idyllic on the surface, but when it comes to figuring out how to distribute the family money for Junior's development, there's an ongoing debate. Junior has a football and some boxing gloves and a subscription to Sports Illustrated, which Dad figures was a good investment. Mom doesn't object to these things, but thinks perhaps there could be a bit more balance, especially considering this:

As far as the boy is concerned, football is OK. Boxing ain't any fun atall. However, he likes hearing Mom's poems once in a while and would love to write / recite some poetry himself. The one time he gave it a try, though, Dad went ballistic and ordered the boy to "Drop and give me fifty!" (pushups)

Dad doesn't think his son needs sissy stuff like poetry; he needs "practical" training that will prepare him for the Wonderful World of Work and, perhaps, to kick someone's ass when/if the time comes. Dad is a football coach, and he knows what young men need---and it ain't poetry.

Mom would love to buy some poetry anthologies and leave them laying around the house where Junior could find them, read them, and perhaps be inspired. Shucks, you can buy several nice volumes of poetry for far less than what well-made footballs and boxing gloves cost!

But Dad forbids it. Even though they can easily afford it, in the end it's a waste of money. For one thing, it cuts into the football / boxing gloves budget. Plus, Dad's been thinking of buying a weight bench and some weights because Junior's staying kinda skinny.

I think there's a place in this world for crew-cut football coaches, but for the life of me I can't figure out why football programs enjoy MUCH better funding than arts programs.

I don't know CPB, NPR, and PBS' budgets, but I bet we could take one aircraft carrier, nuclear sub, and B2 bomber off the production schedule, give the $$$ to CPB, NPR, and PBS and STILL be able to do lots of pushups and out-box most anybody on the planet.

But then I guess we'd start the slow slide to becoming a nation of sissies----perhaps eventually ending up almost like the French.

And we damned sure can't have THAT!

I don't know CPB, NPR, and PBS' budgets, but I bet we could take one aircraft carrier, nuclear sub, and B2 bomber off the production schedule, give the $$$ to CPB, NPR, and PBS and STILL be able to do lots of pushups and out-box most anybody on the planet.

Can't do that! We are only spending as much on the military as the next 26 runner-up countries together. Any less and we'd definitely be seen as sissies!

Seriously, I have a concern that our military is all set up to fight yesterday's war.

Just like how the French were so incredibly proud of their Maginot line after WW I, where it was absolutely guaranteed that no cavalry on earth could penetrate these defensive lines.

Unfortunately the Germans forgot to bring their horses, they brought tanks instead, and the "impenetrable defenses" were clobbered immediately.

Here in the U.S. we are facing non-traditional war threats in the form of terrorism and economic warfare (making the country dependent on IOUs to China and other countries that can just decide to tighten the barbed wire arouond the eagle's balls whenever they feel like it).

Rolling the tanks anyhere will not help against teither terrorism or economic warfare, and it doesn't seem like there is too much thought given to it at all.

Oh, other than blaming it all on Al Qaida of course.

And announcing with great fanfare that "one of the very top leaders of Al Qaida had been captured" recently, even though this guy was identified by British intelligence sources as a junior office clerk, and people who knew him in this role said authoritatively that he was responsible for "making photocopies and coffee."

>>The good news is that the congress critters who set up the federal funding part for CPB foresaw that future politicians would from time-to-time agree/disagree with some particular program or programs and try to cut their funding. Their solution was to make it so that CPB would be funded two years out, which gave time for friends to come to the rescue.
<<

Not sure that is true now.

I don't follow details of politics and legislation much, but it seems to me that funding for PBS was already reduced significantly over the last few years. When I became aware of the current situation I wrote my Congress rep. Mike Honda. Here is part of his reply message:

"In the past, Congressional appropriations have provided a two-year advance appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). However, in the FY2004 Labor-HHS Appropriations bill, CPB received funding only for FY2005. Sadly, the Republicans on the Appropriations Committee chose not to support appropriations for FY2006. You can rest assured that I will continue to champion appropriate funding levels for the CPB. "

So, I'm not sure how that transition to one-year funding happened, but apparently Coursedesign's mention of two year protection has already been done away with.

Until PBS and NPR stop messing in political affairs (which they have no right to do with public funding), I say get rid of them
=================
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private, not-for-profit corporation created by Congress to protect public broadcasting outlets from political interference. Even on it's website it states that one of it's three purposes is to "support of programming which reflects a diversity of views".

It never ceases to amaze me how some of us WAN'T a limited view presented to us.

John

craftech, if you haven't seen it, you should definitely read this.
=======
Actually that was the link I "thought" I activated in my commentary above where it says "online chat". Somehow the link changed, but thanks Buster. I cannot believe that the media is destroying this country to this extent. As I said in the other thread, it is the number one problem we face and few are aware of it (thanks to the media themselves).

John

The rich own the corperations that own the media.

The corperations lobby our government for laws that benefit corperations in an unbalanced manner. Citizens are secondary.

Corperations are bleeding our economy dry... moving jobs off seas. We're being told we're not smart enough by our own news media (which is of course owned by corperations)

When we start beleiving that we're not smart enough to compete... we've already lost.

This country has some of the best schools in the world. It has some of the most intelligent people in the world... and to think we're being sold the idea that we're not smart enough to make sneakers or cars. (Both items that we invented... along with Television, computers etc)

Those are middle class hardworking good jobs. We cant all be the cutting edge researcher, or CEO of the month.

We're being told by corperations that we cant compete with india because india is smarter. No india is cheaper. China is Cheaper... They have less labor laws.

The exploitation of our country is being lobbied by the very people who exploit us.

The people are not being represented, just used.

True its capitalism at its worst... or best depending on how decent of a person you are :)

Free thought is clearly something our government is against. It is out to destroy free speech and free thought.

And if you think corperate news networks are FREE speech, and FREE thought... When was the last time you were on network news, or had your thoughts heard nationally?

Free thought is about posing a concept, asking questions, and hoping your audience is eager enough to make up their own mind.

Free thought is not the "rah rah" corperate news network editorial shows. Regular talking heads cycling the "oriely's" or "hardballs" are not free thought. They are political movements dictated by money and talking points.

Its an entertaining fight to keep us distracted from addressing the countries problems.

CNN may read the bloggs, but they do crap about the issues.

No india is cheaper. China is Cheaper... They have less labor laws.

For this reason, India is now losing jobs to China... If the Chinese figure out how to speak English, things will get a lot tougher even.

It's good to know that our lawmakers are working hard to protect our country. By moving today to change the constitution to exclude flag burning from our right to free speech, they are showing that they really do care about us after all.

Just imagine how much more we will all respect our country, when we go to bed knowing that there will be no more flag burning. The Old Glory will shine brightly regardless of what our government does to its citizens and "enemy combatants," some of whom who have their rights granted by the Constitution of the Founding Fathers and are deprived of those same rights by the declaration of one single person.

The media? They seemed to have given up on these issues, but perhaps they are now getting ready for the pressed duck dish (this really is a classical dish), and planning on getting even for the 5 years of manipulation of the press...

So Ken Tomlinson got his candidate Patricia Harrison approved of president of the CPB and, voila, 87 Republicans vote to restore the $100 millions.

So Harrison, the former head of the Republican National Committee, a woman who has no broadcasting experience, is the best candidte to head the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Be clear on what I am saying. I don't object to a Republican holding Harrison's or Tomlinson's job. However in their cases, their ideology is the only reason they have their jobs. The CPB is the very instrument that is suppossed to keep political interference out of PBS so why is a professional partisan like Harrison even interviewed? In additional Tomlinson seems unethical. What has Tomlinson done in his position to keep political influence out of PBS? He coordinated with the White House about creating the ombudsman position with the WH director of communications. Then he hired her and seems to have lied about the contacts he had when she still worked for the White House. There is at least one more person he hired directly from the White House. He won't release two polls that the CPB did on public perception of bias because they contradict his agenda. These polls are funded with public money. To search for "bias" Tomlinson, without informing the rest of the board of CPB, hired a researcher from the National Journalism Center which is funded by the American Conservative Union and boasts such eminent graduates as Ann Coulter. Luckily Tomlison is being investigated by CPB's Inspector General.




WASHINGTON -- The board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on Thursday announced it has named former Republican National Committee co-chairwoman Patricia de Stacy Harrison to work as its top administrator, punctuating a political struggle between liberals and conservatives over public broadcasting.

And this terrifying, end-of-the-Republic news belongs on the Vegas forum why?