PBS, Not Only Valuable, But Necessary
Give PBS Support It Deserves Instead of Trashing It
Sometimes the "Gray Old Lady" can get downright ridiculous. Take a recent item, "Is PBS Still Necessary?"
As journalists ourselves, and with more experience than the New York Times writer, we are cognizant of the need to take a somewhat different tack on a story or to attack a long-held "given." Fine, but do not throw away fact, history and reason in doing so.
The Times writer is in love with the Public Broadcasting System's audio sister, National Public Radio, as he should be. He is supposed to be a television writer, but he may be spending too much time watching "not reality" shows instead of PBS channels.
The writer defends his theory by noting how much audience each entity has and apparently sees the difference as justifying federal cuts for PBS. As with many of today's government leaders, he either has never learned or completely forgot what PBS and NPR are supposed to be about. As television writer, he should be more concerned than any- one else about preserving alternatives in an ever-more monopolistic med- ia era.
We begin with a primer.
PBS and NPR were, indeed, created as alternatives to commer- cial broadcasting, but primarily, with regular federal financial support, as educational outlets to supply material to listeners and viewers the com- mercial stations were not offering. That proved to be a wise decision.
Remember, these two public broadcasting entities were intended to be alternatives; they were not intended to compete with commercial broadcasters for viewers or listeners and not to copy what commercial stations were offering.
Over the decades since those creations, federal laws and Federal Communications Commis- sion regulations have evolved to re- quire commercial broadcasters, in receiving exclusive rights to a piece of the public airwaves spectrum, to provide some sort of public service. Over the years that took on various hues such as providing regular newscasts, programming aimed at educating children and on an on. Many of the rules have been done away with under various Republican administrations, and the current Bush administration FCC ranks among the worst.
As all of those changes were taking place, public broadcasting has largely remained true to its original intent, offering alternative pro- gramming. At times it has strayed a bit. It over-promotes its program- ming, it gives too much air time to promotional (read that advertising commercials) spots in exchange for large contributions and sometimes it engages in the same stardom-oriented staging of the commercial networks.
But PBS has had little al- ternative but to open its air time to commercial interests. Driven large- ly by Republicans, federal funding has been slashed over the years, causing the network to sell those spots and conduct those godawful fund-raising campaigns offering the type of self-help programming that is beneath its intelligence level and the levels of its regular and loyal viewers. The more federal funding is cut, the more PBS will have to pursue these antitheti- cal options.
The Times writer seeks to focus on entertainment shows PBS has produced in the past that have been very popular with audiences. Fine. Most of the stuff was the type of programming that could not be seen then and could not be seen now on commercial television, primari- ly because most of it was produced by Britain's own public television system.
But the best of PBS is not entertainment shows, although even those, such as the current Jane Austen series on Masterpiece Theater, are much more educational than anything you would see on ABC, CBS, NBC and, ugh, FOX. As an aside in defense of commercial networks, most have wanted for decades to provide an hour-long nightly news pro- gram, but have been resisted by local outlets that prefer to provide more profitable, but repetitive giggle news, amateurishly presented and so ho- mogenized, one can travel across the country watching the local news at every stop and see it all presented in exactly the same giggly manner.
The best of PBS is its informational and news programming. We prefer Bill Moy- ers Journal as the best news-oriented show PBS offers. The hour-long nightly news show, The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer, of- fers far more information on specific sub- jects in the news than any of the commercial networks would consider providing over a year's time. Instead, the commercial entities laughingly offer "in-depth reports," which means they may spend two minutes in- stead of one on a subject, staging question-and-answer with reporters to make it appear the perfectly coiffed news anchor (more accurately termed "news readers" by the British), actually is informed and engaged about the subject. Sadly, The NewsHour does some of that phony stuff itself.
All sorts of other news and informa- tional programming is presented on PBS, probably not seen by many people, but im- portant nonetheless, programming that would never appear on commercial net- works. Much of that programming happens to be valuable history and there is no problem with rerunning shows such as the 1987 "Eyes on the Prize" year after year after year for generation after generation.
The Times writer gives only a passing mention of "prime-time stalwarts" on PBS, but then dismisses them as old-fashioned. His tragic effort ignores that fact PBS is, for the most part, doing what it always has been intended to do--offer valuable programming that would never be seen if PBS did not exist, not even on the plethora of cable networks we have today.
PBS itself trumpets these shows on its home page. Look down the line of programs, and check out the "news and views" section, and see if you cannot learn something by tuning in.
_______________________________________________________
Setting the Record
Straight--On Guns
And Flying Pigs
The time has come, the walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes and ships and sealing wax,
Of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot,
And whether pigs have wings.
Columbine, Virginia Tech, Helsinki, Omaha
Kirkwood, Louisiana Tech, Portsmouth, Los Angeles, Lane Bryant, DeKalb Next?
The incidents go on and on and what is the National Rifle Associ- ation's response? "Guns don't kill people, people do." That is a non-se- quitur response, as it was intended to be -- deflect the question you do not want to hear and turn it to something else. Who said guns kill peo- ple by themselves?
The matter that needs to be addressed is the easy access to guns by people who will do stupid things with them, causing far more destruction and death than with any weapon that does not rely on an explosive force.
These are weapons of destruction, just as deadly as smoking tobacco, and much more efficient and quick about it. It is far more irresponsible to allow firearms to be widely and easily available than to allow cigarettes to be available, yet even the laws that exist to govern guns are far less strict than those applied to tobacco.
The only tobacco restrictions are decades of "just don't advertise them on TV" to today's restrictions on where you smoke, not at all on whether you can smoke at all. Despite all the evidence that smoking tobacco is a lethal cancer-causing addictive, tobacco companies still push them, and change their corporate names so you can no longer identify the perpetrators. The NRA never offers comments about any of these massacres because it pretends that guns are not associated with them, that the events have nothing to do with guns.
Well, we need to talk about this subject, instead of talking about whether pigs have wings and pretending the world is the reverse of what it is and citing only part of the Second Amendment and pre- tending it says other than what it says.
If we do not, there will continue to be Columbines and Virginia Techs and Helsinkis and Omahas and on and on on. The why is not the issue for the common weal, it is the how that counts. There will continue to be the pretense that possession of guns is worthwhile because some people can use them to protect their property -- the NRA never misses a chance to note those times that such use is successful in one out of the thousand times they are kept for that purpose. It blithely ignores the other 999 cases in which the possession of a gun leads to tragedy be- falling the possessor.
Here are some possible actions that can be taken at the federal level, the only level where any restrictions can be an effective check, be- ginning with the smallest and building to the ultimate.
Go ahead and institute those mental-con- dition checks. One might also include everyone seeking "fame" in today's society of sycophants.
Otherwise, do something useful, beginning with what the NRA will label the camel's nose under the tent, and let us hope it is at least that:
--Ban sales of firearms to anyone under 21, just as sell- ing cigarettes is restricted.
--Hold a firearm possessor liable for any damages caused by an under-age person using that firearm.
--Ban personal concealment of firearm while not in one's home.
--Require all firearms in personal possession to be kept locked up.
--Ban all but supervised and licensed possession of handguns.
--Expand the ban to all firearms.
--Ban all handguns.
--Ban the private possession of all firearms.
--Restrict the possession of firearms by law enforcers.
--Restrict even the use of firearms by law enforcers.
--Ban all firearms not kept by state militias (National Guard), just to be in compliance with the Second Amendment.
Choose!!!
The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all its might.
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright.
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.
So said Tweedledum to Tweedledee
Alice Through the Looking Glass
--<>--
Supreme Court decides D.C. ban on handguns
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case, 07-290, that could mean, as early as next May, a United States returning to the gun-toting West depicted in horse operas or just the latest in a long line of decisions based upon the Constitution as it is rather than one some quarters want it to be saying. Or, more likely, something in between.
The Second Amendment, the No. 2 item in the Bill of Rights attached to the Constitution, states in full: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in- fringed.”
Gun supporters usually cite only the latter half of the amend- ment, which with the rest of the first 10 rights has an anniversary Dec. 15. But the latter half is part of the same sentence, and the framers were not fools, so the latter and first half do not exist ot exist without the other.
Thus, if the only weapons allowed in the United States other than those controlled by the military were kept in town or state armories des- ignated for that purpose, the Second Amendment would be satisfied. And just about every town of any size has one. They are called National Guard armories because the National Guard is what we call our militias these days.
Second Amendment
A well-regulated militia, being necessary
to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Just down the road in the U.S. Constitution, there resides the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”
That means the individual states have the power to ban guns within their borders. Similarly, if the state itself does not ban guns, but its Constitution allows its municipalities to do so, towns and cities may ban guns, neither entity in violation of the Second Amendment. Con-
versely, if the federal government, a state or town does not ban guns, the U.S. Constitution says you can have them.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruling as it stands today holds to this interpretation of the Second Amendment, but could be altered if the court rules as early as next May in a case concerning a Washington, D.C., gun-control law.
The case is District of Columbia v. Heller, or the local government of the U.S. capital versus Dick Anthony Heller. The question presented to the court is a narrow one. It asks whether a municipality can ban any gun if it is kept in a home. In this case, D.C. enacted a law that banned private ownership of hand guns, regardless of where it is kept, but al- lowed ownership of rifles and shotguns:
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Second Amendment guarantees law-
abiding, adult individuals a right to keep ordinary,
functional firearms, including handguns, in their
homes.
Heller took the case to federal court and won at the appeals court level. D.C. is a municipality, but challenges to its laws are treated as federal issues since it is not part of a state with its own court system. Thus, its cases are handled in the federal District Court and Appeals Court that also review federal laws.
Since the appeals court ruling overturning the district court's re- jection of Heller's arguments flew in the face of the last time the land's highest court adjudicated the issue--1939--and the rest of the appeals court districts still operated according to that last decision, the Supreme Court had little choice but to consider the case even though it has turned down every other gun-possession case over the past 70 years.
On its surface, this is a narrowly defined issue--whether one type of gun, including the handguns specified in the law, can be banned if it is kept in one's home. The court always has upheld a more sweeping right of governments to limit gun possession to "militias," as clearly stated in the Second Amendment.
If the court rules narrowly, it will confirm or not confirm a munici- pality may ban the ownership of a gun kept in a home, essentially leav- ing its most recent decision, in 1939, the law of the land.
But biases, agendas and unique readings of the meaning of laws and the Constitution often creep into Supreme Court decisions.
The current court is one com- posed of a majority chosen by Republi- can presidents who tend to be more em- bracing of the National Rifle Association, which rarely quotes anything more than the huge and influential membership.
The NRA, then located on the edge of downtown D.C., put off its planned relocation to the far suburbs of Virginia for a few years because it justified the initial move as because D.C. had become too dangerous, making it the laughing stock of a metropolitan area that appreciated iro- ny. Area residents knew that D.C. had become the nation's capital for drive-by shootings (not drive-by knifings) and the murder capital of the nation, just about all of those crimes commited with guns.
But the NRA claims a membership of more than 4.3 million mem- bers, a huge voting bloc that often actually does vote as a bloc, fired up by NRA screeds. Ironically, the group has filed no briefs in the case so far, but was fighting hard behind the scenes to see the case did not make it to the high court. It lost that effort, a rarity for the organization, but the NRA never quits.
So anything could happen.
A decision is expected to be handed down in June. The court could still punt the case on some legal technicality.
Don't look for any help from presidential candidates. Few, regardless of party, have the inclination to challenge the NRA and its huge voting bloc. Look for Re- publicans to hug the group, Democrats to dance around a commitment one way or the other.
Stay tuned.
____________________________________________________
Stem Cell View Invites New Setback
Charles Krauthammer is a well-educated psychiatrist, wheel chair-bound paralytic and conservative syndicated columnist distributed by the Washington Post. He does occasionally step out of conservative character and defy being put into a political category, but his writings are closely watched by learned conservatives.
Now, however, he is seizing upon some of the latest research to justify President Bush's limits on federal help for stem-cell re- search. We make the politically incorrect mention of his physical state, the result of a 1972 diving accident, because one would Stem Cell Basics think someone who has experienced and benefited from some of the best in medical work would be a bit more generous in allowing it to be available to others.
Krauthammer declares in a column, "The embryonic stem cell debate is over" and cited recent research as meaning Bush's 2001 exec- utive order that has crippled stem cell research has "been so thoroughly vindicated." Krauthammer praises Bush for taking a "moral stance" in saving human embryos. Bush's "moral stance" was mainly an effort to cater to the anti-abortionists and a major right-wing causes.
If that assertion catches on, it could set back this valuable field of research for many more years be- yond the delay Bush's "moral stance" already has caused.
The new research, conducted simultaneously by researchers in Wisconsin and Japan, claims stem cells, which determine how animals, including humans, turn out, can be har- vested from the skin of a patient for treating genetically based illnesses. This is an especially important segment of research because scientists are finding more and more evidence that all illness may be genetically based. Any breakthroughs in that field of study are important.
The new research would be a tremendous breakthrough, but most experts in the field say it does not ob- viate the need for embryonic stem cell research, still the most valuable source of the magical cells.
__________________________________
Paper? Plastic?
It's Really Not a Toss-up
The confusion over whether it is better to ask for paper or plastic bags at the grocery store stems from a failure by most people to complete the recycling circle. For recycling to occur, the entire circle must be completed.
Separating something into a recyc- ling bin does not mean you have recycled. You have only performed one of the many tasks that go into completing the circle of recycling.
Similarly, if you do not consider the making of the product in the first place, you have not gathered enough information to make a decision about something such as whether paper is better than plastic.
The cycle of plastic:
1. The plastic bags you receive in retail stores are made from the same crude oil that is refined into the gasoline you burn in your automobile or heating oil that keeps homes warm during cold weather.
When the crude oil is refined, the stuff (dross) that is left by that process happens to be the highest-quality portion of the oil. But to become gaso- line or heating oil, it would have to be refined again. Oil companies con- sider it more profitable to turn that dross into things such as plastic bags than to run it back through the refining process.
If that dross were re-refined, it would add enough oil to the na- tion’s supply that the cost of a gallon of gasoline at the pump at today’s prices would be reduced by about 10 cents. (The first analyses of this issue, which set the cost at four cents a gallon, were performed when gasoline prices were less than a dollar a gallon.)
Also, by receiving plastic instead of paper, you are at least en- couraging further use of finite, not renewable, fossil fuels that also have a gotcha of contributing to carbon dioxide levels, all at a time we are sup- posed to be trying to become independent of foreign sources.
The law of supply and demand being what it is, that means that driving up the demand for plastic by accepting it instead of paper at the store costs you an extra 10 cents a gallon for gas.
2. After its contents are removed, a plastic bag usually is thrown away or saved for use as a container for discarding other material, meaning it ends up along with other garbage either disposed of in a landfill or burned or, as is too often the case, to be carried by the wind or water along with other trash.
People often believe they are doing good and contributing to the environment by “recyling” the bags. They believe they have done so simply by putting the bags in a recycling bin, supposedly to be collected and made into something else. They have not.
Despite two decades of research, no one has developed a cost- effective way to reuse those plastic bags (thus completing the recycling loop) even on a massive scale. Thus, today just about all plastic bags turned in for recycling are wasting away in warehouses waiting for a prof- itable solution, or, quite likely, they’ve already been dumped or burned.
Plastic bags are not recycled.
The cycle of paper:
Check the fine print on the bottom of a paper bag supplied by a retail store. Safe- way says its bags include 40 percent re- cycled content. Most paper bags made to- day claim similar content.
That means nearly half of that bag already has gone through a recycling process and that by demanding it instead of plastic, you not only are providing encouragement for continu- ing that initial process, you are encouraging repetitions of it.
The 60 percent of the bag that has not already been recycled usually is made from shavings, sawdust and other detritus left over from processing wood into other products. There is a negative impact for ask- ing for that bag, however—you are making it cheaper to produce those other wood products made from trees cut down for those purposes. On the other hand, trees are, in theory, renewable resources.
Just as with plastic bags, paper bags can be put to use for other purposes—storing items, holding discarded newspapers until the bag and the papers can be recycled together, or reused to carry home the next set of groceries. In those cases, it is best to put one bag inside the other for extra strength.
Eventually, a paper bag no longer can be used, but it can be re- cycled and usually is. That is the source of much of that 40 percent re- cycled content.
Paper bags usually are recycled, often many times.
All sorts of money and energy have been spent on life-cycle analyses trying to determine which is better, or put another way, less offensive. Arguments are made that the manufacturing process for making paper bags and later for recycling them con- sumes more extra energy than does the process for making plastic bags in the first place. But what if the plastic bags actually were recycled? The manu- facturing process for paper still might be more energy-consuming than that of the paper bag, but the gap would be smaller.
It would be nice if everyone could or would "go totally green," but that is simply not realistic in today's society. We all make choices, about which charity to support over another, and about which part of "go- ing green" we find it convenient to support, based upon their own experi- ences or environmental concerns.
Retail stores prefer plastic because it means they just have to tell the clerk not to put some products in with others, and don’t have to train them in how to load a paper bag. And plastic takes up less storage space at the store than paper.
Most consumers prefer plastic because it is easier for them to handle in most cases.
It's nice that these life-cycle analyses have been done, and it would be nice if the environmental issues could be reduced to objective terms. But in today's society, we have our individual lifestyles and will continue to look at things subjectviely. Given that, few of us are going to delve into the minute study of life-cycle costs, but we do understand what we are willing to do to help the environment.
If one considers the entire recycling process for each, paper bags are clear winners over plastic ones.