|
|
Wednesday, May 4
Right-wing Coup at PBS?
by
Linda Thieman
on Wed 04 May 2005 04:40 PM CDT
 Right-wing Coup at PBS?
By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet.org
The
new Public Broadcasting boss either has an inappropriate sense of humor
or he's the latest participant in what the FCC called a 'right-wing
coup' of PBS.
Is Pat Mitchell the Martin Niemoller of public television?
You may
recognize this quote from the Lutheran anti-Nazi activist, who formed a
resistance movement and was then arrested and spent years in prison for
his beliefs:
"First,
they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not
a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not
speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the
Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came
for me, and there was no one left to speak for me."
The
ongoing conservative coup at the quasi-governmental Corporation for
Public Broadcasting seems to have come at last for lame duck PBS
president and CEO Mitchell. The evidence is everywhere, as detailed
recently in articles in such mainstream mouthpieces as The New York
Times and The Washington Post.
Mitchell
is being publicly criticized as "tone deaf" by CPB chairman Kenneth
Tomlinson, after having been "jokingly" told by him to ensure that PBS
programming better reflect a Republican "mandate."
Meanwhile, as the Post noted (in an April 22 article "PBS Scrutiny Raises Political Antennas" by Paul Farhi):
"Liberal
commentator Bill Moyers is out on PBS stations. Buster the animated
rabbit is under a cloud of suspicion. And right-wing yakkers from the
Wall Street Journal editorial page have been handed their own public
television chat show."
In
addition, CPB officials recently appointed for the first time in
history two "ombudsmen" to review PBS news and public affairs programs
(such as the award-winning "Frontline" and "The NewsHour with Jim
Lehrer") for evidence of bias - without bothering to inform Mitchell.
They also insisted for the first time on tying new federal funding (CPB
provides nearly $30 million annually to PBS) to an agreement that
commits PBS to strict "objectivity and balance" in each of its programs
- something that, according to the PBS general counsel, amounts to
"government encroachment on and supervision of program content,
potentially in violation of the First Amendment."
(Click here to read the complete article.)
ACTION:
Let the
CPB know that it is the left and not the right that has been
traditionally excluded from public broadcasting. Remind them that
public broadcasting is supposed to serve as a platform for dissenting
and controversial views - not simply another forum for conservative and
corporate voices.
CONTACT:
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Phone Numbers:
202-879-9600
800-272-2190
comments@cpb.org
As always, please remember that your comments have more impact if you maintain a polite tone.
(For more information, click here.)
SS Proposals and Counter-Proposals
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 04 May 2005 01:23 PM CDT
 SS Proposals and Counter-Proposals
There was an interesting proposal floated yesterday by Robert Ball, a
former Social Security Commissioner. Mr. Ball's plan deals with
the fiscal status of Social Security, which he claims is a simple
problem to address:
There is no good reason to “reform”
Social Security. Social Security has not failed. What is
needed are some relatively small changes that are desirable in
any event and that would improve the fairness and efficiency of
Social Security, while at the same time improving its financing.
Diverting Social Security funds into private accounts as proposed
by [Bush] only makes basic retirement benefits uncertain
and the program more difficult to finance.
The highlights of Mr. Ball's plan:
•
Gradually raise the cap on earnings covered by
Social Security so that once again 90 percent of all income would be
taxed and counted for benefits. This was the threshold set by Congress
in 1983, the last time it considered this issue. Social Security taxes
are now being applied to only 85 percent of earnings. By very slowly
phasing in the change, the impact on the 6 percent of affected workers
would be relatively modest.
•
Beginning in 2010, dedicate future proceeds of a
revised estate tax to Social Security. Present law gradually reduces
the estate tax so that by 2009, only estates above $3.5 million ($7
million per couple) will be taxed. The tax should be frozen at that
level, with the revenues directed toward Social Security.
•
Improve the return on Social Security funds by
investing part of them in equities, as just about all other public and
private pension plans do. Other government retirement systems such as
ones for employees of the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Railroad
Retirement Board, and the Tennessee Valley Authority also invest
directly in stocks.
•
Adopt the more accurate consumer price index
recently developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (the so-called
"chained" index) to better account for the substitution of one
commodity for another as prices go up. The Social Security Cost of
Living Adjustment would rise somewhat more slowly using this more
accurate CPI.
•
Beginning in 2010, cover all new state and local
employees under Social Security. About three-fourths of state and local
government employees are already covered. With this extension of
coverage, most people who work would be under Social Security.
Now, with the "policy wonkish" stuff behind us today, we also have to
realize that compromising on most of these issues will be nearly
impossible. With the system of conference committees, the Senate
could pass a "reasonable" bill while the House passes a complete
phase-out bill. If that happens - which bill do you think makes
it out of conference? (Remember - conference committees are where
chamber leadership and lobbyists have free reign to do nearly anything
they please!)
So, this in no way represents a move to "compromise" with Grandpa
Grassley - if the GOP wants phase-out, they'll have to sell it.
(Particularly to GOP congressmen, it seems....)
Cell Phones for Kids Raise Concerns
by
Linda Thieman
on Wed 04 May 2005 08:06 AM CDT
 Cell Phones for Kids Raise Concerns
By Donna Gordon Blankinship, MyWay.com
Marketing cell phones to kids is inexcusable with all the health risks that are known.
SEATTLE
- Parents should think twice before giving in to a middle-schooler's
demands for a cell phone, some scientists say, because potential
long-term health risks remain unclear.
Researchers
have speculated for more than 10 years that the electromagnetic
radiation emitted from cell phones may damage DNA and cause benign
brain tumors, said Henry Lai, a bioengineering professor at the
University of Washington.
...In
Britain, the chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board
advised in January that parents should not give mobile phones to
children age 8 or younger as a precaution against the potential harm of
radiation from the devices.
When you use a cell phone, 70 to 80 percent of the energy emitted from the antenna is absorbed by the head, Lai said.
...Several
research studies have pointed to the potential impacts of long-term
absorption of cell phone-emitted radiation but little of the research
has focused on the children.
Lai said
he was concerned about the impact on children because young skulls are
thinner and the growing brain may be more susceptible to radiation.
He also
said that because brain tumors usually take 30-40 years to develop,
children who use cell phones from their teen years onward would have a
longer period of time to see a cumulative impact.
(Click here to read the complete article
.)
For further information:
Read Dr. George Carlo’s book, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age.
Dr Carlo was hired by the cell phone industry to research health
risks. What he discovered was a truly shocking degree of
potential health hazard with regular phone usage. His
funding was immediately withdrawn by the cell phone companies, and he
was prevented from publishing his results. See RFsafe.com for a current list of cell phone studies.
Many cell phone manufactures claim now that the current guideline
set by the FCC is safe; however, not only does this book cite thousands
of studies that demonstrate the huge risk to your health with
chronic/long term exposure but also traces out FCC complicity in
distorting research findings. Wearing earphones or using a speakerphone
is very effective in reducing that risk. Whenever possible, use the
cell phone only as a substitute when a land phone is not available.
For
children, whose brains are still developing, the current marketing
campaign to sell cell phones to children is inexcusable given how much
is known about the dangers. We recommend that children should only use
cell phones in an emergency or for short conversations and then only
with a speaker phone.
(Source)
|
|
