tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post3701450931090005082..comments2024-01-25T15:09:03.714-08:00Comments on Whiskey's Place: KCET Leaves PBS and the Future of PBSWhiskeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-31788665730798631212010-10-17T21:43:49.153-07:002010-10-17T21:43:49.153-07:00This is a bad news to the PBS Channel viewers that...This is a bad news to the PBS Channel viewers that the Public Broadcasting stations, KCET, announced to leave PBS and go independent. I know this all happened with the money dispute but as KCET had received a $40 million grant from British Petroleum, its a big money. But still PBS is able to handle all the things and it will.Watch PBS Channelhttp://www.watchlivechannels.com/pbs/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-59934505861687197172010-10-17T19:10:27.225-07:002010-10-17T19:10:27.225-07:00"Uber-gay gossipy"? It doesn't take ..."Uber-gay gossipy"? It doesn't take much to invalidate your perspective. Oh, and what was that about elitism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-39306455202740134342010-10-17T00:19:39.138-07:002010-10-17T00:19:39.138-07:00"mass respectability and fame, something the ..."mass respectability and fame, something the cultural elite oh so desperately craves"<br /><br />On this point, I'm afraid you're sorely mistaken. The cultural elite eschews mass respectability and fame. That's how they know they're elite.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-10616497035160240782010-10-15T03:47:50.484-07:002010-10-15T03:47:50.484-07:00My last comment got swallowed, so here goes again....My last comment got swallowed, so here goes again.<br /><br />I agree that AA is a bigger problem than this, but I'm not sure that makes a difference.<br /><br />Whiskey, this battle is more like Guadalcanal than Tarawa. Lots of casualties, yes, but important - necessary - for establishing the precedent.<br /><br />I like the Rudy Giuliani, "tipping point" approach for dealing with the federal spending beast. He knew that you couldn't even tolerate graffitti, because if you did you'd be sending the message that bigger transgressions might also be seen as OK. This ground-up approach is how he very successfully cleaned up NYC.<br /><br />If we all let our private oxes being gored allow us to make exceptions, nothing will be done, period. In the coming years, we are all going to have to make sacrifices. As a hunter and fisherman, I may have to get by with cuts in fish and wildlife budgets, you may have to get by without PBS/NPR.<br /><br />Reagan couldn't get rid of public broadcasting, but 1985 was so different than now that really doesn't apply. In those days, cable tv hadn't penetrated rural areas as much, and the internet was basically nonexistent. All the good things you want people to access - music, plays, pics of national parks - are available to everyone now online, for free, and without accompanying Gramscian or overt propaganda.<br /><br />I am also a fan of Tolkien and Lewis, not just their art but of the men themselves. From my understanding of those guys they would never, ever have supported the formation of publicly funded outlets like NPR/PBS in the first place, which makes any discussion about how they would have reacted to wanting them sut down sort of moot.<br /><br />I don't believe that these broadcast outlets can be made harmless, either. The sort of person who would use this sort of thing will always be drawn to work there, and there's nothing that you can do to stop it. Put on as many sweeping vistas of Yosemite as you want, they'll just be backdrops for the spewing of some Gramscian termite. If you don't believe me visit the Norman Rockwell Museum sometime.<br /><br />At any rate, excellent subject and discussion.no mo uronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-68354609018185860372010-10-15T03:28:18.052-07:002010-10-15T03:28:18.052-07:00Whiskey, we can agree that AA is worse.
I do no...Whiskey, we can agree that AA is worse. <br /><br />I do not agree that getting rid of public broadcasting isn't worth the effort.<br /><br />I'll go with the Rudy Giuliani philosophy, the tipping point way, which is to say that you start with not tolerating the little stuff, because if you let the bad guys get away with the little stuff then the big stuff becomes inevitable. Crime creep. Giuliani knew that you had to start by having zero tolerance for even graffitti, otherwise you'd be sending the message that worse stuff might be OK, too. This was his basis for cleaning up NYC, a ground-up approach, and it worked extremely well. I suspect that the same principle applies here to federal waste.<br /><br />I would also say that if everybody gets to make exceptions which contradict our core philosophy and policy goals, based upon their personal ox getting gored, nothing will get done.<br /><br />Feeb is right, you have to start somewhere. Crawl before you walk, and all of that.<br /><br />You say you have personal, nostalgic affection for PBS/NPR. You're right that we have a lot of lowbrow culture and that some more uplifting and truly Western entertainment would be refreshing. The question becomes how to get out the good things without sacrificing basic principles. The answer is the 'net, not taxpayer funded braodcast outlets. <br /><br />You ask if I would like public broadcasting to be made harmless. In a perfect world, I would. But Whiskey, there is no way to make it so. That sort of venue will always attract Gramscian termites, and there isn't a way to stop it.<br /><br />Reagan couldn't get rid of PBS/NPR for a lot of reasons that don't exist now. There were a lot of radio/TV markets which had no alternatives to networks. Rural areas had limited reception, cable hadn't made the inroads it has now. But the biggest one is that there was no internet in 1985. All of the stuff you claim to want to put forth is available now on the web, and basically everyone in America can access it. Pics of national parks, music, all of it. No need to spend taxpayer money because it's all out there for free already and without snide leftist asides accompanying it.<br /><br /><br />What about the millions that don't care to see their taxes pay for ballet, especially when it is a lead-pipe cinch that it will come with both Gramscian and overt leftist propaganda? Their tastes and priorities must be factored in with yours, be they highbrow, lowbrow, or middle of the road. They're taxpayers, too. I'd rather remove the possibility of a government funded leftist propaganda outfit entirely, even if it meant having to come up with new and different means of getting the good things you mentioned. Is your desire to see the things you mentioned being broadcast with tax money more important than my desire to remove federally funded leftist propaganda? If so, why? <br /> <br /><br />In the coming times, all of us are going to have to make some sacrifices. As a fisherman and hunter, I may have to get by with less funding for fish and wildlife departments. As someone who likes the arts, you may have to get by without PBS or NPR.<br /><br />In the end, the battle to do this is a lot more like Guadalcanal than Tarawa. Lots of casualties, yes, and not all that strategic in the present, but important for establishing the precedent and the future.<br /><br />I'm a big fan of Tolkien and Lewis myself, not just their writings but the men as well. From my take on the men, I don't know if they would have wanted public broadcasting created in the first place, which sort of makes moot the question of wanting to see it destroyed.<br /><br />Anyways, great subject and thanks for the discussion.no mo uronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-14591925863872460962010-10-15T03:27:33.120-07:002010-10-15T03:27:33.120-07:00Whiskey, we can agree that AA is worse.
I do no...Whiskey, we can agree that AA is worse. <br /><br />I do not agree that getting rid of public broadcasting isn't worth the effort.<br /><br />I'll go with the Rudy Giuliani philosophy, the tipping point way, which is to say that you start with not tolerating the little stuff, because if you let the bad guys get away with the little stuff then the big stuff becomes inevitable. Crime creep. Giuliani knew that you had to start by having zero tolerance for even graffitti, otherwise you'd be sending the message that worse stuff might be OK, too. This was his basis for cleaning up NYC, a ground-up approach, and it worked extremely well. I suspect that the same principle applies here to federal waste.<br /><br />I would also say that if everybody gets to make exceptions which contradict our core philosophy and policy goals, based upon their personal ox getting gored, nothing will get done.<br /><br />Feeb is right, you have to start somewhere. Crawl before you walk, and all of that.<br /><br />You say you have personal, nostalgic affection for PBS/NPR. You're right that we have a lot of lowbrow culture and that some more uplifting and truly Western entertainment would be refreshing. The question becomes how to get out the good things without sacrificing basic principles. The answer is the 'net, not taxpayer funded braodcast outlets. <br /><br />You ask if I would like public broadcasting to be made harmless. In a perfect world, I would. But Whiskey, there is no way to make it so. That sort of venue will always attract Gramscian termites, and there isn't a way to stop it.<br /><br />Reagan couldn't get rid of PBS/NPR for a lot of reasons that don't exist now. There were a lot of radio/TV markets which had no alternatives to networks. Rural areas had limited reception, cable hadn't made the inroads it has now. But the biggest one is that there was no internet in 1985. All of the stuff you claim to want to put forth is available now on the web, and basically everyone in America can access it. Pics of national parks, music, all of it. No need to spend taxpayer money because it's all out there for free already and without snide leftist asides accompanying it.<br /><br /><br />What about the millions that don't care to see their taxes pay for ballet, especially when it is a lead-pipe cinch that it will come with both Gramscian and overt leftist propaganda? Their tastes and priorities must be factored in with yours, be they highbrow, lowbrow, or middle of the road. They're taxpayers, too. I'd rather remove the possibility of a government funded leftist propaganda outfit entirely, even if it meant having to come up with new and different means of getting the good things you mentioned. Is your desire to see the things you mentioned being broadcast with tax money more important than my desire to remove federally funded leftist propaganda? If so, why? <br /> <br /><br />In the coming times, all of us are going to have to make some sacrifices. As a fisherman and hunter, I may have to get by with less funding for fish and wildlife departments. As someone who likes the arts, you may have to get by without PBS or NPR.<br /><br />In the end, the battle to do this is a lot more like Guadalcanal than Tarawa. Lots of casualties, yes, and not all that strategic in the present, but important for establishing the precedent and the future.<br /><br />I'm a big fan of Tolkien and Lewis myself, not just their writings but the men as well. From my take on the men, I don't know if they would have wanted public broadcasting created in the first place, which sort of makes moot the question of wanting to see it destroyed.<br /><br />Anyways, great subject and thanks for the discussion.no mo uronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-81336381993457004922010-10-14T22:54:23.740-07:002010-10-14T22:54:23.740-07:00I'd prefer to fight my battles over Affirmativ...I'd prefer to fight my battles over Affirmative Action, rather than PBS. There is only so much political capital. <br /><br />Besides, I am a conservative in the Philip Larkin or JRR Tolkien or CS Lewis tradition. PBS is something I grew up with, I have affection for it, I don't want to see it destroyed. Just fixed so it does no harm and some good.<br /><br />There are far worse ways to spend money on, and the idea of co-opting some of the cultural elite appeals to me. Besides, ordinary people are hungry for this sort of thing that can be provided in no other fashion. Who can visit DC and see the museums there? Damn few. But everyone can see them on PBS.<br /><br />Or the Opera, Ballet, and Symphony companies fed with tax dollars. Why should only the coastal urban rich see these performances?<br /><br />If nothing else, a bit of high culture is an antidote to the tidal wave of low, low, lower brow culture ala the Kardashians and such. Driven by the constant fame-whoring impulse of modern society (and a mostly younger female audience). <br /><br />Would you rather have Shephard Fairey making Obama posters in the style of Mussolini, effectively, or publicizing a Mozart Opera? Would you rather have younger women watching exclusively "the Kardashians" or a few perhaps check out the Ballet? Would you rather have PBS harmless and doing some good, or running Frontline about how "evil" Republicans are?<br /><br />Not even Reagan could dump PBS. Its a battle not worth fighting (like hitting Tarawa instead of bypassing it). Even if you win, you'll take so much casualties, politically, its not worth it.<br /><br />Now, Affirmative Action, that's a battle worth fighting.Whiskeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-55138791706066237902010-10-14T16:38:53.608-07:002010-10-14T16:38:53.608-07:00I agree with no mo uro. pBS should be defunded at ...I agree with no mo uro. pBS should be defunded at the federal level. The states can do as they wish.<br /><br />The GOP needs to be seen rolling back Government even if it is the equivalent of taking a hammer and knocking a pebble off of the Rock of Gibraltar.<br /><br />The cutting needs to start somewhere.feeblemindnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-57598269257563417442010-10-14T15:13:31.861-07:002010-10-14T15:13:31.861-07:00"Who gives a crap what they'd think? They..."Who gives a crap what they'd think? They're dead. This is our country, to do with what we want."<br /><br />And without the guiding light of our founding fathers, we're stuck with a bunch of progressive who are reaming out America with complete disregard for our traditions, our founding documents and the law.<br /><br />What a childish and petulant comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-34275173444354752452010-10-14T11:39:10.117-07:002010-10-14T11:39:10.117-07:00"I clearly remember reading that the premiere...<em>"I clearly remember reading that the premiere of Beethoven's 5th in North America was sometime in the 1830s. It was finished in 1808."</em><br /><br />Well I guess that makes alla'us 'merkins a bunch o' ignunt hick subhumans, huh?<br /><br />You mus'be reel smart n s'fisticated.no mo uronoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-83057082964131322862010-10-14T09:28:47.549-07:002010-10-14T09:28:47.549-07:00Not a single Founding Father would have approved o...<i>Not a single Founding Father would have approved of government sponsored news and entertainment. </i><br /><br />Who gives a crap what they'd think? They're dead. This is our country, to do with what we want. Anyway, frankly if Madison, Adams and all the rest were resuscitated and given a tour round the Republic, I think they'd find plenty of other things to be horrified of well before it occurred to them to be disturbed by subsidized arts TV. <br /><br />Not that I trust the doctrinaire libertarian view of what the Founders (peace be upon them) would prefer anyway. They may well have appreciated the option. I can't find the precise date now but I clearly remember reading that the premiere of Beethoven's 5th in North America was sometime in the 1830s. It was finished in 1808.ERMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-65931501145778796282010-10-14T03:36:13.597-07:002010-10-14T03:36:13.597-07:00Should PBS (and NPR) exist at all?
No. M'kay...Should PBS (and NPR) exist at all?<br /><br />No. M'kay?<br /><br />Not a single Founding Father would have approved of government sponsored news and entertainment. They would have understood at the outset (as we have discovered in reality now) that the potential for abuse is so great that any possible good is outweighed by the potential for evil.<br /><br />A news or entertainment entity which cannot exist in the private market economy doesn't deserve to exist at all. If an independent station like KCET can make a go of it in a market heavily populated by leftists via private donations, bully for them. Otherwise, no assistance, and no money.<br /><br />When we have problems like overpromised and underfunded public pensions, bankrupted state governments, potential hyperinflation, etc., spending money on public broadcasting outlets for radio and television which are little more than shills for cultural Marxism, transnationalism, and collectivism is the height of foolishness. Even if that money would put only a small dent in the problems I mentioned, it is better spent there than for PBS and NPR.no mo uronoreply@blogger.com