House protects public broadcasting - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/18/congress.broadcasting.ap/index.html)


The House on Wednesday evening overwhelmingly rejected President Bush's plan to eliminate the $420 million federal subsidy for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The 357-72 vote demonstrated the enduring political strength of public broadcasting. The outcome was never in doubt, unlike a fight two years ago when Republicans tried but failed to slash public broadcasting subsidies.
Iin a time when our nations writing and reading scores are at all time lows, Bush wants to eliminate a broadcasting company that teaches kids just how to do that.

I think there are more important things for the President to worry about than Sesame Street. I guess people forget the days before 1000 cable channels were available. I don't see the harm. I just tune them out if they have a show I don't care for. PBS should stay.:)


Bobby

My question is when they reintroduce the fairness doctrine will PBS be subject to it's terms ? Let's say for every Bill Moyer's bias report we have a Sean Hannity counterpoint.

NK, is there some innate need to at least fudge the truth when it comes to Bush? He didn't try to "end PBS", he wants to "end the federal subsidy" for CPB, which accounts for about 15 percent of its budget. I'm all for it if PBS is not going to carry out its mission, which CNN acknowledges was "created the corporation in 1967 to shield public broadcasting from political influence." That it's failing in that mission is about as questionable as whether Donald Trump has bad hair.


the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has had a legal mandate (http://www.cpb.org/aboutcpb/goals/objectivity/) to ensure "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature."

The opening lines of Bill Moyers' Essay; Beg Your Pardon (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/06152007/transcript1.html), which aired on June 15, 2007:


Welcome to the Journal. Iraq is a bloody mess and getting bloodier every day. So what's been all the buzz this week among the people who took us to war from the safety of their beltway bunkers - I mean Washington's ruling clique of neoconservative elites? Their passion of the week is to keep Scooter Libby from going to jail. I'm not making this up.

Please be my guest and highlight the "strict adherence to objectivity and balance" in those lines. After his 'welcome', he paints a bleak and bloody picture of Iraq, followed by criticism and ridicule, used a favorite liberal pejorative and ended with condescion - all directed toward conservatives/Republicans. I resent the fact that part of my tax money is funding bias and insult toward me, especially when there's more than enough of that already from the mainstream media.

If you have a problem with the content of one program then send it to the ombudsman, that's what he's there for:
PBS | Ombudsman (http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/)

If you have a problem with the content of one program then send it to the ombudsman, that's what he's there for:
PBS | Ombudsman (http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/)

And you don't think people have complained of Moyers' bias before? Has it changed anything? Nevertheless, I think I'll do just that and see where it gets me.

I don't think that PBS should be eliminated. I just think that they should have to make their money the old fashioned way... through advertising, rather than though government grants.

If Sesame Street is such a terrific show, and I believe that it is, then it should be able to support itself without my tax dollars. The Sesame Street character licensing agreements are big money for them. They don't need tax dollars to support it, and they don't need an entire tax-supported network just for that one show. Other PBS shows have made the change ove to commercial TV, like Ghostwriter and The Magical Schoolbus. To say that popular PBS kids shows "wouldn't be able to survive without government funding" is pure BS.

And the idea that Sesame Street is the reason that we need an entire PBS chanel is ludicrous. Are you aware, Karma, that the average age of a PBS watcher is 38 years old? If he's still watching PBS just for Sesame Street or to learn how to read, there's a problem that is muh larger than any that PBS can solve.

Furthermore, the entire justification for the existence of PBS was that PBS was the place to air the shows that nobody else would air. That was true back in the days before cable TV became popular. But now there's

The History Channel for historical programs,
Discovery Channel for educational TV,
A&E for artsy films,
CNN for news,
BBC America for British TV programs,
Disney Channel and Discovery Kids for childrens' educational programming,
ION television and ABC Family for family programming,
Lifetime, Oxygen and WE for womens' programming,
BET for African American programming,
Telemundo for Hispanic programming,
Here and Logo for gay and lesbian programming,
Animal Planet for animal/biology/ecology programming,
Turner Classic Movies for classics,
The Food Network for cooking shows,
etc.

And each one of these channels does the job of PBS. We don't need PBS as our sole outlet for these tpes of programs, because there are now other outlets for them.

In short, there is no justification for PBS to be funded by our tax dollars. None of the justifications for the existence of a government-assisted PBS still exist.

Elliot

And you don't think people have complained of Moyers' bias before? Has it changed anything? Nevertheless, I think I'll do just that and see where it gets me.

Here is what it got me so far:


Thank you for your thoughts. Michael Getler values viewers' submissions, and he and his assistant try to read all letters. The ombudsman's column will address significant issues related to how PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity.

It won't even get you a guarantee that they'll even look at a complaint.

PBS upholds its own standards of editorial integrity.

That about says it all

And each one of these channels does the job of PBS. We don't need PBS as our sole outlet for these tpes of programs, because there are now other outlets for them.

Part of that etc.:

In addition to Telemundo, you also have Univision and TeleFutura for Hispanics, the English language Latino themed Sí TV, the English language network of China CCTV-9, Starz inBlack, and Colours TV - "The Muliticultural Network."

Then we have:

HGTV and DIY for home, garden and do-it-yourselfers
Healthy Living Channel for people that have no life
C-Span if you need a nap
Fine Living for the rich and snobby
RFD-TV for the average Joe Bob
Fox Reality for people without a brain
Angel for Christians
BYUTV for Mormons

And last and perhaps least, Free Speech TV (http://www.freespeech.org/fscm2/genx.php?name=home) for moonbats. :D

By bush taking out the funding for PBS he is basically turning it into everyother newstation... man we americans need it! Our media is an embarassement... its all privately owned. We're not going to get rid of our publicly funded one right... dont twist this and think because bush just wants us to have PBS become a business too that it doesn't mean he doesn't want to get rid of it. He wants to get rid of its content! This will affect its content. Is there anyone who agrees??

I don't think that PBS should be eliminated. I just think that they should have to make their money the old fashioned way... through advertising, rather than though government grants.And let advertisers dictate the content? That's precisely what they are trying to avoid. Do you have any idea of the amount of PBS materials that educators use?

And let advertisers dictate the content? That's precisely what they are trying to avoid. Do you have any idea of the amount of PBS materials that educators use?

So you've found the answer to our failing public schools?

Your public schools are failing?

House protects public broadcasting - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/18/congress.broadcasting.ap/index.html)

Iin a time when our nations writing and reading scores are at all time lows, Bush wants to eliminate a broadcasting company that teaches kids just how to do that.
Just as soon as someone wants to cut the budget, in come the opposition- how dare they- who wants to allow the opposing party any credit for cutting the budget.

So now Bush is against education... what flawless logic

Yeah bush is pretty bad

By bush taking out the funding for PBS he is basically turning it into everyother newstation...man we americans need it! our media is an embarassement... its all privately owned. we're not gonna get rid of our publically funded one right...dont twist this and think because bush just wants us to have PBS become a business too that it doesnt mean he doesnt want to get rid of it. he wants to get rid of its content! this will affect its content. is there anyone who agrees???????????

You mean like that 97:1 ratio male dominated "everyother newstation"? I must have missed the part where Bush wanted "to have PBS become a business", since private dollars account for 85 percent of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's funding - like corporate sponsors Intel, Ford, Siemens and Starbucks.

Wow Crow, you sound bitter. I think more people would like to see the war budget pared down instead, I believe that was the point.

No we are talking the change to come - u need to follow

Hahah the war and religion budget. Almost 1/3rd of the KAtrina dollars from the BUSH ADMINISGTRATION went to religious institutions... lets break a lot of things down to see what is going on

Your public schools are failing?

You said it, not me:


Iin a time when our nations writing and reading scores are at all time lows, Bush wants to eliminate a broadcasting company that teaches kids just how to do that.

You don't see the irony in complaining of "our nations...all time low scores" then bragging on how much of PBS' material that educators use?

Yes, I see that now. Perhaps PBS should be abolished. That should help the cause.

hahah the war and religion budget. almost 1/3rd of the KAtrina dollars from the BUSH ADMINISGTRATION went to religious institutions... lets break a lot of things down to see what is going on

Mario3, there you go again throwing out statistics intended to spawn outrage without a shred of supporting evidence, so break things down for us. "hahah"

Yes, I see that now. Perhaps PBS should be abolished. That should help the cause.

I don't believe any of us - including the president - have ever said that. All I said was it offends me that my tax money is funding liberal bias. If they want to broadcast their liberal bias then they can do it on your dollar, not mine.

You are offended by a little TV show on PBS. You can imagine the outrage of most of the tax payers at the way their tax dollars are currently being spent.

And let advertisers dictate the content? That's precisely what they are trying to avoid.

And how are they doing that if they are taking grant money from corporations like Exxon-Mobil, Walmart and others.


Do you have any idea of the amount of PBS materials that educators use?

Yes, I do. So what? I'm not saying that these programs shouldn't air. I'm saying that it doesn't have to be paid for by my tax dollars. If these shows are so important, then they should be able to stand on their own and pay their own way via advertising and licensing agreements. If they aren't important enough, then let's make better ones that are important enough to be able to stand on their own.

BTW, more materials used by teachers are from the Discovery Channel, the History Channel, various National Geographic programs, etc. PBS is no longer necessary to air educational programming, because there are other networks that do the same thing and do it better.

Elliot

And how are they doing that if they are taking grant money from corporations like Exxon-Mobil, Walmart and others. They cannot dictate content, it's grant money, not advertising.

By bush taking out the funding for PBS he is basically turning it into everyother newstation...man we americans need it! our media is an embarassement... its all privately owned. we're not gonna get rid of our publically funded one right...dont twist this and think because bush just wants us to have PBS become a business too that it doesnt mean he doesnt want to get rid of it. he wants to get rid of its content! this will affect its content. is there anyone who agrees???????????

OOOOHHHH, private ownership, bad. Government ownership, good.

Tell that to the Soviets.

Oh, yeah, you can't... because they no longer exist.

Their system failed because everything was owned by the government and all it produced was crap.

The reason that our economy is the strongest in the world is because private people own stuff, have an opportunity to make a profit to acquire more stuff, and so they work hard to do it. The reason the Soviet system failed is because nobody owned anything, there was no incentive to work hard, so they didn't bother.

So of course, you push for government control... because that has such a great history of working well for the people.

Elliot

You are offended by a little tv show on PBS. You can imagine the outrage of most of the tax payers at the way their tax dollars are currently being spent.

Yeah, like congress giving themselves a raise so they can engage in "300 investigations...and over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days," according to White House Spokesman Scott Stanzel, and spend the rest of that time engaged in undermining our security and the troops they claim to support.

No, I mean the trillions of dollars spent on the war. You been hiding under a rock?

hahah the war and religion budget. almost 1/3rd of the KAtrina dollars from the BUSH ADMINISGTRATION went to religious institutions... lets break a lot of things down to see what is going on

What is your source, please. Or are you just talking out of your rear end again?

Wow Crow, you sound bitter. I think more people would like to see the war budget pared down instead, I believe that was the point.

Why would anyone even think of cutting down our national security budget after 9/11? Who would be stupid enough to recommend it? Aren't the liberals the ones who were claiming that we were sending our troops to fight without the proper equipment because the budget didn't cover armor for hummers and such? It wasn't true, of course, but why would anyone suggest that we should decrease the budget and create that sort of poblem?

Elliot

Create what problem? The one you made up to support your argument (strawman)?

You are offended by a little tv show on PBS. You can imagine the outrage of most of the tax payers at the way their tax dollars are currently being spent.

No question. We definitely need to cut welfare and social program spending.

And we should cut education spending by allowing school vouchers and charter schools.

And stop the useless global warming studies that haven't proven a darn thing. If people want to study global waming, let them use private grants to fund it.

And we should also decrease useless regulation of corpoations that don't make products better, just more expensive and waste taxpayer money to accomplish nothing.

And farm subsidies should probably be cut as well... paying people NOT to work their farms is just stupid.

There are lots of good places to start cutting the budget. National security isn't the place to start.

Elliot

Wow Crow, you sound bitter. I think more people would like to see the war budget pared down instead, I believe that was the point.
Invariably when ‘most people’ believe something the odds are they are wrong, that is one reason for America being a republic.

Bitter, yes- bitter that America is bankrupt in essence, and debt leads to enslavement. Yes, I am bitter that both of the two parties that have reigned are both responsible.

Invariably when ‘most people’ believe something the odds are they are wrong, that is one reason for America being a republic.

Bitter, yes- bitter that America is bankrupt in essence, and debt leads to enslavement. Yes, I am bitter that both of the two parties that have reigned are both responsible.Is there a good candidate out there?

Is there a good candidate out there?
One problem is that who the candidate’s are is not relevant to the sweeping changes that need to be made. Congress is a problem in that it reigns with-out limit; that is, look at the length of time so many of the various ‘Chairs’ have been in office.

No, I mean the trillions of dollars spent on the war. You been hiding under a rock?

Starting to get a little testy? Technically, I live in a rock house so I guess you might I've been under a rock for years.

I look at the reality of things, and the reality is we have an enemy that's determined to either kill us or bring us to submission, an enemy intent on establishing a worldwide religious government more oppressive than anything you can imagine from Bush and the "right-wing evangelicals", an enemy that kills for sport and lives to die and proves that every day. If it take trillions of dollars to defeat that enemy I think even you might finally realize it was money well spent. All those education, healthcare and PBS dollars won't matter if you're dead.

Starting to get a little testy? Technically, I live in a rock house so I guess you might I've been under a rock for years.

I look at the reality of things, and the reality is we have an enemy that's determined to either kill us or bring us to submission, an enemy intent on establishing a worldwide religious government more oppressive than anything you can imagine from Bush and the "right-wing evangelicals", an enemy that kills for sport and lives to die and proves that every day. If it take trillions of dollars to defeat that enemy I think even you might finally realize it was money well spent. All those education, healthcare and PBS dollars won't matter if you're dead.
I don’t think there are many people, when they talk about cutting funds realize that ‘security’ is the fundamental basis for government; that is, it must be the very last item on the budget for it is the very last line of defense that protects our Constitutional Rights. So it is that all government spending is subject to be rescinded before a war budget.

They cannot dictate content, it's grant money, not advertising.


Huh?

That makes no sense.

An advertiser can say "If you don't air what I want, I'll stop buying advertising on your show." A corporation that gives grants can say "If you don't air what I want, I'll stop giving you grant money." How do they differ? If you think that corporations and their trusts that give grants to PBS don't control content, you are being extremely naïve.

Elliot

If you think that corporations and their trusts that give grants to PBS don't control content, you are being extremely naive.

ElliotThat's exactly what I am saying.

hahah the war and religion budget. almost 1/3rd of the KAtrina dollars from the BUSH ADMINISGTRATION went to religious institutions... lets break a lot of things down to see what is going on


Is this the source?


Faith rebuilds house and soul - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-07-18-faith-building_N.htm)



And what have you, mario3, done ?



Grace and Peace

What does that mean inthebox? My tax dollars went there... what? Did you know that? You didn't know this? You think the government was spending the money it grew on trees? Go back to school

MArio3:

Site your source that "1/3 of Katrina dollars went to religious institutions".

If you read the linked article, they don't cite the government as a source of funds.
But the proof is on the table on the left side. 53266 houses improved.
Note also that USA TODAY is a liberal newspaper and that these efforts were made by charitable organizations, represented by a multitude of faiths.



Grace and Peace

Lots of young immigrants get their start learning English from public television.. . not to mention how well children react to the teaching programs, both language and values.

It broadcasts fine programs bought to us from England... drama... that is not produced in America... quality actors in quality pieces.

I would think that Bush is just posturing at this point because his administration has been such a failure, and he has not given the Christian base much of anything to satisfy their irrational views on many subjects... such as public broadcasting... lies about the main streem media which is actually on the conservative side, not liberal at all.

Bush's poll numbers are at 25%... he is just flailing around at the present time... living in his own fantasy world where he is not a lame duck President unwilling to take steps to wind up the Iraq War, his PERSONAL WAR OF ADVENTURISM, his great shame, as he went into the war not knowing Muslim culture and mismanaging the war and occupation per HIS OWN STATEMENT.

Choux

If the programing is as valuable as you claim (and I agree with you on the content you mentioned ) then it should be sustainable in the open market. You will notice that many of the programs you mention are underwritten by corporate sponsorship anyway . Why does it then need tax payer subsidy ?

Lots of young immigrants get their start learning English from public television.. . not to mention how well children react to the teaching programs, both language and values. {/quotes}

Fine. Let those programs air on Nickelodion, the Cartoon Network, FOX Kids, NBC Family, Disney Channel, and other kids networks. Why do they have to be paid for by my tax dollars?

[quote]It broadcasts fine programs bought to us from England... drama... that is not produced in America... quality actors in quality pieces.

There's BBC America and BBC World which both do exactly the same thing. As does A&E. Again, why do we need a tax-dollar funded station for that purpose?


I would think that Bush is just posturing at this point because his administration has been such a failure, and he has not given the Christian base much of anything to satisfy their irrational views on many subjects... such as public broadcasting... lies about the main streem media which is actually on the conservative side, not liberal at all.

Huh? I'm trying to make sense of how cutting funding for PBS has anything to do with Chritianity. I am again getting the feeling that the only one being irrational here is you, Chou.


Bush's poll numbers are at 25%...

Here are Bush's job approval ratings since June 1, 2007.


,, Dates,, Approval %

CBS/New York Times... 7/20-22/07... 30
ABC/Washington Post... 7/18-21/07... 33
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV... 7/17-18/07... 32
CBS/New York Times... 7/9-17/07... 29
Gallup... 7/12-15/07... 31
Newsweek... 7/11-12/07... 29
AP-Ipsos... 7/9-11/07... 33
USA Today/Gallup... 7/6-8/07... 29
Newsweek... 7/2-3/07... 26
CBS... 6/26-28/07... 27
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV... 6/26-27/07... 31
CNN/Opinion Research Corp... 6/22-24/07... 32
Newsweek... 6/18-19/07... 26
Gallup... 6/11-14/07... 32
NBC/Wall Street Journal... 6/8-11/07... 29
Quinnipiac RV... 6/5-11/07... 28
L.A. Times/Bloomberg ... 6/7-10/07... 34
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV... 6/5-6/07... 34
AP-Ipsos... 6/4-6/07... 32
USA Today/Gallup... 6/1-3/07... 32

Average approval rating since June 1, 2007 = 30.45%

In addition, Bush's favorability poll numbers, as polled by Gallup on 7/12-15/2007 showed his favorability numbers at 37% and on 6/1-3/07 at 40%. An NBC News/WSJ poll dated 6/8-11/07 showed a favorability rating of 32%.

So where are you getting your 25% figure from? Or were you just making it up?

Also, you should probably keep in mind that the Democrat-controlled Congress' approval ratings are even lower than Bush's... an average of 26.75% for 12 polls taken since June 1, 2007. Zogby actually has Congress' approval ratings at 14% on 7/12-14/07. This would seem to indicate that NOBODY likes Congress, except perhaps, their own parents. Maybe.


he is just flailing around at the present time... living in his own fantasy world where he is not a lame duck President unwilling to take steps to wind up the Iraq War, his PERSONAL WAR OF ADVENTURISM, his great shame, as he went into the war not knowing Muslim culture and mismanaging the war and occupation per HIS OWN STATEMENT.

Ummm. There is only one person I see flailing around here, and it ain't Bush.

Why don't you try some of that logical thinking and fact-finding you are so proud of, instead of the emotional responses caused by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Elliot

Nah no one likes Bush, the one who thinks he is the king of America. Remember how the first elections America was messed because our votes came in a staggering different numbers in recounts? That was a joke and sort of embarrassing for us in the new millennium. What makes you think the polls are right or not? They are rigged just as they were rigged to get bush to come in and make a select few more money. In the first place, this is a fact that he was not the elected president, like the first time around I mean, but he was just selected. If someone can come into power like that - anything is possible - this is all fake, most americans don't like Bushy... but he does make a great target for comedy

So where are you getting your 25% figure from? Or were you just making it up?


The National Economy (http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/)


71% of Americans Disapprove of the Way
George W. Bush is Handling His Job as President
A total of 71% of Americans say they disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.
Among all Americans, 25% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 27% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 70% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 23% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 72% disapprove.
This is the highest level of disapproval and lowest level of approval for the Bush presidency recorded in monthly surveys by the American Research Group.
The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed July 18 through 21, 2007. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
Overall, 25% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 71% disapprove, and 4% are undecided.

Nah no one likes Bush, the one who thinks he is the king of America. Remember how the first elections America was messed because our votes came in a staggering different numbers in recounts? That was a joke and sort of embarrassing for us in the new millenium. what makes you think the polls are right or not? they are rigged just as they were rigged to get bush to come in and make a select few more money. In the first place, this is a fact that he was not the elected president, like the first time around i mean, but he was just selected. If someone can come into power like that - anything is possible - this is all fake, most americans don't like Bushy...but he does make a great target for comedy

Mario, let's examine this statement and see if it makes any sense whatsoever.

First, according to you, Bush is rigging the polls... but is still only getting 30% approval ratings. If he was rigging polls, don't you think he'd be rigging them to show that a majority approve of him?

Second, exactly how does one rig polls being performed by that many different polling organizations... most of whom are critical of Bush? Somehow, Bush arranged for the rigging of all the polls done by Ipsos, CBS, the Wall Street Journal, the NY Times, Quinippiac, Zogby, CNN, Bloomberg, the LA Times, Newsweek and Gallup. He somehow has the power and influence to rig those polls... but he can only rig them enough to show him with a 30% approval rating. Does that make sense to you? Because it sure doesn't make any sense to me.

Third, I'm not quite sure how rigging poll numbers has anything to do with "making money for a select few." I deal with economic and financial issues every day of the work week, since it's my job. But I don't have a clue as to how that works. How do poll numbers that show Bush with a 30% approval rating translate into a select few people getting rich? Please explain the mechanism of this to me in detail. Because, despite over a decade of training and direct experience in this subject, I have no idea of the economic formulas that turn poor poll numbers into more money for rich people. Or even good poll numbers. This doesn't make much sense to me either.

Finally, based on your comments above, Bush is a genius at manipulating people and poll numbers... but he's an idiot who makes good comedy. So which is it? It can't be both. You can't be a genius manipulator AND an idiotic hick at the same time. Please make up your mind as to whih one Bush is, and get beck to me when you decide.

Elliot

The National Economy (http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/)


71% of Americans Disapprove of the Way
George W. Bush is Handling His Job as President
A total of 71% of Americans say they disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.
Among all Americans, 25% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 71% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 23% approve and 73% disapprove.
Among Americans registered to vote, 27% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 70% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 23% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 72% disapprove.
This is the highest level of disapproval and lowest level of approval for the Bush presidency recorded in monthly surveys by the American Research Group.
The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed July 18 through 21, 2007. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.
Overall, 25% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 71% disapprove, and 4% are undecided.


Thanks. I wonder why Polling Report didn't include this poll on their site. They are pretty good about including every major poll and more than a few of the minor ones. That's why I like their site, I can get everything all at once. They are probably just a day behind in posting the poll.

Even with this latest number, Bush's average approval rating since June 1, 2007 is 30.19%.

Thanks for the source, Karma.

I think it is funny how so many people say that Bush is an incompetent boob that everyone hates and distrusts then go on to accuse him of vast conspiracies that only the most brilliant could pull off.

Mario , I don't wish to go off tangent on this thread but if you post your contentions about the 2000 election I will prove that Bush won the election in Fla. ;that it was unnnecessary and a mistake for SCOTUS to intervene . Without court intervention Bush still would've been President . For now ;suffice it to say that The Miami Herald and USA Today did a full recount independent of the events and reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue.

Edit
Now that I wrote this I hope I can address it before my vacation... if not remind me and I will dig up my notes from the period .

No according to you Bush is rigging the polls…I never said he rigged them, but you just did. I only said they were rigged, but did not say that bush physically did this all with his two hands. This is called a strawman fallacy right? Hahah you think you can pull that manipulative fox news crap on me? Are you working for Fox news? Nice try. A strawman fallacy is when you take someone else's argument and change it to make it seem weaker and you don't even represent it accurately... and then you attack it (you attack the strawman you built). The polls are organized to look like he at least has some love his way. And yeah you’re right because maybe he just wants to make an exit after going to war and making a few bucks for him and the few who are getting something out of this. Just like the useless Rumsfeld??
About how polls start coming out the same from different organizations. You need to think outside the Fox news box. It doesn’t matter if there are different names and different kinds of media involved, just look at how many different publications Conrad black owend or the types of media. Also if you have studied political science in school, you will learn that most news stations copy what bigger news stations do to make money, especially when Kings like Bush have made the news a business. They’re trying to survive…even PBS will be thrown in the boat. So, polls are done to please businessmen and advertisers... and the best thing for businessmen is for USA to be at war. You know you can be fired if you go against what your editor or boss says in a news station? Hahaha that’s news for you these days – news controlled by the right.

And I can’t believe how much you manipulte everyone. You are the best at this… you claim that I said, QUOTE: “bush is a genius manipulator and an idiot hick at the same time”
Then you tell me to make up my mind because I can’t put those two together? Hahahah you are weaker than I thought and don’t believe in the craap you spurt out. I never called him a hick, but you did a few times... I'm not racist. And I don't think white-christian americans like people calling them hicks... it's a stereotype. So cut it out.
I also never said he was a genius. You assumed that because you want to get away from the fact about what happened with our votes during the first time Bush got SELECTED (not elected). You try and make it seem like I am saying Bush did this all by himself (because you keep lying to everyone and saying that I am calling him a genius for doing this). Nah I think he didn’t do this with a magic wand all 100 percent by himself, if that is what your brain needs to hear in order to get things straight. I don’t think anyone thought that I was saying “bush broke into the system and did this all alone…what a smarty!” – But I am a saying what is already known… the sad situation with the first American polls that got Bush being President. It’s okay it’s hard to hear that that happened in the new millennium in a democratic country. Sorry Wolfy.

Never mind . You would never understand. Perhaps after my vacation I will present the facts.

House protects public broadcasting - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/18/congress.broadcasting.ap/index.html)

Iin a time when our nations writing and reading scores are at all time lows, Bush wants to eliminate a broadcasting company that teaches kids just how to do that.



NK :

Are you implying that President Bush is responsible for the " nations writing and reading scores are at all time lows?"

Just like he is responsible for Katrina, or 9/11 etc...


Why is it that when things don't go the way people think they should, the first person to be blamed is the President and not themselves?

If my kids can't read, its my fault as a parent, then maybe the teachers. Fortunately they can read very well - thank you very much. And they did not learn how to read or write watching TV.

Where does it say that the President is the "teacher in chief?"






Grace and Peace

NK :

Are you implying that President Bush is responsible for the " nations writing and reading scores are at all time lows?"Sorry if it wasn't clear to you (and I'm not sure how you made that leap). Of course he has no responsibility at all for the low scores. But they do exist and cutting a program or partial support system for education can only exacerbate the problem.

Karma... the leap is a strawman fallacy. Its used to benefit him and to make a week interpretation of your argument so that he can better attack it

No according to you Bush is rigging the polls…I never said he rigged them, but you just did. I only said they were rigged, but did not say that bush physically did this all with his two hands. This is called a strawman fallacy right? Hahah you think you can pull that manipulative fox news crap on me? Are you working for Fox news? Nice try. A strawman fallacy is when you take someone else's argument and change it to make it seem weaker and you don't even represent it accurately...and then you attack it (you attack the strawman you built). the polls are organized to look like he at least has some love his way. And yeah you’re right because maybe he just wants to make an exit after going to war and making a few bucks for him and the few who are getting something out of this. Just like the useless Rumsfeld????
About how polls start coming out the same from different organizations. You need to think outside the Fox news box. It doesn’t matter if there are different names and different kinds of media involved, just look at how many different publications Conrad black owend or the types of media. Also if you have studied political science in school, you will learn that most news stations copy what bigger news stations do to make money, especially when Kings like Bush have made the news a business. They’re trying to survive…even PBS will be thrown in the boat. So, polls are done to please businessmen and advertisers...and the best thing for businessmen is for USA to be at war. You know you can be fired if you go against what your editor or boss says in a news station? Hahaha that’s news for you these days – news controlled by the right.

and I can’t believe how much you manipulte everyone. You are the best at this… you claim that I said, QUOTE: “bush is a genius manipulator and an idiot hick at the same time”
Then you tell me to make up my mind because I can’t put those two together? Hahahah you are weaker than I thought and don’t believe in the craap you spurt out. I never called him a hick, but you did a few times...I'm not racist. And I dont think white-christian americans like people calling them hicks...it's a stereotype. so cut it out.
I also never said he was a genius. You assumed that because you want to get away from the fact about what happened with our votes during the first time Bush got SELECTED (not elected). You try and make it seem like I am saying Bush did this all by himself (because you keep lying to everyone and saying that I am calling him a genius for doing this). Nah I think he didn’t do this with a magic wand all 100 percent by himself, if that is what your brain needs to hear in order to get things straight. I don’t think anyone thought that I was saying “bush broke into the system and did this all alone…what a smarty!” – But I am a saying what is already known… the sad situation with the first American polls that got Bush being President. It’s okay it’s hard to hear that that happened in the new millennium in a democratic country. Sorry Wolfy.

So... Bush didn't manipulate the polls, someone else did it for him. On his behalf. For his benefit. But he still only got a 30% approval rating. Then whoever is doing the manipulating isn't all that good at it, are they. Frankly, if I were doing the rigging of Bush's polls, I'd probably try to get him at least a 50% approval rating, if not more. Who deliberately gives the guy they are supporting low approval ratings? If Bush arranged it himself, he must be incredibly smart to be able to arrange for someone to manipulate the polls, and pretty stupid if he only gave himself a 30% approval rating. And if he didn't arrange for it himself, then whoever did manipulate the polls sure as heck doesn't like Bush... he only gave him a 30% approval rating. It still doesn't make any sense to me. Does it make any sense to you?

And if all the polls are coming out roughly the same, perhaps it is because they are accurate and they are all saying the same thing. They are all polling the general population and are all picking up on the same opinions of Bush from the general population. If 20 polls are being taken of the same general population around the same time asking the same question, I would expect them all to have similar outsomes to each other. That is what polls are supposed to do... accurately measure the moods and opinions of the general population. So the idea that if polls are all coming out the same they must be rigged is... well, I'm not sure what it is, but it isn't logical.

And you still haven't explained to me your statement that the polls have been rigged in order to make certain people rich. How does that work?

Finally, on the subject of media bias, here are afew facts for you to think over.

In Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues by Jim A. Kuypers (2002), of 116 mainstream newspapers studied by Kupyers (including the New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle) it was found that the mainstream print press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

In 1982, 85 percent of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism students identified themselves as liberal, versus 11 percent conservative" (Lichter, Rothman, and Lichter 1986).

John Lott and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute study the coverage of economic news by looking at a panel of 389 U.S. newspapers from 1991 to 2004, and from 1985 to 2004 for a subsample comprising the top 10 newspapers and the Associated Press. For each release of official data about a set of economic indicators, the authors analyze how newspapers decide to report on them, as reflected by the tone of the related headlines. The idea is to check whether newspapers display some kind of partisan bias, by giving more positive or negative coverage to the same economic figure, as a function of the political affiliation of the incumbent President. Controlling for the economic data being released, the authors find that there are between 9.6 and 14.7 percent fewer positive stories when the incumbent President is a Republican.

Just some things to think about.

Elliot

Sorry if it wasn't clear to you (and I'm not sure how you made that leap). Of course he has no responsibilty at all for the low scores. But they do exist and cutting a program or partial support system for education can only exacerbate the problem.


How do you support your last sentence?



REPORT: INCREASED SCHOOL FUNDING FAILS TO BOOST TEST SCORES (http://www.alec.org/news/press-releases/press-releases-2003/november/report-increased-school-funding-fails-to-boost-test-scores.html)


"A key finding of the report shows there is no immediate evident correlation between conventional measures of education inputs, such as expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries, and educational outputs, such as average scores on standardized tests.

ALEC is the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators. ...


Washington, Iowa, and Wisconsin achieved among the highest standardized test scores in the nation, yet Iowa and Wisconsin ranked near the bottom on percentage of funds received from the federal government, Washington and Iowa ranked in the lower half of states with respect to per pupil expenditures, and Iowa was ranked in the lower half of states with respect to average teacher salaries. "


The problem is how is tax money being spent effectively?

Show me how PBS increases national reading writing or any other standardized test score.

My argument is that
#1] just throwing money, that comes from hardworking taxpayors, at education does not necessarily improve it.
#2] It is not bad to cut government funds to pbs, because it won't effect education
#3] you threw in reading, writing, pbs, and government funding into the opening question




Grace and Peace

PBS is a waste of tax dollars, like many "pork" projects that congress holds and shows their people they get for them.

They could get advertising, and do the same as any other radio station.
Even Christian radio that works on just donations stay in business.

So why should tax dollars be used to keep in operation a very bias radio system that is a entire waste of tax dollars

What just surprises me is why anyone supports it. Is it just because Bush is against it, maybe Bush should be asking for more and more money for it, then everyone would hate it.

So why should tax dollars be used to keep in operation a very bias radio system that is a entire waste of tax dollarsHow is it biased?


What just surprises me is why anyone supports it. Just because you do not use that service doesn't mean it should disappear.

"A key finding of the report shows there is no immediate evident correlation between conventional measures of education inputs, such as expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries, and educational outputs, such as average scores on standardized tests.So what does have a positive correlation to student success? Anything at all?




Show me how PBS increases national reading writing or any other standardized test score.How about you show me how abolishing it will increase these values.

You know what? If PBS is suppose to be our version of a publicly funded station... we are in a grim grim girm state. Man why do we shut up everything does not bend over and kiss the conservative arse? Can't bush stop being scared of PBS?

you know what? if PBS is suppose to be our version of a publicaly funded station...we are in a grim grim girm state. Man why do we shut up everything does not bend over and kiss the conservative arse? can't bush stop being scared of PBS?

Actually, it is liberals who are trying to shut down conservative media by reinstituting the fairness doctrine that would force conservative talk radio and newscasts to air an equal amount of liberal airtime. The fact that liberals have ABS, NBC, CBS (which tried to lambast Bush with fake documents right before the 2004 election), CNN, The New York Times (which has a history of leaking government secrets that hurt conservatives, but attacking those who leak government secrets that hurt liberals), Newsweek, The Washington Post, the LA Times, PBS, NPR, Time, etc. isn't enough for most liberals. These media, of course, would e exempt from the fairness doctrine. Only FOX and conservative talk radio would be affected. They want all news outlets to be liberal or else have them shut down.

And again, Mario, nobody is talking about shutting down PBS programming. We're just talking about not funding them with federal tax dollars. If the shows are so important and so good, they can stand on their own without federal support. If they can't, then they deserve to be cancelled.

Elliot

So what does have a positive correlation to student success? Anything at all?


How about you show me how abolishing it will increase these values.


As a parent, you might agree with this:

"q the less television viewed per weekday by elementary students the higher their achievement in reading, language and math;
q the less television viewed on a weekend day the higher the language achievement for both elementary and secondary students;
q and the more books in the home the higher the secondary students' scores for both language and math."
From
Canadian Home School Study (http://www.kenweb.co.za/canadian_home_school_study.htm)

And
"The message is loud and clear. More money does not mean a better education. There is no positive correlation between money spent on education and student performance. Public school advocates could refocus their emphasis if they learned this lesson. Loving and caring parents are what matters. Money can never replace simple, hard work."
From
HSLDA | Academic Statistics on Homeschooling (http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp)




No one said anything about "abolishing" it, just not having the taxpayors fund it. Let PBS stand on its own merits.






Grace and Peace

Wow, you've changed the discussion from the funding of public television to 'how much TV should kids watch'. Bravo.

Of course I totally agree with loving parenting being the key to a child's development and I believe what they watch is as important as how much and guess what? My kids watch more PBS TV than any other station (though the older one likes YTV a lot now).

My kids don't wath any TV at all. And my son, who will be going into first grade this fall has a 3rd grade reading level, while my kindergarten-aged daughter is already learning to read full sentences. No PBS for them, and yet they outperform their PBS-watching peers in reading, and probably in math as well, though I am not as familiar with math standards as I am with reading standards.

PBS doesn't teach kids to read. It teaches kids to mimick what they see on TV. And it teaches parents to use the TV as a babysitter.

Now... I'm not against TV per se. I watch enough TV for my whole family, and then some. But InTheBox is right... there is a definite provable negative correlation between TV time and reading and math skills... if only because the amount if time kids are spending watching TV is time they aren't spending doing homework or reading a book. So to say that TV of any form, even PBS, promoes reading and math skills is somewhat disingenuous.

But again, even if that weren't true, that doesn't mean that my tax dollars have to fund it. And for me, that is the real issue... the government taking my money to support a cause that I would not choose to support on my own, and which, in realitym doesn't need my support, because it could stand on its own if we let it.

Elliot

I hear what you're saying and BTW my kindergarten daughter is reading books to us as well.

I don't use the roads in Atlanta, I don't think taxpayer money should fund its maintenance. Also there should be no Medicare because I don't use it - they should cut all funding to it.

I hear what you're saying and BTW my kindergarten daughter is reading books to us as well.

I don't use the roads in Atlanta, I don't think taxpayer money should fund its maintenance. Also there should be no Medicare because I don't use it - they should cut all funding to it.

First of all, they should indeed cut all medicare funding. It should be replaced with personal healthcare accounts. But that is a sepparate discussion.

And with regard to roads, the Federal Government has a constitutional requirement to maintain roads, and that is one of only THREE items specifically detailed by the constitution that the government is required to set taxes for: road maintenance and development, maintenance and upkeep of a military/police force, and maintaining a mail system. So, sorry, but your analogy is wrong.

But I'm not saying that the government shouldn't fund PBS because I disagree with the programming on PBS and don't watch it. I'm saying they shouldn't fund it because it isn't necessary to do so, and it really isn't their job to do so. It isn't neessary because the programs SHOULD be self-funding or else they should be cancelled. And it isn't the government's job to fund it because it isn't the government's job to determine what is and what is not art and entertainment and which arts and entertainment should be funded by the federal government and which ones fail their particular test of worthiness. It's a first amendment issue.

So, aagain, I'm not saying PBS shouldn't be federally funded because I don';t use it. I'm saying it shouldn't be funded because there is no need to do so (the primary reason) and because the government has no business doing it (secondary reason).

My comments about "funding what I would not shoose to fund on my own" were directed at any wealth redistribution scheme in which the government takes my earnings and uses them to fund programs and charitable causes that I wouldn't choose to donate to on my own. The NEA and PBS are good examples, but they aren't the only ones.

There's an old joke that a liberal and a conservative are walking together and they see a poor man. The Conservative takes out $10 from his pocket and buys the guy lunch. The liberal is impressed with this and decides to do the same thing. And so, the next time they pass a poor man, the liberal takes $10 out of the conservative's pocket, gives $2 to the poor guy for a snack and keeps $8 as a service fee. That's what I have a problem with. If I want to donate to PBS programs through their telethon, I can do that on my own. But I don't need the government taxing me for that purpose.

Elliot