Last month, Republicans and (leaving) CPB Chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson made news recently with his contention that public broadcasting is too liberal and some Republicans added that PBS was unfairly reporting the Bush administration in a negative light.
-A few weeks later, the House of Representatives announced they would cut PBS's funding by 100 million (25% of their government given budget) -effectivly shutting them down or at least curtailing many of their programmes to what could be bought from private contributions and donations.
-Thursday, the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting named former Republican Committee co-Chairman Patricia de Stacy Harrison to work as its top administrator.
Now the GOP has one of their own running PBS.
-Friday the House announced that it won't cut Public Broadcasting Funds after a "carefully considered" debate and vote.
Coincidence, I'm sure.
I would not count on Sesame Street teaching tolerance of gays or any more indepth expose from Frontline on Bush administration's failings in the future.
quote:"Big Bird and his friends can fly on their own," said Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla.
PBS still might end up with less money than in its current budget. The legislation would eliminate $23 million for the Ready to Learn program, which subsidizes children's educational programming and distributes learning materials.
Of course, this is the same HOuse that plans on reducing the No Child Left Behind Program by 806 million- more than 3%.
Fuck it: kids can "fly on their own" too, I guess.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
In regards to the underfunding of "No Child Left Behind", one of the things I've heard bandied about down here (especially in light of state leaders' continual failures to pass an acceptable school financing scheme*) is that the public schools are intentionally being weakened to force the voucher programs to be passed. It's a little too conspiracy theory-ish for me, but who knows.
As for Public Broadcasting, we've all known the PBS and NPR have been in the Republican's crosshairs for a while now. I think "Buster Bunny Tries to Seduce Kids with the Homosexual Manifesto"** was probably the final straw that broke some bored representative's back and decided to toss a bone to the party faithful.
* It's a much bigger clusterfuck than what I'm letting on. ** Real title was something like "Buster Bunny Visits Maple Syrup Farm and, oh, One of His New Friends Has Two Mommies But There's Maple Syrup and Vermont Countryside to See First".
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
What!? Does this mean they won't be able to show five hours of Deepak Chopra's "How To Magic Up Some Self-Confidence, You Gullible Apes" special? I am outraged and appalled!
But seriously, it has been like three weeks now, and no Austin City Limits.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
My history teacher told me how President Franklin D. Roosevelt had control of Congress and was attempting to take control of the Supreme Court by appointing Dem judges to counter the Rep judges. His actions were blocked for fear it would creat a dictatorship. Yet the same seems to be happening with Bush and no one sees the comparison. Yep its real funny...
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
There is a slight difference there, Mars. Roosevelt was attempting to pack the Supreme Court by having the Congress pass a measure that would expand the number of justices on that court from nine to fifteen. The measure failed in the Senate when that body voted it down in 1937. Roosevelt hoped that adding six more justices (likely to be liberal justices) would dilute the conservative voices on the court (and thus spot having the Supreme Court overturning all his New Deal legislation).
What Bush is doing is waiting for the older members of the Supreme Court to either die or resign. Some members of the Republican Party and supporters of Bush are hoping that one or more of the moderate or liberal voices on the court will leave during Bush's term so that they can be replaced by conservative justices. That way the conversative tilt of the court can be increased without revisiting Roosevelt's failed packing scheme.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I always wondered about schemes like that. Life terms or not, all congress would really have to do would be reduce the Supreme Court in size to three justices, kick the oldest six off, re-expand to twelve, appoint nine new ones, reduce back to nine, kick off the oldest three. As far as I know this would be perfectly legal. But that's just an aside.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's all perfectree regal Queen Amidalia....
The scary thing is a notion of a Supreme Court that is evem more in big business' pocket than the current line up.
This week the Supreme Court decided that a city or state can sieze private land and give that land to a private developer if the city/state decides the developer would improve the city in the process.
This means that you can own your house on the lake, refuse an offer by some developer to buy it for condos and the...suprise! The city takes your land and they sell it to the developer. Giving you (get this) whtever the city decides your land is worth as compensation.
As yet another founding principle of the country (the riht to own land) is circumvented by the Republicans.
Gee, this family only provides a building from which several small businesses and their employees work out of. What's that compared to a huge condo development (and the inevitable campaign contributions the developers are likely to give).
It reads like the plot to a A-Team episode...though I doubt a cabbage-cannon will save the day in this case.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I always wondered about schemes like that. Life terms or not, all congress would really have to do would be reduce the Supreme Court in size to three justices, kick the oldest six off, re-expand to twelve, appoint nine new ones, reduce back to nine, kick off the oldest three. As far as I know this would be perfectly legal.
Something similar has been done in the past. Congress passed a bill called the Judicial Circuits Act in 1866 that called for the removal of three seats from the U.S. Supreme Court as justices retired. This was done by Congress to prevent President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone to the Supreme Court should any vacancies arise.* At the time, there were ten seats on the Supreme Court and the intent was to drop the size to seven. A seat was dropped after passage of the act (which killed a pending nomination to that seat made by Johnson) and another seat was removed the following year. Before the third seat could be removed, a new measure was passed by Congress (the Circuit Judges Act of 1869) which reset the number of seats on the Supreme Court to nine.
* A minor note on this, I've also read references that the bill was not so much a slam to Johnson as it was a compromise between the chief justice and Congressional leaders. The chief justice (Salmon Chase) hoped Congress would raise judicial salaries in return for a smaller Supreme Court (that would no longer wind up with tie decisions).
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega: The problem is that they would have to wait for the justices to retire before eliminating the seats, as they did in the 1860s. Constitutionally, "the Judges ... shall hold their Offices during good Behavior". There's no stipulation for Congress to downsize an acting Supreme Court justice.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I would'nt say that psycho Scallia threatening reporters with arrest for recording a public speach is "acting with good Behaviour".
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Or schmoozing with one VP D. Cheney when the latter had a case pending.
Republican standards.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Is it necessary a Republican revolution we are witnessing here? I see this as a corporate revolution with both parties, openly or not, supporting and advocating for corporate ownership of our institutions and our way of life.
I think this will be worst than what happened in the 1800's. In the 1800's, people lived suppressed and poverty-ridden lives. As a consequence of changes enacted in response to corporate behavrior, people started to believe that they could pull themselves out of the lives their parents and grandparents lived. Workers were granted benefits and loyalty from companies. In the last twenty-five years, this ascension by the people has been steadily eroding and now people who expected the riches their parents and grandparents received are facing a future where there no such riches.
I see the recent SCOTUS judgment as one more step in this direction and as a warning. If Americans don't wake up, our children will be living the way our ancestors did over 100 years ago and the rights that workers fought for will be lost.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
As yet another founding principle of the country (the riht to own land) is circumvented by the Republicans.
Check the vote. The traditionally conservative justices voted AGAINST this, and the liberal ones for it. Also, the party affiliation of the president who appoints a judge and the way the judge votes is not all that close a correlation.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Omega's correct on both counts. The majority opinion in Kelo vs. City of New London consisted of Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Of those, the liberal wing of the court is usually listed as Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Dissenting were Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and O'Connor. Of them, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia are usually considered the conservative wing. Kennedy and O'Connor are usually the swing votes on the court.
With Omega's second point, the two best examples are justices Souter and Stevens. Stevens was appointed by Ford; Souter was appointed by George H. W. Bush. Both are more liberal than the presidents that appointed them. Another example that come to mind are Earl Warren, who was much more liberal than Eisenhower, who appointed him as chief justice. I can't think of any nominally liberal president that appointed a much more conservative justice, though.
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Thomas actually did something I approve of! He pointed out that the poorest people would be the likely victims of abuse of this decision.
He's absolutely right- only the poorest americans live in areas that the city would want to "redevelop", so those people are the ones to get the shaft. If they live in the poor part of town, and a luxury condo goes up where they lived, the city sees it as improving the neighborhood, but now the former owner is still poor and has no home.
Allowing the city to sieze land on behalf of private intrests would preven a land owner from negotaiting a high price from a rich developer.
God forbid someone strikes oil on their land.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
