Sunday, October 21, 2012

How our history is preserved

This weekend, we saw an interesting thing on the "Movies" screen of Netflix.

netflix

"Popular on Netflix" is a series of films that Neflix-ers are streaming.  There next to offerings by Jason Statham (2011's Blitz) and Mark Walhberg (2007's The Shooter) is Jane Fonda's Barbarella


Barbarella was a French comic strip that appeared in V-Magazine.  The strip, created by Jean-Claude Forest, followed a female astronaut through various adventures throughout the galaxy.   Roger Vadim would direct the film based on the comic strip starring his then-wife Jane.  The film angered prudes and entertained film lovers (such as The New Yorker's Pauline Kael who found the film (and especially Jane) worthy of praise.

Over the summer, the film got a Blue-Ray release which really does justice to its visuals.  (Roger Vadim was one of the masters of using colors to evoke moods and emotions.)  This is not the version Netflix is streaming.


Jane has nothing to be embarrassed of, she's hilarious in the film and it's' a classic of the French New Wave.  But Jane's also gone on to be nominated seven times for an Academy Award (she's won two Best Actress awards -- for Klute and Coming Home).

But does a young Netflix streamer know about that?  Do they know The China Syndrome, for example?  How about her amazing performance in The Morning After?

We ask that for a reason.

Films are a part of our American history.  In the early days of television, the stations so chopped up films for commercial breaks, there was little point in watching. (A point made in Billy Wilder's The Apartment when Jack Lemmonn attempts to settled down for a night in.)  Revivals at art house theaters and people like Pauline Kael and writer Peter Bogdanovich (later director of classics such as Paper Moon, The Last Picture Show and What's Up Doc?) helped correct these wrongs.

Then Jane Fonda led a home entertainment revolution when she moved the video cassette market from strictly rentals to purchasing for your home library.   Since then, for the most part, the industry's done a good job promoting the past and keeping film history alive.

But everyone seems to be lagging with streaming.

It doesn't seem the same effort is going into promoting streaming when it comes to the classics, not the same effort that was there earlier with releasing them on video cassettes, laser discs, DVDs, etc. For example, on Netflix currently, 1963's The Caretakers is the only streamable in the Joan Crawford filmography.  This iffy picture in which Crawford's third billed, is that really how to educate anyone as to what she could do or why Joan was able to have a decades long career?  Still, Joan's got one more streamable film than Carole Lombard.

An actress many have longed to be or to emulate, one of the first female comedy stars of talking films, Lombard's classics include Twentieth Century with John Barrymore (Drew's grandfather), My Man Godfrey, To Be or Not To Be, Hands Across The Table, The Princess Comes Across, Nothing Sacred and True Confessions.

Or take Alan Ladd.  You can stream him in the classic Shane but that's an 'idea' film.  It didn't make him a star.  It was the films This Gun for Hire, The Glass Key and The Blue Dahlia that made Alan Ladd one of the biggest actors of the 1940s. 


 Does any of it matter?

It matters in terms of both film history and our country's own history.

It matters in terms of dollars and cents as well.


People didn't care a great deal, for example, in the 60s about It's A Wonderful Life.  It was only when it became a staple of television in the seventies that the tide began to change and it began to be considered a holiday classic.  We can think of many holiday films that are actually better than It's A Wonderful Life (including Frank Capra's Meet John Doe starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck) but they didn't get mass saturation.

That kind of access to a film creates both memories and a bond that lives on.

Whether it's Netflix, Hulu or Crackle, the studios don't seem to grasp that currently and aren't using their product to enrich film history or themselves.  They could easily do both.  One of Alan Ladd's classics featured prominently online for streaming would result in people being aware of and interested in his other film noir roles.  In other words, for the first time in many years, the studios are back to failing to create a market for their archives.






We're thrilled Jane Fonda's Barbarella is popular on Netflix.  We think it's a film worth watching and that she's a real pleasure in it.  We're also aware that she's done a lot more in other films.  Access is what creates bonds and identification.  We think the studios need to grasp that.  To focus on Jane, studios would do well to grasp that she's only made one sci-fi film thus far and if you're wanting to build an audience for the films you retain the rights to that she stars in, you probably need to create a streaming model that both lures and showcases.

From The TESR Test Kitchen

In our never-ending search for low calorie foods, we will endure a great deal.  We often toss around how bad ice cream could be and us still eat it if they could get the calories down to 100 per half gallon?

We like the Pringles Light line.but  a number of you wrote in to note that you didn't eat items with olestra in it -- due to concerns about anal leakage chiefly.

Well try Simple Truth Natural Popped Chips with Sea Salt.  21 chips are 120 calories and there's no olestra.  Plus, they taste great.

 potato chips


They've got a thickness to them that makes for a more substantial taste than many of the 'healthy' chips offer.

And binges?

If you eat the entire bag, it's 360 calories. 




Mailbag


We get e-mails.

mailcall


Our e-mail address is thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com

There are many topics in last week's e-mails and let's grab a TV one first.  Several of you want us to know that Unforgettable is slated to return to CBS this coming summer.  May 27th, Ava and C.I. wrote:


On top of losing a program they really did need, they cut a show with ratings ABC, NBC and Fox would have killed for.  When they realized they'd be cutting the hit show Unforgettable (the decision was known in April), they should have instead made it a summer series and asked the show to go into immediate production for those episodes.  Over ten million viewers every week is nothing to sneeze at.  And a network willing to cut a show with that many viewers is one suffering from hubris and one soon to find the ground kicked out from beneath it.  


So what's going on?  Well, it has been referenced here a few times by Jim.  But it's been cut when mentioned.   So we've got it noted now.  CBS is planning to bring it back as a summer show.  (That could change if they need to fill a slot mid-season. In which case, the show would return earlier than expected.)

Still TV.  Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; Marcia of SICKOFITRDLZ;  and Ann of Ann's Mega Dub are known collectively as "The Whitney Bloggers."  Inspired by Ava and C.I.'s "TV: The perverts still drool over Shirley Temple,"  Betty, Marcia and Ann decided a bunch of women-hating gas bags would not have the last word or be able to kill off a program with their lies with a real fight on their hands.  So they focused on NBC's Whitney and saving it.  And they were supposed to return to the Whitney beat tomorrow.

They won't be.

NBC has jerked Whitney and Community around.  Both were supposed to return last Friday with new episodes.  Neither did.  Whitney return in November on Tuesday nights.  They'll return to covering it then.

That's not the top ten on TV but let's go to the biggest issue: Complaints about the lack of entertainment TV coverage.  "Look," wrote Alice Pownall speaking for many, "Ava and C.I. illuminate things from a debate that I miss.  I love their political coverage.  But it's October and they've yet to review one entertainment show.  Already NBC has taken the axe to one sitcom.  When will Ava and C.I. address entertainment?"

Kind of this week?

They won't be surprised when I bring this issue up to them.  It's nothing that they don't feel as well.  Jim's asked for political coverage because it's an election year.  They'd rather be exploring sitcoms or something fun.  They've finished this week's piece.  It does look at the debate.  By way of Saturday Night Live.  It also tackles this season's trend (the woman lost her job!) and weighs in on The Middle, New Girl and Up All Night.  Tomorrow night is the last of the three presidential debates.  That should mean that they can cover other topics.  They want to.  Based solely on conversations I've overheard, they could tell you what works and what doesn't with Mob Doctor today, they could cover The Neighbors, Partners, Arrow and so much more.

We could stay on TV forever, but let's move to other topics in the mailbag.  Rex is one of our readers who feel we blew it by recommending a product with olestra (Pringles) and at the same time feels we really need to do "more TESR Test Kitchens."  We have one this edition.

Rex feels "From The TESR Test Kitchen" offers some "much needed variety."

Rex's e-mail came in on Tuesday and we did try to put in a bit more to the mix than usual.  But there are also editions that are theme editions.  If it's not a theme, we should always provide a bit of a mix.  Politics is only one thing we cover.


We're also doing an idiot of the week piece due to e-mail requests though, honestly, if Mike had done one at his site last week, we'd probably have skipped it.  He brought that to this site as a feature.  When we began dropping the ball he made it a feature at his site. 


Lauren e-mailed to ask if we'd forgotten that with "The Bionic Woman Season Three" we promised to go backwards and review all the seasons?  No, we haven't forgotten.  We are working on that currently.  And there will be three articles, not two.  We'll end up with four articles.  If that confuses you, you'll have to wait and see what's in store.



King of Self-Love sings to Choir (Ava and C.I.)

This is a repost of Ava and C.I. taking on Monday night's debate.



The King of Self-Love sings to the Choir (Ava and C.I.)

debate 2

If only everyone could find Barack as amusing as he finds himself.   Last night at Hofstra University, it was a three-way draw in many respects as President Barack Obama, Governor Mitt Romney and CNN correspondent Candy Crowley faced off with truth left bruised and bloody.

As the authors of "TV: Jim Lehrer, notch below child molester," we wanted to applaud Candy Crowley.  The debates -- controlled by a duopoly commission -- are a sham.  So we pointed out, "And when a Jim Lehrer (or Bob Schieffer or Martha Raddatz or Candy Crowley) provides cover to these shams by posing as a journalist, they're doing incredible damage to democracy and, again, they're as damaging as child molesters.  If they don't have any self-respect, their peers should at least hold them accountable.  Until that happens, nothing is going to change."

But there was Crowley talking about how she wasn't going to follow this rule and wasn't going to follow that one and she was going to break the conract's rule against her asking any follow up questions and she was going to be in charge and --    In her 'pre-game' interviews, she certainly talked a good game.

Sadly, she appeared to leave that game in the locker room.

And her post-game (let's not pretend that was a debate) interview was appalling.

In her big moment, she yet again interrupted what could have been a debate between the two candidates to vouch for the veracity of Barack's claim.

Barack:  The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.  And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.


Romney expressed disbelief that Barack stated that on September 12th but Crowley declared that "he did in fact, sir."  And Barack asked her to repeat that "a little louder, Candy" which led her to state, "He -- he did call it an act of terror."

No, he didn't.  At best, he implied it.  And Crowley knew she was wrong almost immediately.  You can see it on her face as the audience applauds and she rushes to quickly add, "It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out.  You are correct about that."

Ruth caught that quick amend by Crowley but few others did, especially alleged news outlets.

They also apparently missed Candy Crowley on CNN after the debate trying to justify her nonsense.  So far, we can only find The Daily Caller reporting on that which is surprising because we were embarrassed last night just watching Crowley due faux accountability as she minimized her actions -- we were especially embarrassed because it was clear Crowley knew she'd crossed a line.  There she was telling Anderson Cooper,  "So I knew that the president has said, you know, 'These act of terror won't stand,' or whatever the whole quote was."  Well, if you knew it, you'd know what he said.

And Candy didn't.

Glenn Kessler (Washington Post) explained:

What did Obama say in the Rose Garden a day after the attack in Libya? We covered this previously in our extensive timeline of administration statements on Libya.
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,” Obama said.
But the president did not say “terrorism”— and Romney got tripped up when he repeated the “act of terror” phrasing.
Otherwise, Romney’s broader point is accurate — that it took the administration days to concede that the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was an “act of terrorism” that appears unrelated to initial reports of anger at a video that defamed the prophet Muhammad. By our count, it took 8 days for an administration official to concede that the deaths in Libya was the result of a “terrorist attack.”
More to Romney’s point, Obama continued to resist saying the “t” word, instead repeatedly bringing up the video, even in a speech to the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 25. On Sept. 26--15 days after the attack-- the White House spokesman felt compelled to assert “it is certainly the case that it is our view as an administration, the President’s view, that it was a terrorist attack.”


What was claimed in the debate?

Barack:  The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people in the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime.  And then a few days later, I was there greeting the caskets coming into Andrews Air Force Base and grieving with the families.

He did not label it terrorism.  He spoke of 9-11 from 2001.  He, at best, implied that the September 11, 2012 incident was terrorism.  He did not declare it was one.  And not only did he lie to the United Nation  such thing, he went all over lying -- including on The View.  By contrast, September 12th, the State Dept's Patrick Kennedy was briefing Congress that it was a terrorist attack and had nothing to do with some YouTube video -- or didn't anyone pay attention to his testimony at last week's House Oversight Committee?

Crowley was an embarrassment.

You may have noted we said the audience applauded Candy when she did as Barack ordered her to.


At the start of the debate, Candy Crowley declared, "Each candidate has as much as two minutes to respond to a common question, and there will be a two-minute follow-up. The audience here
in the hall has agreed to be polite and attentive - no cheering or booing or outbursts of any sort."
(We're using the CNN transcript, by the way, which is laid out on one web page and will not require you to click for another page every few paragraphs the way ABC and others offering a transcript do.)   Applause is an outburst.  And it can be distracting.  For example, Ruth caught Crowley admitting at the debate that Romney was correct but most people didn't and that was probably due to the second round of applause that was going on.

Crowley did a lousy job.

She interjected to side with one candidate.  And, worse, the candidate was not telling the truth.  Again, the best and most generous assessment is that Barack implied it was an act of terrorism when he spoke on September 12th.  Having picked sides, she then tried to walk it back but the walk back was largely lost due to the applause.

Attempting to minimize what she'd done in the debate during the post-debate analysis on CNN, she insisted that, "I was again trying to move them on.  They were hung up on this one thing."  Wow.  Hung up on an act of terrorism.

How dare they.  Crowley wanted to go to a question about AK-47s.

What the hell?

Terrorism trumps your pet causes.  Yeah, we called it that.  AK-47s are not as threatening to the world, the entire world, as terrorism nor are they all over the streets of America.  It was wasted time by Crowley who repeatedly went with questions that supplied generic soundbytes and repeatedly refused to allow the issues to be explored.

Libya?

30 minutes of the debate devoted to Libya wouldn't have been too much..

Crowley was awful.  Oh, she talked a good game before it started, but how quickly she crumbled.

The only one who should be rejoicing about Crowley's performance is Don Gonyea.  We're were streaming NPR, watching CNN and listening to the BBC Radio to get a feel for the general consensus immediately after the debate and we heard a lot of crap but only Don came close to rivaling Candy as he insisted that Mitt Romney looked like he was on the ropes because during the debate he stammered a few times.

Barack's start and stop speaking?  Yes, we are aware of it.  Have been for a long, long time.  In February 2009's "TV: Blustering Boys," we observed:


We watched Monday in full as Barack uh-uh-uhed and spoke in that robotic manner that allows him to find more unnatural pauses than Estelle Parsons and Kim Stanley combined. "He's our Method president!" we quickly gasped while wishing we could have one president this decade capable of normal speech. If he gets any worse, he'll be Sandy Dennis.


But we weren't thinking of Barack while we listened to Don Gonyea explain live on NPR that Romney's stammering at points in the debate showed he was on the ropes.  No, we were thinking of Don Gonyea.  Who was stammering as he said it.  "This-this-this-this" at one point.  Over and over, he stammered.

By Don Gonyea's logic, that meant Don Gonyea was on the ropes.  By Don Gonyea's logic, that meant that Don Gonyea was 'losing' the analysis.

And we had to wonder if Don Gonyea was even aware, as he picked apart Mitt Romney's stammer, that he himself was stammering on air?

Barack stammered as well, for the record.

That was hardly his biggest problem.

"But she works for me!" he insisted at one point in the Libya section about Hillary.  No, Barack, she doesn't.  Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State for the United States of America and takes an oath to serve the people and honor the Constitution.  She takes no oath to the current president, nor does anyone in the Cabinet.  We were appalled to hear Barack make this claim when one of his biggest campaign gurus used to praise us, during the Bully Boy Bush years, for pointing this out when Colin Powell would claim that he served Bully Boy Bush.  You may have, Colin, but you were supposed to be serving the American people.  Presidents come and go.  The country is supposed to remain.

But there was Barack insisting Hillary worked for him.

He never looked more self-absorbed than he did this debate.

And last go round, he looked pretty self-absorbed.

Like last time, Barack seemed to believe his job was to tell the moderator how to do their job.  So last night we got lots of, "Please proceed."  We got Barack repeatedly going over time limits and insisting, as he continued, "Just one second because this is important."

Cutting off Romney to ask, "How much time do we have, Candy?

We had him babbling on about how Romney is supposedly "currently investing in countries -- in companies" while Crowley tried to call time.

Crowley looked so weak with her, "Mr. President, let me --" only to let him continue talking and then come back with, "Mr. President, thank you."

Barack wanted to run the debate and she let him.  Maybe we should have told Barack the media was the president for the last four years?  He only ever wants to do a job if he doesn't have it.  If he thought someone else was president, he might have actually rolled his sleeves up and got to work on the economy -- remember how many times he promised that 'now' he was going to focus on the economy?  Never did though.

A friend with a column in a daily paper argued Barack's most laughable line was when he said, in reply to a man who declared he was struggling economically, that "a lot of us are."  Us?

Yeah, that was cute.  The same way he trotted out dead grandma yet again.  It's amazing how she was hidden away until her death and how, until her death, she was just a "typical" White person who was racist but today, in death, she's this model for Barack.

But what stood out to us was his claim that "we are also a nation of laws."

Bradley Manning has been imprisoned for how long now?  Bradley Manning was pronounced guilty by Barack Obama who now wants to claim "we are also a nation of laws"?

We remember all the garbage about the K-mart lecturer being a "constitutional professor" and how great that would be to have in the White House.  But it didn't work out that way.  Despite his alleged opposition as a senator to the Patriot Act, he's refused to allow it to sunset.  He's declared he -- a, any -- president has the right to kill any American they want -- of course, not in hand-to-hand combat because that might mess up his lovely, manicured nails.  But via drone or team of assassins, any American can be killed on the order of the president of the United States and this is not subject to court review -- according to the 'constitutional professor.'



And there was Barack asserting "we are also a nation of laws."



As he tried to spin -- with Candy Crowley's help -- his way away from the lies he'd repeatedly told for days after September 11, 2012 about YouTube videos, protests and other nonsense, Barack had the nerve to not just deny what he did but to claim, "That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as Commander in Chief."

As we pointed out a second ago, what he does as Commander in Chief is pronounce Bradley Manning guilty when Bradley's had no trial.  Instead of asking some dumb ass question about AK-47s, the little idiot should have been asking about Bradley Manning.  Guns are already in society.  The real threat is a government that believes they can ignore the Constitutional right to a speedy and fair trail.   That's your danger.

And that's what was so insulting about the questions.  They were all uniformly stupid.  We kept waiting for, "How will you use your reign as Miss America to help others less fortunate?"  And maybe the dumbed down presidency deserves dumbed down questions?

But those questions were appalling.  And that's not just a reflection on the people asking them but also on Candy Crowley who picked which ones would be asked.

And in the end, they didn't matter at all because, no matter what was asked, it was talk about what you want.

Which is how one question found Barack babbling away about how "we haven't had a chance to talk about education much, but I think" and on and on he went about colleges and governors and job training.  Crowley would interrupt him repeatedly every lit bit to pretend she was about to move along but he'd tell her "just one second" and continue.  "Because -- because," he said stammering (in one of many moments Don Gonyea missed), "this is important.  This is part of the choice in this election.  Teachers was important to growing our economy, Governor Romney said that doesn't grow our economy.'  Finally, Crowley did cut him off noting, "The question, Mr. President, was guns here, so I need to move us along."

It's worth pointing out she wasn't so kind to Romney.  With him, she was curt.  Such as when Barack was talking over him and Romney stated, "Mr. President, let me finish."  Crowley jumped in with, "Governor Romney, you can make it short.  See all these people? They've been waiting for you.  Make it short."  No need to wonder whose side the alleged moderator was on.


Regardless, the idiotic questions didn't matter in the end because the response session was less about answers and more of a free-style mash-up. 

BBC had a gas bag who felt a key moment was when Romney asked a woman her name.  He found that so hysterical and 'telling.'  We'd recommend Q-Tips and ear wax removal for the jolly Brit.  Here's the section, he found so damning of Mitt Romney.


ROMNEY: Is it Loraina?

QUESTION: Lorraine.

ROMNEY: Lorraine?

QUESTION: Yes, Lorraine.

ROMNEY: Lorraine.

QUESTION: How you doing?

ROMNEY: Good, thanks.



He found it hilarious that Romney asked her name twice.  He felt that anyone should have known, from Candy Crowley's introduction, that the woman's name was Lorraine.

Well if that made Romney stupid, what did it say about Barack who went after Romney?   And first called her "Lorranna."  If the BBC gas bag thought Mitt should have gotten it, then certainly after Crowley and Mitt, Barack should have known the woman's name.  The CNN transcript probably has multiple errors.  One we caught is "Hi Carey."  No, he said, "Hi, Care."  And appeared surprised when the one asking was a man prompting him to then state, "I'm sorry. What's your name?"

Both times he struggled with the name of another person.  Maybe the BBC gas bag could have found time for that -- if he'd cleaned his ears first, of course.

Who won the debate?

The clear loser was an informed public.

We are sure there are well informed undecideds.  But the ones who made it to the microphone with questions (picked by Candy) did not represent the basis for an informed discussion.  We have, in fact, heard more probing questions asked of pageant contestants.

The clear winner?

Some are saying it's Barack.  We don't see how.

He was abrupt and rude.  'So was Mitt Romney!'  Maybe Romney was as much as Barack.  (It seemed to us like Barack was more so.)  But Romney's not been hailed as The One.  While some Dems will cheer, not all will (we aren't).  More importantly swing voters and undecideds had little to grab onto.

If you're undecided at this point, presumably, the last four years have not pleased you.  And that's why we see Barack as the loser.  Last night, he yet again had a chance to present a vision or even a glimpse of four-more-years of Barack.  He never did.  He runs from his actual record and he won't talk about the future.

That left him with nothing but cheap shots.  Like that last one at the end of the debate when he was given the last word and chose to bring up Mitt Romney's 47% remarks.  If you wanted to explore that, you bring it up in an exchange.  If you're a little, scared kid, you wait until the last minute, blurt it out and high tail it off stage. 

That parting image?  Not striking us as presidential.

Fake News, Wasted Tax Dollars (Ava and C.I.)

This is a repost of a piece regarding third party presidential coverage that Ava and C.I. did last week.



The news is fake, your wasted tax dollars are real (Ava and C.I.)

a radio
National Public Radio (or PBS) couldn't exist currently without your tax dollars.  Should it be  taken off public tax dollars, it could follow another model (most likely listener donations would continue and they'd take more corporate money and provide more on air commercials billed as non-commercials).  But for now, it gets tax dollars.

Operating with money from all American people, it should be representing all American people.  It doesn't.  People like Bill Moyers ensured, at its inception, that the CPB would be controlled by Congress.  They did that by refusing to create an independent revenue generator.  In England, at the same time, there was a TV tax (known as a license fee) that provided funds for the BBC.  That model was known and proposed.  Democrats like Moyers objected because it would give the CPB -- Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- too much independence.

Yes, Virginia, ugly people do make overs too.

Hard to believe when you look at Bill Moyers today, but, yes, he has had a make over.

The opponent to independent public broadcasting now likes to self-present as its biggest champion.

Back in the day, when he wasn't targeting gays in the Johnson administration, Bill was doing his part to ensure that public broadcasting in the US -- PBS and NPR (to a lesser degree at that time Pacifica Radio -- at that time, Pacifica was much more independent than what it is today) -- would be controlled by the two party duopoly in the United States.

"You keep saying you're done with Bill Moyers and you keep coming back to him."

Indeed.

Believe us, we have better things to do.  We've documented the sexism of his previous show (here and here, if you're new to the topic) and his current show  (here) and how women make up so few of his guests.   We've documented his questionable 'reporting' and how he disgraced PBS in 2008 and we told you about it before the last straw for PBS news correspondents -- when a PBS commercial presented him as part of  PBS news team.  They were offended.  We'd told you long before the commercial how much his 'ethics' and his slanting and misrepresenting had ticked off reporters for PBS.  We told you he wouldn't be returning with PBS and, sure enough, they don't produce his current show.

But if you're going to talk about the CPB and the need for public broadcasting to serve the public, there's no point in lying about that unless you want to be Bill Moyers -- and we work out too much every day to ever settle for his body, thank you very much.

Someone we'd much rather talk about is Harry Shearer.  You may remember that besides his acting, he's also known for many other things including the most powerful documentary of 2010 The Big Uneasy.  And if you remember that, you're probably aware of the nonsense NPR pulled on him.  Harry was hoping that he'd get some serious NPR coverage. All he got was Talk of the Nation which isn't considered a big show in the way that Morning Edition and All Things Considered are. 


We like Harry and the documentary is brilliant.  However, if NPR had taken the position that, "You've been on one of our prestige shows and so we need to cover other things on the other shows," we would have been okay with that.  We're not really fond of press junkets that result in the same performer on every magazine cover and every TV morning show.  So had NPR taken the position that, "We've given you exposure and now we need to give someone else exposure," we could live with that and even defend it.

But what they told him instead was, that for booking reasons, they have a "dibs list" that allows certain shows to get a guest as an exclusive.  Strangely, no such concern exists regarding PBS and NPR personalities which is how Jim Lehrer and Michele Norris get multiple bookings when they have a product to promote -- a product that NPR does not benefit from the sales of but that NPR turns over the public airwaves to in order to promote in some sort of taxpayer-sponsored Home Shopping Network moment.

So the above establishes that the CPB  is set up to be controlled by the duopoly parties and that, even when it has nothing to do with elections or funding, NPR still choose not to play fair.

Did the "dibs list" apply to Jill Stein?

We ask that because All Things Considered, to their credit, provided a vice presidential debate October 6th between Green Party presidnetial candidate Jill Stein and Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson.

Is that why Jill Stein hasn't been on Morning Edition this month? She was arrested this week at the presidential debate.  Even that didn't prompt a story on Morning Edition.  Is Jill on a "dibs list?"


We wondered that this morning as Morning Edition finally found third party candidates.  Mara Liasson did a 4 minute, 38 second report on Gary's run and that of Virgil Goode, Constitutional Party's presidential candidate.  We're glad Mara reported on the two and don't even quibble over her reporting.

But we're talking Morning Edition.  Which means if third parties got 4 minutes and 38 seconds, pretend candidates should get even more.  Thereby explaining the 4 minutes and 41 seconds wasted on a made up candidate.  Is that all Planet Money does with their NPR funds?  Mental masturbation?  And a supposed third party candidate -- that doesn't exist, that's made up -- is then critiqued by a Democratic Party operative and a Republican party operative?

We're missing the news or analysis on NPR where a Green is brought in to critque the Barack - Mitt debate.

That awful Planet Money segment existed solely to mock third parties ("Move to another country!") and re-inforce the duopoly system ("If you don't like" Barack Obama or Mitt Romney).  What a load of crap and what a misuse of taxpayer money.

National Public Radio is rarely national and even less about the public.  These days, more and more, it's not even radio as the online streaming continues to increase and over the airwaves listenership continues to drop.


How very telling that they cram two candidates into one segment while jerking off about a fake candidate for a longer segment.

They're not serving the public and that is why the funding model needs to change.  If it does, NPR might become more about the public.  It might become more about the corporate.  But quit pretending that it's public radio currently.

And quit pretending that you're having honest discussions about how to determine who should be at the debates.  We've already shared that if you make one state's ballot, you should be onstage at the debates.

We propose that because we're  thinking people -- unlike the 'experts' NPR offers.  Those 'experts' start explaining percentage of the national vote and blah blah blah as if the US elects the president via the popular vote.  The electoral college is how the  president is elected and that's based on states.

Unless/until that changes (we support a move to the popular vote), if even one state could potentially vote their electors to you, then you should be on that stage.  If you are before the voters in even one state, you belong on the debate stage.

While Morning Edition does a lousy job of covering third parties (Mara's report today is a rarity), Brian Montopoli has filed two very important reports for CBS News this week -- click here and here

----------

Note:

For those who wonder: As noted before, we aren't voting for president in the 2012 election.  No candidate has spoken to us and earned our vote.  And we've been hugely disappointed in the third party candidates -- especially one who's used a campaign not to fight for change but to play Team Mascot for the Democratic Party.

Senator Murray wonders where the review is?

 senator patty murray


Senator Patty Murray (above) is the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.  Her office notes:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Contact: Murray Press Office
(202) 224-2834
Sen. Murray Calls on Secretary Panetta to Provide Timeline for Promised Military Review of PTSD and Behavioral Health Diagnoses
In the aftermath of the misdiagnoses of servicemembers in Washington state, Murray calls on the Pentagon to move forward with nationwide review of mental health diagnoses since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began
Letter also calls for information on efforts to collect missing unit military records that could prove critical if certain health care problems arise from service in Iraq or Afghanistan
(Washington D.C.) -- Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray, Chairman of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta requesting next steps and a timeline for the execution of a critical military-wide review of PTSD and behavioral health diagnoses made since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.  The review, which Secretary Panetta promised following the misdiagnoses of severvicemembers at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington state, has seemingly stalled since being announced on June 13th.
"The Department must act with a sense of urgency in order to complete this review and to act on its findings in coordinating with other ongoing efforts to improve the disability evaluation system."  Murray wrote to Panetta.  "Each of these efforts is vital in ensuring servicemembers truly have a transparent, consistent, and expeditious disability evaluation process."
"Senator Murray's letter also addressed her concerns that records for military units in Iraq and Afghanistan, which are often used to provide information on potential health and exposure issues be carefully identified, located, and collected.
The full text of Senator Murray's letter follows:
October 18, 2012
The Honorable Leon E. Panetta
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301
Dear Secretary Panetta:
I am writing to express my concern about two distinct issues, which taken together impact the disability evaluation process for servicemembers and veterans.
At the outset, I very much appreciate your ongoing efforts to address behavioral health diagnoses and care both within the Integrated Disability Evaluation System and throughout the Department at large.  In June, as part of this ongoing effort, you announced a comprehensive Department-wide review of mental health diagnoses.  Shortly after the announcement, I had the opportunity to meet with Under Secretary Conaton to discuss some of the initial steps the Department had taken in preparation for this review.  However, it appears that progress on this effort may have stalled.  I am writing today to request the Department's next steps and timeline for execution of this review.
The Department must act with a sense of urgency in order to complete this review and to act on its findings in coordinating with other ongoing efforts to improve the disability evaluation system.  Each of these efforts is vital in ensuring servicemembers truly have a transparent, consistent, adn expeditious disability evaluation process.
My second concern relates to the ability of the Department, and specifically the Army, to identify and account for many records for units that served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The lack of access to documentation of the locations and fucntions of specific military units interferes with the ability of both servicemembers and veterans to obtain evidence of military service that may result in adverse health conditions now or in the future.   As we have learned from prior conflicts, this lack of documentation all too often leads to hardship for veterans in establishing a relationship between miltiary service and a specific medical condition. 
The lack of accessible documents may also impede future research efforts if health care problems arise from service in Iraq or Afghanistan.  For these reasons, I would like to know the current status of efforts to identify, locate and collect records for units that served in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I also urge you to take all necessary steps to ensure unit records are properly archived and accessible.
I appreciate your attention to these requests and look forward to our continued work together to strengthen both the disability evaluation system and behavioral health diagnoses and care and to ensure our servicemembers and veterans have access to critical military documents.
Sincerely,
Patt Murray
Chairman
###
 
 
 

Power Authority in Puerto Rico (Berta Joubert-Ceci)

Repost from Workers World:




People win battle with Power Authority in Puerto Rico

By on October 20, 2012 » Add the first comment.
Puerto Rico’s people won a vital environmental struggle when acting President of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) Josué Colón publicly withdrew a request for a permit to allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct a 92-mile-long gas pipeline. Puerto Rico is barely 106 miles long and 37 wide.
Since right-wing, pro-business and pro-statehood Gov. Luis Fortuño raised the proposal two years ago, strong voices opposing the project immediately began organizing to defeat the project.
The ‘tube of death’
PREPA provides electricity, mainly generated by oil-fired units, for the whole island. One gas-producing plant owned by the foreign transnational, Ecoeléctrica, and located in the southern city of Peñuelas, provides 13 percent of Puerto Rico’s gas.
In 2010, Gov. Fortuño declared an energy crisis in the island to pressure for his pipeline proposal, which he called the “Green Way”. It would have taken gas from Peñuelas, crossing to the north through the Central Mountain range and end in three generating plants along the northern coast, ending in San Juan.
“Green Way” is an outrageous name considering the tremendous environmental destruction the pipeline would have provoked as it was to cross important aquifers that provide water to the south, rivers, protected forests areas with biodiversity, etc. It would have affected the climate and exacerbated risks from tsunamis, corrosion, floods, fires, earthquakes and landslides, affecting directly more than 200,000 people. Additionally, it would have required the expropriation of at least 400 parcelas (plots of land) (See casapueblo.org)
Studies also showed that the project, which was proposed as low-cost alternative green energy, would not lower utility bills to the consumer.
Some $80 million of the $800 million public-money budget have already been spent. Even before the project was approved, Fortuño had already spent several millions in advertising and consultants, paid to his business allies.
Since Puerto Rico is a U.S. colony, any struggle on the island is also for independence and self determination. Washington’s and U.S.-based corporations’ role is all over this project, and USACE was an accomplice. In an article last June, Casa Pueblo — the environmental organization that initiated the struggle — said, “Gov. Luis Fortuño told a newspaper this week that his administration will not withdraw the application for a permit for the pipeline because USACE has recommended not to stop obtaining such approval.” (pr.indymedia.org)
The project has also underscored the corruption that has plagued the Fortuño administration since its beginning, including payments to lobbyists and contractors.
People’s struggle
In spite of the millions wasted by the government on publicity and consultants, however, the unity and perseverance of the people finally won. Casa Pueblo, a 25-year-old environmental activists’ organization located in the center of Puerto Rico, did an outstanding job in researching, exposing and organizing the people around the island.
With the help of local and foreign scientists, engineers and environmentalists, Casa Pueblo published thorough investigations and promoted popular participation. It mobilized throughout the country with full participation of all social progressive organizations and parties, unions, community, women and students groups. It reminded many of the peoples’ struggle against the Navy bombing in Vieques.
This mobilization was a significant step forward for the class struggle. The militant UTIER union represents PREPA’s workers and was an important part of the resistance; its public position on the energy crisis reflected a deep political understanding of the situation.
In his presentation during a pipeline hearing, UTIER President Ángel Figueroa Jaramillo placed the situation within the context of the global capitalist crisis and climate change. Stressing that in Puerto Rico, “The current government has decided to deal with the challenges posed by this crisis by implementing neoliberal measures that not only do not serve the fundamental problems but that put all the weight and cost of the solution on those who have the least, increasing the gap between the economic sectors of the country.”
Both Casa Pueblo and UTIER call for the involvement of the people in the design of a new direction for the environmental policies and sustainable energy production.



Articles copyright 1995-2012 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Highlights

This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.



 "The King of Self-Love sings to the Choir (Ava and C.I.)" and "The news is fake, your wasted tax dollars are real (Ava and C.I.)" -- the two most requested highlights by readers of this site. 




"Wild Rice and Mushroom casserole" -- Trina offers a simple recipe.




 "That awful Candy Crowley," "The real presidential debate is coming," "an unexpected highlight,"
"Most important network news report this week," "The nonsense," "Crowley and third parties and more," "The debate and the bad moderator," "The race continues,"  "Most important story by the network news,"  "'It did as well take two weeks or so'" "Barack did not come off presidential,"
"A learning experience,"  "He's such a prissy priss"  and "The Three-Way Debate" &
"THIS JUST IN! CANDY'S CAMPAIGN!" -- some of the debate coverage in the community.


"book 'em friday: new barbra bio delivers!," "Horrifyingly Mad" and "William J. Mann's Hello, Gorgeous" -- book coverage in the community.  Rebecca and Marcia cover William J. Mann's new book on Barbra Streisand while Kat covers a volume from Mad Magazine.


"Her name was Charlotte" -- also on books, Kat notes the 60th anniversary of a most loved book.



"Diamonds Are Forever" -- Stan reviews a James Bond film.




"Nikita," "Revolution,"  "Park 666,"  "revenge," "The Good Wife" and "Fringe" -- Mike, Marcia, Betty, Rebecca and Stan cover TV.







"The Jewish Stooge: Jon Stewart" -- Ruth on the embarrassment that Stewart has become.


"Piss on Mike Thompson" -- Kat shares some election thoughts.



"The Cult of St. Barack" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.



"Michael O'Hanlon's a crook" -- Elaine on the big loser.



 "You don't buy their albums anymore but . . ." and "THIS JUST IN! FRANKIE & FABIAN WERE BUSY!" -- Cedric and Wally on two losers.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }