No More PBS?

Sirens in the tornado belt are far better than relying on people happening to have their TV on to an actual channel, which is becoming far less common. Cell phone emergency alerts are second. Broadcast alerts a distant third.

again you show your disdain for the poor, the sick, and the elderly.  People who may not own a smartphone and spend most of their time indoors where sirens may or may not be heard.

Gilgul said:

Sirens in the tornado belt are far better than relying on people happening to have their TV on to an actual channel, which is becoming far less common. Cell phone emergency alerts are second. Broadcast alerts a distant third.

You can't hear sirens if you're not close to them.  Cell phones don't work if there are no repeater towers.  We're talking about vast expanses here, not a few city blocks.

Sirens are designed to be loud enough to be heard inside. And any cell phone gets alerts. Pay as you go cell phones are actually cheaper than a land line.

The arguments sure are silly. If you are so remote that you are not in a cell, you are not likely to get broadcast TV either. Maybe AM, at night.

hah. You've got Quiet Zones, where you have limited radio frequencies; around radio telescopes etc. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Radio_Quiet_Zone

I don't think Gilgul understands that not everybody lives within earshot of a siren (or near the center of a town, or even in town, or even near another building), especially in parts of the country that are more sparsely populated than suburban Essex County.

ml1 said:

again you show your disdain for the poor, the sick, and the elderly.  People who may not own a smartphone and spend most of their time indoors where sirens may or may not be heard.

Gilgul said:

Sirens in the tornado belt are far better than relying on people happening to have their TV on to an actual channel, which is becoming far less common. Cell phone emergency alerts are second. Broadcast alerts a distant third.

wherever Hudson Valley is, they've also got problems with ordinary service, like we have on the Gold Coast...

https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2016/12/29/dead-zones-more-than-a-decade-into-the-cell-phone-era-much-of-ulster-county-still-has-no-service/

Gilgul said:

Sirens are designed to be loud enough to be heard inside. And any cell phone gets alerts. Pay as you go cell phones are actually cheaper than a land line.

You don't bother to know about a topic before you make definitive statements, do you?

A civil defense siren (also known as an air-raid siren or tornado siren) is a siren used to provide emergency population warning of approaching danger and sometimes to indicate when the danger has passed. Some (that are mostly located in small towns) are also used to call the volunteer fire department to go fight a fire. Initially designed to warn of air raids in World War II, they were adapted to warn of nuclear attack and of natural destructive weather patterns such as tornadoes. The generalized nature of the siren led to many of them being replaced with more specialized warnings, such as the Emergency Alert System.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_defense_siren

ok. We're clearly talking about vastly different sutations here, and there's no way you're going to be able to imagine at all that anyone in the USA could ever be in a situation where they're off-grid, even though they clearly are. There are national signal maps that demonstrate it. 

Our two land masses are the same size and shape, just orientated differently. In the middle, both of us have some emptyish space mostly used for agricultural purposes (ours is a little emptier and dryer than yours); there's also a fair bit of mining going on around the edges. In these emptier bits, where there are fewer folks, and settlements are spaced out quite far from each other, extreme weather events also create fairly disastrous havoc on a regular basis. Plus people get into a lot of trouble - get lost, fall down from high places, blow things up on top of themselves etc. Getting help to them is problematic because of the spotty communications, the distances, and the difficulty in knowing where anyone actually is.

People stay in touch with the world, and with each other, in these places using shortwave because it's reliable in emergencies. Not a lot of other methods are.

Got it????

Sample signal map

https://opensignal.com/network-coverage-maps/

joanne said:

ok. We're clearly talking about vastly different sutations here, and there's no way you're going to be able to imagine at all that anyone in the USA could ever be in a situation where they're off-grid, even though they clearly are. There are national signal maps that demonstrate it. 

Our two land masses are the same size and shape, just orientated differently. In the middle, both of us have some emptyish space mostly used for agricultural purposes (ours is a little emptier and dryer than yours); there's also a fair bit of mining going on around the edges. In these emptier bits, where there are fewer folks, and settlements are spaced out quite far from each other, extreme weather events also create fairly disastrous havoc on a regular basis. Plus people get into a lot of trouble - get lost, fall down from high places, blow things up on top of themselves etc. Getting help to them is problematic because of the spotty communications, the distances, and the difficulty in knowing where anyone actually is.

People stay in touch with the world, and with each other, in these places using shortwave because it's reliable in emergencies. Not a lot of other methods are.

Got it????

As I explained, in the US, shortwave is dead. There are 4 government channels still running:

Voice of America - news service
WWV/WWVH - time stations from the National Institute of Standards and Technology
American Forces Network - focused on the military
Radio Martí - entirely in Spanish and targeted at Cuba

There are 15 privately owned SW stations in the entire country, of those 2 are in Guam and 1 is in Alaska (where living off the grid pretty normal). All of them but 1 are predominantly religious broadcast stations.

This entire conversation is way off the map as whether government should or should not be in the radio business in the United States. There are regulations which stipulate that all FCC licensed radio stations are equipped with Emergency Alert System monitoring equipment and are designed to switch transmission to the EAS as soon as they receive one.

That's not to say that there aren't people with SW transceivers out there. There are plenty. But those guys aren't required to provide emergency information. http://www.backdoorsurvival.com/shortwave-radios-for-preppers/

Public television provides services to people regardless of their ability to pay. These services include news, entertainment, early childhood education, arts, community outreach, public safety alert services, etc. The commercial-free format allows CPC to provide long-format investigative reporting (unlike the profit motivated cable and broadcast news stations) and commercial influence-free programming for children. Given the value  and impact to the people it serves and the low share of the overall fed spending budget, cutting CPC funding is just petty and political theater. FWIW, the NEA and NEH get even less. 

Share of fed spending budget in 2016

CPB = 0.01%

NEA = 0.003%

NEH = 0.003%

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/19/trump-reportedly-wants-to-cut-cultural-programs-that-make-up-0-02-percent-of-federal-spending/?utm_term=.521b79d975c9 

ml1 said:

Gilgul said:

Sirens are designed to be loud enough to be heard inside. And any cell phone gets alerts. Pay as you go cell phones are actually cheaper than a land line.

You don't bother to know about a topic before you make definitive statements, do you?

ml1 said:

mtierney said:

There is one area where I have found the station to lack awareness. While I like Charle Rose interviews, its news coverage is slanted toward the left to the extreme. There is no room for opinions other than theirs.

This is simply an absurd statement. If you're going to call programs like PBS Newshour "slanted toward the left to the extreme," you really need to provide examples of what you're referring to.

Good to see that you didn't hold your breath waiting for her to provide examples.

I watch PBS Newshour almost every night. I do not recall an interview with an anarchist or other "extreme left' person but I have seen many with Corporate spokespersons, "pundits" from Conservative think tanks and Republican politicians.

Just like every other news broadcast. Which just shows the absurdity of having a network with government funding in 2017.

examples?

Gilgul said:

Just like every other news broadcast. Which just shows the absurdity of having a network with government funding in 2017.

I've found PBS Newshour to be one of the most balanced news broadcasts. 

Gilgul, really?? "Other than being the source of annoying "tests" those emergency things serve zero purpose."

Here in serious snow/rain/wind country, with the occasional tornado too, I keep the radio on most of the time at home and in the car, esp. if it's looking iffy outside.  Emergency alerts are broadcast on both AM and FM (and presumably on broadcast TV, I wouldn't know) and include maritime (Lake Michigan) alerts as well as land.

Once in a while, my cell phone receives an alert, too, but nowhere near as reliable as the radio.

Sheesh.  There's enough in the budget that's questionable, without going after something that's valuable to public safety, probably close to zero additional cost to the NWS, and has nothing at all afaik to do with CPB.

random comments:

I believe  when one listens to a news person, solidly in the tank for someone you dislike, politically, you "Hear" what is being said in that reality.

Nancy Pelosi makes me ill and also seems a tad confused all the time. Deer in the headlight look.

Upchuck Shumer in so intent on slithering into a photo op or press moment, he looks pathetic.

As someone long in the tooth herself, I see the DNC as composed of folks who have been indoors too long and need to take a break. There are young Dems who should be allowed to enter the arena. I have spied a few who seem promising, but they will have a hard time breaking the geriatric glass ceiling.

I turn to the News Hour to give my eyes and ears a rest from the shouting, dazzle, optics, and changing screens of cable news.   CNN is in the forefront in that regard. John King and his analysis is unintelligible to me. Shepard Smith appears to work out of a hanger and races to various sides of it to direct our attention. Dizzying in the extreme!

Obviously, PBS is not over spending in that department. I do like conversational back and forth analysis. But no matter how they try, at times it is snooze news -- I guess our attention spans have been destroyed.

You've not spent any time lately in a rural area where tornados are a threat.  Sirens are useless. When a watch or warning is in place, your television displays an icon. 

Gilgul said:

Sirens in the tornado belt are far better than relying on people happening to have their TV on to an actual channel, which is becoming far less common. Cell phone emergency alerts are second. Broadcast alerts a distant third.

mjc said:

Gilgul, really?? "Other than being the source of annoying "tests" those emergency things serve zero purpose."

Here in serious snow/rain/wind country, with the occasional tornado too, I keep the radio on most of the time at home and in the car, esp. if it's looking iffy outside.  Emergency alerts are broadcast on both AM and FM (and presumably on broadcast TV, I wouldn't know) and include maritime (Lake Michigan) alerts as well as land.

Once in a while, my cell phone receives an alert, too, but nowhere near as reliable as the radio.

Sheesh.  There's enough in the budget that's questionable, without going after something that's valuable to public safety, probably close to zero additional cost to the NWS, and has nothing at all afaik to do with CPB.

This^!

DB, I have seen the term, corporate welfare, described as being any, or all, of the following (depending on who you talk to or read):

1. H1B Visa programs;

2. Mortgage interest expense deduction (under the premise that this deduction helps realtors sell houses and whose broker is commonly owed or affilated with a large corporation);

3. Taxation of carried interest by hedge fund managers despite such hedge funds being usually categorized as partnerships (rather than corporations);

4, Tax cut packages to attract new business and retain existing business (think, financial companies moving to Jersey City, Prudential staying in Newark, etc.);

5. Fiat, now the owner of Chrysler, has been receiving a considerable chunk of taxpayer cash to help with its vehicle production worldwide. The government has ponied over more than $2 billion to the Italian-based auto maker, which it has used to help prop up brands like Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler here in the states.

All very different situations described above. And there are hundreds of other benefit packages, laws, loopholes, regulations, and interpretations of existing rules that all have been dubbed corporate welfare.

I do not see a widely agreed upon definition of "corporate welfare." Thus, "corporate welfare" can mean whatever the writer/speaker wants it to mean. It is this ambiguity and lack of definition that cause me to ask for a definition and/or list of corporate welfare. I would love to hear what others describe.define as "corporate welfare."

drummerboy said:

Normally, one does not ask the question you ask without being pretty sure that it can't be easily answered, if at all. Or maybe you think they don't actually exist.

(correct me if I've misread your intent)


In this case, all you have to do is google "corporate welfare", and you will see ample examples of government support of corporations which do nothing but benefit the stockholders, while claiming to benefit the community or the general economy. (e.g. tax credits)

You can spend a day just exploring the favorable treatment given the petroleum industry - as if the most powerful and one of the most profitable industries needs favorable treatment.

How about the special patent treatment given to pharma? Costs the consumer tens of billions of dollars a year.

Hell, what about the special copyrights put in place to prevent Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain?

This is just off the top of my head.


Or do you have a different definition of corporate welfare?

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:

Please provide details on what "corporate welfare programs" that you would like to have dismantled, diminished or eliminated?

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/FilmCarp" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">FilmCarp">FilmCarp said:

I will repeat, in hopes of having Gilgul reply, that cuts to the arts and humanities would be easier to swallow if they were part of a genuine budget balancing plan, and accompanied by cuts to corporate welfare programs. Since they are not, it is obviously just a political jab from the right, which is afraid to bite the corporate hand that feeds it. Cowards.

mtierney said:


Nancy Pelosi makes me ill and also seems a tad confused all the time. Deer in the headlight look.




Upchuck Shumer in so intent on slithering into a photo op or press moment, he looks pathetic.

Compared to Trump they are saints.

yeah, really. How one can even stomach the mere existence of Trump, yet become upset at everyday politicians like Pelosi and Schumer is something. Kind of perverse.

LOST said:

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/mtierney">mtierney said:


Nancy Pelosi makes me ill and also seems a tad confused all the time. Deer in the headlight look.




Upchuck Shumer in so intent on slithering into a photo op or press moment, he looks pathetic.

Compared to Trump they are saints.

It makes perfect sense if you prefer pathological liars to sometimes mealy-mouthed politicians. I would have thought that the mere fact that Trump watched Comey's testimony live would be a cause for concern. Doesn't the POTUS have any work to do?

drummerboy said:

yeah, really. How one can even stomach the mere existence of Trump, yet become upset at everyday politicians like Pelosi and Schumer is something. Kind of perverse.

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/LOST">LOST said:

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" mtierney"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/mtierney">mtierney said:


Nancy Pelosi makes me ill and also seems a tad confused all the time. Deer in the headlight look.




Upchuck Shumer in so intent on slithering into a photo op or press moment, he looks pathetic.

Compared to Trump they are saints.

I don't think it's nearly as complicated as you contend. Corporate welfare , I think, is pretty well defined as some privilege granted to business that disproportionately benefits the upper-management class of that business.

For example, the mortgage interest deduction actually benefits a very wide swath of the middle class, so I don't have too much of a problem with that, even though it might be taken advantage of by others.

The carried interest deduction, on the other hand, is pure corruption.

RealityForAll said:

DB, I have seen the term, corporate welfare, described as being any, or all, of the following (depending on who you talk to or read):

1. H1B Visa programs;

2. Mortgage interest expense deduction (under the premise that this deduction helps realtors sell houses and whose broker is commonly owed or affilated with a large corporation);

3. Taxation of carried interest by hedge fund managers despite such hedge funds being usually categorized as partnerships (rather than corporations);

4, Tax cut packages to attract new business and retain existing business (think, financial companies moving to Jersey City, Prudential staying in Newark, etc.);

5. Fiat, now the owner of Chrysler, has been receiving a considerable chunk of taxpayer cash to help with its vehicle production worldwide. The government has ponied over more than $2 billion to the Italian-based auto maker, which it has used to help prop up brands like Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler here in the states.

All very different situations described above. And there are hundreds of other benefit packages, laws, loopholes, regulations, and interpretations of existing rules that all have been dubbed corporate welfare.

I do not see a widely agreed upon definition of "corporate welfare." Thus, "corporate welfare" can mean whatever the writer/speaker wants it to mean. It is this ambiguity and lack of definition that cause me to ask for a definition and/or list of corporate welfare. I would love to hear what others describe.define as "corporate welfare."

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:

Normally, one does not ask the question you ask without being pretty sure that it can't be easily answered, if at all. Or maybe you think they don't actually exist.

(correct me if I've misread your intent)


In this case, all you have to do is google "corporate welfare", and you will see ample examples of government support of corporations which do nothing but benefit the stockholders, while claiming to benefit the community or the general economy. (e.g. tax credits)

You can spend a day just exploring the favorable treatment given the petroleum industry - as if the most powerful and one of the most profitable industries needs favorable treatment.

How about the special patent treatment given to pharma? Costs the consumer tens of billions of dollars a year.

Hell, what about the special copyrights put in place to prevent Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain?

This is just off the top of my head.


Or do you have a different definition of corporate welfare?

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" realityforall"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:

Please provide details on what "corporate welfare programs" that you would like to have dismantled, diminished or eliminated?

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" filmcarp"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/FilmCarp" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">FilmCarp">FilmCarp said:

I will repeat, in hopes of having Gilgul reply, that cuts to the arts and humanities would be easier to swallow if they were part of a genuine budget balancing plan, and accompanied by cuts to corporate welfare programs. Since they are not, it is obviously just a political jab from the right, which is afraid to bite the corporate hand that feeds it. Cowards.

tjohn said:

It makes perfect sense if you prefer pathological liars to sometimes mealy-mouthed politicians.

mtierney has no problem with "mealy-mouthed politicians" per say. She didn't measure the GOP counterparts, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

The carried interest allocation usually applies to the hedge fund's GP(s) (who are managers of the fund) of which is typically a partnership. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest

Thus, by definition, the taxation of the GP's carried interest allocation is not "corporate welfare" (perhaps "partnership welfare" instead).

Once again, please share with all of us your definition of "corporate welfare." As I am still unclear of what the definition is.

drummerboy said:

I don't think it's nearly as complicated as you contend. Corporate welfare , I think, is pretty well defined as some privilege granted to business that disproportionately benefits the upper-management class of that business.

For example, the mortgage interest deduction actually benefits a very wide swath of the middle class, so I don't have too much of a problem with that, even though it might be taken advantage of by others.

The carried interest deduction, on the other hand, is pure corruption. [emphasis added].

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:

DB, I have seen the term, corporate welfare, described as being any, or all, of the following (depending on who you talk to or read):

1. H1B Visa programs;

2. Mortgage interest expense deduction (under the premise that this deduction helps realtors sell houses and whose broker is commonly owed or affilated with a large corporation);

3. Taxation of carried interest by hedge fund managers despite such hedge funds being usually categorized as partnerships (rather than corporations);

4, Tax cut packages to attract new business and retain existing business (think, financial companies moving to Jersey City, Prudential staying in Newark, etc.);

5. Fiat, now the owner of Chrysler, has been receiving a considerable chunk of taxpayer cash to help with its vehicle production worldwide. The government has ponied over more than $2 billion to the Italian-based auto maker, which it has used to help prop up brands like Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler here in the states.

All very different situations described above. And there are hundreds of other benefit packages, laws, loopholes, regulations, and interpretations of existing rules that all have been dubbed corporate welfare.

I do not see a widely agreed upon definition of "corporate welfare." Thus, "corporate welfare" can mean whatever the writer/speaker wants it to mean. It is this ambiguity and lack of definition that cause me to ask for a definition and/or list of corporate welfare. I would love to hear what others describe.define as "corporate welfare."

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" drummerboy"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:

Normally, one does not ask the question you ask without being pretty sure that it can't be easily answered, if at all. Or maybe you think they don't actually exist.

(correct me if I've misread your intent)


In this case, all you have to do is google "corporate welfare", and you will see ample examples of government support of corporations which do nothing but benefit the stockholders, while claiming to benefit the community or the general economy. (e.g. tax credits)

You can spend a day just exploring the favorable treatment given the petroleum industry - as if the most powerful and one of the most profitable industries needs favorable treatment.

How about the special patent treatment given to pharma? Costs the consumer tens of billions of dollars a year.

Hell, what about the special copyrights put in place to prevent Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain?

This is just off the top of my head.


Or do you have a different definition of corporate welfare?

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" realityforall"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:

Please provide details on what "corporate welfare programs" that you would like to have dismantled, diminished or eliminated?

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" filmcarp"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/FilmCarp" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">FilmCarp">FilmCarp said:

I will repeat, in hopes of having Gilgul reply, that cuts to the arts and humanities would be easier to swallow if they were part of a genuine budget balancing plan, and accompanied by cuts to corporate welfare programs. Since they are not, it is obviously just a political jab from the right, which is afraid to bite the corporate hand that feeds it. Cowards.

It's a catchall phrase meant to cover all business activities.

"corporate and partnership and sole-proprietorship and blah blah welfare" is cumbersome.

RealityForAll said:

The carried interest allocation usually applies to the GP(s) of the hedge fund which is typically a partnership. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carried_interest

Thus, by definition, the taxation of the GP's carried interest allocation is not "corporate welfare" (perhaps "partnership welfare" instead).

Once again, please share with all of us your definition of "corporate welfare." As I am still unclear of what the definition is.

maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:

I don't think it's nearly as complicated as you contend. Corporate welfare , I think, is pretty well defined as some privilege granted to business that disproportionately benefits the upper-management class of that business.

For example, the mortgage interest deduction actually benefits a very wide swath of the middle class, so I don't have too much of a problem with that, even though it might be taken advantage of by others.

The carried interest deduction, on the other hand, is pure corruption. [emphasis added].

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" realityforall"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:

DB, I have seen the term, corporate welfare, described as being any, or all, of the following (depending on who you talk to or read):

1. H1B Visa programs;

2. Mortgage interest expense deduction (under the premise that this deduction helps realtors sell houses and whose broker is commonly owed or affilated with a large corporation);

3. Taxation of carried interest by hedge fund managers despite such hedge funds being usually categorized as partnerships (rather than corporations);

4, Tax cut packages to attract new business and retain existing business (think, financial companies moving to Jersey City, Prudential staying in Newark, etc.);

5. Fiat, now the owner of Chrysler, has been receiving a considerable chunk of taxpayer cash to help with its vehicle production worldwide. The government has ponied over more than $2 billion to the Italian-based auto maker, which it has used to help prop up brands like Dodge, Ram, and Chrysler here in the states.

All very different situations described above. And there are hundreds of other benefit packages, laws, loopholes, regulations, and interpretations of existing rules that all have been dubbed corporate welfare.

I do not see a widely agreed upon definition of "corporate welfare." Thus, "corporate welfare" can mean whatever the writer/speaker wants it to mean. It is this ambiguity and lack of definition that cause me to ask for a definition and/or list of corporate welfare. I would love to hear what others describe.define as "corporate welfare."

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" drummerboy"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/drummerboy">drummerboy said:

Normally, one does not ask the question you ask without being pretty sure that it can't be easily answered, if at all. Or maybe you think they don't actually exist.

(correct me if I've misread your intent)


In this case, all you have to do is google "corporate welfare", and you will see ample examples of government support of corporations which do nothing but benefit the stockholders, while claiming to benefit the community or the general economy. (e.g. tax credits)

You can spend a day just exploring the favorable treatment given the petroleum industry - as if the most powerful and one of the most profitable industries needs favorable treatment.

How about the special patent treatment given to pharma? Costs the consumer tens of billions of dollars a year.

Hell, what about the special copyrights put in place to prevent Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain?

This is just off the top of my head.


Or do you have a different definition of corporate welfare?

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" realityforall"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/RealityForAll">RealityForAll said:

Please provide details on what "corporate welfare programs" that you would like to have dismantled, diminished or eliminated?

maplewood.worldwebs.com="" profile="" discussions="" u="" filmcarp"="" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">maplewood.worldwebs.com/profile/discussions/u/FilmCarp" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">FilmCarp">FilmCarp said:

I will repeat, in hopes of having Gilgul reply, that cuts to the arts and humanities would be easier to swallow if they were part of a genuine budget balancing plan, and accompanied by cuts to corporate welfare programs. Since they are not, it is obviously just a political jab from the right, which is afraid to bite the corporate hand that feeds it. Cowards.