I don't want my PBS

The newest threat to public broadcasting, according to the Seattle Times:

The U.S. House Appropriations Committee's vote to cripple public broadcasting stations is a cynical political move that should be overturned by the full House.

Last week, the committee voted to cut $100 million from next year's Corporation for Public Broadcasting budget. The corporation distributes federal funds to local TV and radio stations such as KCTS-TV and KUOW-FM in Seattle. Such efforts are nothing new. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich all tried to chop federal money going for public broadcasting.

This "cynical political move" probably won't succeed either, because the Republican house (and moreso the Senate) have been spineless when it comes to cutting wasteful programs.

But this latest vote is especially concerning as perennial allegations that public broadcasting has a liberal-left bias gain more traction. Initially created to serve as a buffer between politics and stations, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting — under new chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson — has become anything but. The Republican has encouraged more conservative programming and, without the knowledge of his board, hired a consultant to monitor the extent of liberal bias

Shame on those Republicans for suggesting that public money shouldn't be used to push a mostly liberal political agenda, or to even suggest we determine if public money is being used to push a mostly liberal political agenda.

Times have changed since 1967, when Congress birthed public broadcasting. Then, the push was for an alternative to the three commercial television networks. But it was also to take "creative risks" and to serve underserved populations, including minorities and children.

Now, with the proliferation of cable TV channels, the need for diversity is not so great. Even some liberal Democrats, such as Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, are suggesting public broadcasting is not providing the cutting-edge programming it was intended to provide and looks more and more like commercial television. Take cooking shows. The Food Network has that covered 24/7.

I think the mssion of public broadcasting is clearly handled by cable. There are plenty of shows that take "creative risks", serve children, and serve minorities. Even if these channels didn't exist, why should government be resposible for making sure we have programming anyway? Since when is the government any good at being creative? Art survives without government funding. Do you really want government in charge of entertaining us? Heck, shouldn't government be telling us not to watch TV because it's bad for you anyway (I think TV told me that once)?

But PBS has some unique gems. "The NewsHour" with Jim Lehrer is smart, probing
reporting of major issues of the day — and we're not talking about the Michael
Jackson trial. The consistent high quality of "Frontline" documentaries is
second to none. On "Sesame Street," Big Bird soon will gently introduce his
third generation of toddlers to the ABCs.

I don't watch Jim Lehrer; however good it may be, why is it important that I pay money, forcibly taken from me by the government, in order for the federal government to report the news? Sesame Street is a worse problem. I like Big Bird and the Cookie Monster, yet the Children's Television Workshop manages to make money for quite a few people thanks to the public funding that keeps Sesame Street on the air. I have no hate for Sesame Street or CTW, I just can't see why I should be funding them. If there were no PBS, Sesame Street would stay in business. Cable has already shown it can support similar children's educational programming such as Blue's Clues.

It might well be time for public broadcasting to do some soul-searching and
return to its earlier charge of taking "creative risks." Public television and
radio stations should not immediately dismiss the perennial charge their
programming has a liberal bias and really explore if it does.

Once again, why is taking "creative risks" a government function? If PBS refuses to take risks and all of the TV and Cable networks refuse to take risks what's the worst thing that can happen? TV might possibly be less interesting. I can live with that if we can cut hundreds of millions from the federal budget.

Furthermore "creative risks" usually means spending a lot of money to create a program which is viewed by a small audience. That audience my really like their program, but 99.5% of America won't be watching. They'll just be paying for it. Who gets to decide which .5% of the audience gets everybody's money? Cable TV has created a business model which allows smaller and smaller interest groups to have programming specifically available to them. Lower production and deliver costs allow viewer to pay for their programming indirectly by watching commerical TV or less directly via pay TV. The internet has further expanded this by creating the ability to sell and stream video directly to the consumer, a new market which will continue to expand. With all of the bandwidth available to take "creative risks", we don't need to take money directly from taxpayers.

But that examination should not be left to decision-makers with a political agenda. In a liberal left/conservative right tug-of-war, public broadcasting could go the way of the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA has abandoned its policy of backing controversial artists and now focuses on noncontroversial projects.

Is it really so bad that the NEA isn't funding projects that offend 50% of America? I don't think so. The writers here intend to suggest that controversial projects are better than things everybody agrees on, but I can't agree. That said, it's hard for me to argue against funding for controversial projects without just saying "nothing should be funded". The problem with government funding for arts is that it generally goes to either people who are liked by whoever controls the purse strings or people who are liked by the people who control the people who control the purse strings. If there's any question about that, check out the things named after Senator Robert Byrd.

Being controversial doesn't make art good or bad; Controversy can be a good thing. I'm all for people trying to challenge conventions and explore new avenues of thought; All I ask is that I don't pay for it unless I choose to.

Better that politicians stay out of public broadcasting, and public broadcasters
return to their charge of providing a credible alternative, taking creative
risks and serving underserved audiences.

I agree. Politicians should stay out of public broadcasting by ending it's funding. Public broadcasting fails to provide a "credible alternative" and has no business taking "creative risks" and any mytical "underserved audience" would be soon served by cable. Let's put an end to this program, which is really a combination of government waste and corporate welfare.

It's better than Batman & Robin

MOVIE REVIEW: Batman Begins
Still haunted by his parent's murder, young billionaire Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) travels the world seeking to fight injustice. In a foreign prison he meets Ducard (Liam Neeson). Ducard offers to train Wayne to defeat evil. Ducard sends Wayne to the mountaintop hideaway of Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), where he enagages in an intense training regimen. Wayne then returns to Gotham City, intent on defeating a crime lord (Tom Wilkinson). With the help of his butler Alfred (Michael Caine) and former Wayne Corporation executive and scientist Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), Wayne takes on the form of what he fears and becomes Batman. Batman finds saving Gotham is more difficult than he believed, with the insane Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) out to drive the town mad and someone else with an even more deadly intent...

Batman Begins is easily the best of all of the Batman movies. That's not saying much when your competition includes two Joel Schumacher films. Previous Batman films were only interested in what Bruce Wayne did after he became Batman. This film tells us how Bruce Wayne became Batman. His journey to crime fighter is shown as step by step process, not an immediate decision made after the death of his parents. The film also has intellectual interest, as we are shown the logistics of obtaining the Bat Gear, Batmobile, and Bat Cave.

The movie's new portrayal of Batman is high point. Batman is shown as a human who can be injured. He's also not a scientific genius as previous Batmen were, but a college dropout. Batman is also conflicted about how to fight crime, but unlike some other superhero films this never leads to the agonizing sequence where the hero gives up being a hero but we know he has to become a hero again later. Instead it's a subtext to all of Batman's crime fighting activities.

The plot moves along at a rapid pace. Despite a run time of 141 minutes I felt as though I wanted to sit through another two hours. Most of the fight sequences are short, save for a Batmobile chase and the conclusion. My only complaint about director Christopher Nolan comes from these fights, which are filmed in the hard to follow Gladiator style. The film looks great and cast is amazing. In addition to those mentioned above. Gary Oldman gives an excellent performance as Batman ally Sgt. Jim Gordon which should convince filmmakers to cast him as a hero instead of a villain. The only sore point is Katie Holmes who feels out of place as Wayne's old flame and the damsel in distress. Four Stars, best movie I've seen this year.

Christian Bale should publish a dieting guide

MOVIE REVIEW: The Machinist
Trevor Reznik (Christian Bale) is a Machinist who wasn't slept in a year. He's losing weight and maybe his mind. The only person he is close with is a kind prostitute (Jennifer Jason Leigh). After an accident at work, it appears someone may be out to get him; is it the coworker he injured, or a boss who doesn't like him, or something worse?

The most memorable thing about this movie is not the writing, direction, or production design, all of which are superior; the thing that will stick in your head is how thin Christian Bale is in this movie. The best description might be "Starving Ethiopian Child Thin." It's hard to say whether Bale should be praised for his devotion to his art or cursed for demonstrating the magical powers of Anorexia.

Once you get past Bale, The Machinist is an effective psychological mystery. Director Brad Anderson covers similar territory to his previous effort, Session 9, and improves on his work. You know some of the things you see in the movie are not real. Unlike some other mysteries the truth is revealed in a surprise twist in the end which lets you see through the fog; the truth is given out bit by bit. The film has more sadness than shock. Despite the trickery the film is more The Sweet Hereafter than The Sixth Sense. Three and a half stars.