Arguing in other places

ME quoted:

Yes the PUBLIC broadcasting System is partially supported by tax money such as grants from the national Endowment for the Arts. PBS is non- profit, non-privately owned, as is the parent Public Broadcasting Corporation. But most funding comes through individual donations, private endowment funding, corporations, advertising and individual station dues.They produce much high quality and unique programming not available on regular commercial television. That is all bad how exactly?

Wild Won2:

Why should they use our tax monies to pay for television that is covered by other networks?

Any educational show is equalled on the various Discovery Networks, the only things not on those are the kids' shows, and those are on Nickelodeon, so why should we pay for it?

Wild Won2 quoted:
Why should they use our tax monies to pay for television that is covered by other networks?

ME again:

But much of what PBS broadcasts is NOT covered by other networks and anyone who watches it would know that...which indicates you do not.

Give a commercial broadcast parallels to "Frontline" or "American Experience" or "P.O.V." or "American Masters", or "Bill Moyers" for that matter.

Wild Won2:

ME quoted:

But much of what PBS broadcasts is NOT covered by other networks and anyone who watches it would know that...which indicates you do not.

Because it is unecessary and a waste of time/money, a great sign of government...WASTE!

Give a commercial broadcast parallels to "Frontline" or "American Experience" or "P.O.V." or "American Masters", or "Bill Moyers" for that matter.

If there was a true need for your programs mentioned, they would be on regular news channels making money, no one wants to tune in, so they're relgated to PBS and such.

Pretty simple stuff.

Having fun being politically incorrect since 1972!

ME:

What?!! That's totally lame. Profit and the commercial market is the only determinant of worthy endeavor? That's just nuts.

Being non-commercial and not beholding to corporate interests like commercial TV allows PBS to take on more controversial stances and a wider range of topics that might otherwise upset advertisers. The "arts" which comprises a lot of the PBS content is simply not going to be supported by the viewers of commercial, pop-culture, sports driven television. That's no reason not to have an avenue for it. Are you saying we should tear down the opera houses because most record sales are in rock or country? What kind of attitude is that?

And what's this thread about, again? Oh yeah,
"Why Passing Health Care Reform is Possible".

Wild Won2

ME quoted:

What?!! That's totally lame. Profit and the commercial market is the only determinant of worthy endeavor? That's just nuts.

When it is self sufficient, it can have a place in society, if not, let it go.

You libs LOVE Darwin with evolution, but not with social Darwinism. If it was so important to people, they'd have paid to keep it, it is not, so let it die, sort of like the 8-track player.

ME :
Being non-commercial and not beholding to corporate interests like commercial TV allows PBS to take on more controversial stances and a wider range of topics that might otherwise upset advertisers.Upset advertisers are what gets people to tune in, like the left always lambasts Limbaugh. Do you think he cares? Of course not, as long as you tune in. The "arts" which comprises a lot of the PBS content is simply not going to be supported by the viewers of commercial, pop-culture, sports driven television. That's no reason not to have an avenue for it.It must not be important enough, if they need taxpayer dollars to prop it up, let it die off, it is evolution, we used to do a lot of arts, not so much anymore, let it pass on into the past... Are you saying we should tear down the opera houses because most record sales are in rock or country? What kind of attitude is that?No, but if it is taxpayer funded, YES I DO!

ME quoted

And what's this thread about, again? Oh yeah,
"Why Passing Health Care Reform is Possible".

Why is it possible?

Because a bunch of *****s who want to spend OPM, that's why.

Single Dad:

Preaching the Gospel of "free" Capitalism, are you? I almost wish you could get what you want. What you would end up wih is exactly what you deserve.

One big Corporation running the entire world. Telling you what you will buy, because there is nothing else available. Of course they'll keep up the illusion of Competition. They'll produce four or five versions of the same thing, in different packages, under different names.

You'll love it!

ME:

SD quoted:

They'll produce four or five versions of the same thing, in different packages, under different names.

ME:

LOL ...Kind of like the variously named posters here all spewing the same failed capitalist ideology.

Oh, and there's no such thing as Social Darwinism, that's a complete misconstruction of what Darwin was talking about. The "natural selection" concept was misinterpreted and shaped into the idea of "survival of the fittest" which makes no sense in the context of social structures where mechanisms such as altruism ("the unselfish concern for the welfare of others") play as important a role in the stability of social organization as competitive ones do.

For instance its makes perfect sense that parents would be altruistic toward their children rather than competing with them for scarce resources. "Survival of the fittest" is a rationale of "the haves" for why they "naturally deserve" to have it and why others do not. Its a quasi-religious idea that led to all sorts of cool things like the N.a.z.i.s and eugenics. FAIL.

Using strictly economic reasons for the survival of given social activities like art is not only a bad idea but is also erroneous and internally inconsistent. The entire idea of art is to challenge the status quo and accepted views of the public. It is through those challenges that social progress is achieved. Art generates new ways of looking at things and prevents us from getting stuck in the past.

Often the most potent art, the kind that is eventually seen as genius, is generally either dismissed as garbage or actively attacked by those whose status quo it threatens by those who don't understand its message when it is originally produced. Of course such art will not find economic support from the culture it is attempting to change. That is why is it is essential to publicly finance works that would otherwise not "survive" in a culture that uses profit and economic viability as its sole criteria for determining value .

PBS and the PBC exist specifically as an alternative to that market driven ideology you are espousing. Economy is but one aspect of the human endeavor and is not supposed to be an end in itself, but rather a means to more important reasons for being alive.

Now I'm not religious, but Matthew 16:26 speaks to this.

Who do you think said:

"In this art of wealth-getting there is no limit of the end, which is riches of the spurious kind, and the acquisition of wealth. But the art of wealth getting which consists in household management, on the other hand, has a limit..."

There are two sorts of wealth-getting, as I have said; one is a part of household management, the other is retail trade: the former necessary and honorable, while that which consists in exchange is justly censured; for it is unnatural, and a mode by which men gain from one another. The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of all modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural."

Hint: He died in 322 BC...a wealthy man.

That in a nutshell is exactly what is wrong with the present obsession with our form of market economy. Its not based of production of value or even on exchange products of value, but rather on the making of money from money itself. Money itself has been turned into a commodity. We call that the Modern Banking System or Wall St. trading or the Credit Industry. The problem with capitalism is not the growth of capital per se, its the hording.

People realized it was a ruinous way to go about things 2400 years ago.

PBS in the business of creating value that the economic markets neither recognize nor support. Its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. And I, for one, really appreciate the alternative.

Now these same concepts can be applied to a health care system. In the same way that it is wrong to make money itself a commodity and economy an end itself, divorced from actual value and the improvement of life overall, health is vital to all equally and is essential to the "pursuit of happiness" and "promoting the general welfare" which are the founding principles and core values of the country.

To make health a mere commodity rather than a right flies in the face of the those principles. Health affects the entire community. The healthier the individual members of a society are, the healthier the society as a whole is. Using access to money as a means of rationing access to that right to health care is misguided at minimum. Health care is a collective right and we should support and distribute it in a collective manner as has been done by almost all of the rest of the developed world who have recognized and acted on those principles many Americans merely give lip service to.