By Sylvia Gurinsky
It's "The Untouchables" all over again.
That famous scene in the 1987 movie in which Jim Malone (Sean Connery) asks Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner), "What are you prepared to do?" resonates all over the Middle East.
Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu talked about what he's prepared to do: Recognize a Palestinian state in exchange for full recognition of Israel. I have trouble understanding all of those people who say it's a "non-starter." You can't have peace or a Palestinian state without full Arab recognition of Israel's right to exist, so what's the point?
Netanyahu's call for a demilitarized Palestine also makes sense. Israelis have the right to live without the threat of suicide bombs in Tel Aviv and Katyushas in Sderot.
Bibi needs to add one more thing: Get rid of the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic venom being taught in Palestinian schools.
Right now, Netanyahu's being criticized in almost all corners for the speech. But he went further than any previous Likud leader since Menachem Begin has gone. That's progress - especially for Netanyahu.
Now, how far will the Palestinians go? The next move is up to them. Are they prepared to do anything for peace, not to mention statehood?
The question of "What are you prepared to do" also resonates in Iran, where those protesting last week's so-called election results have to decide how far they want to take their dissent. Do they want to take it all the way to civil war and an effort to, at long last, break Iran free of the prison in which extremists have held it for the last 30 years?
The generation that brought that extremism to Iran in 1979 has reached middle age. The young generation of Iranians want more freedoms and a better relationship with the West. They took those hopes to the polls last Thursday. For now, at least, those hopes have been crushed.
But their voices have not been silenced. The question now is whether this is just temporary or the start of a new Iranian revolution.
Again, what are they prepared to do?
Monday, June 15, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
June 11: Two Questions About Holocaust Museum Shooting
By Sylvia Gurinsky
Two very basic questions, unrelated and yet related to this story:
1. Why did the shooter, with his record, have access to a rifle?
2. Why didn't two of the three daily papers covering the second-largest Jewish community in the country (South Florida) have this story on their front page this morning, and the third had it on the bottom of the page?
Two very basic questions, unrelated and yet related to this story:
1. Why did the shooter, with his record, have access to a rifle?
2. Why didn't two of the three daily papers covering the second-largest Jewish community in the country (South Florida) have this story on their front page this morning, and the third had it on the bottom of the page?
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
June 9: Pledge Drive and Funding Changes Needed For PBS
Sylvia Gurinsky
It's PBS pledge drive time, when the best network on television turns (in parts) into one of the worst.
No "Mystery," no "Masterpiece Theater," no "American Experience," no "Frontline" and no Bill Moyers or "Now." Not even "Antiques Roadshow." But there is plenty of (ugh) Wayne Dyer and Suze Orman - people PBS wouldn't be caught dead showing otherwise. And how many times has that program with composer/producer David Foster been shown on Miami's WPBT-Channel 2? (I've counted seven so far.) I like Foster, but he's turning into the new Andre Rieu - the program PBS can't stop showing.
Even the beloved opera singers Luciano Pavarotti, Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras turned into this monster called the Three Tenors, which PBS also showed too much.
All of this goes on because American public broadcasting does not have an independent, sustained source of funding. It has the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which can sometimes be chaired by someone with a political agenda, and which, unfortunately, is subject to the whims of Congress.
The ideal system for PBS would be to have the same kind of funding system Great Britain has for the BBC: An extra fee on each new television purchased. Sadly, Congress will never allow that to happen. It just makes too much sense. Further, would Congress willingly allow themselves to lose any control over anything?
When there are no pledge drives, PBS programs have various corporate underwriters, and the promotions for some of those underwriters are beginning to look suspiciously like commercials, which PBS isn't supposed to have. That's part of the problem.
Years ago, PBS stations would abandon regular programming for weeks at a time to conduct auctions. During the 1980s, the network started to change to pledge drives. In the beginning, the special programming they put on truly was special - documentaries about great composers such as Rodgers and Hammerstein, concerts by Julie Andrews and so forth.
Sometime during the 1990s, stations started discovering they could raise gobs of money with repeated broadcasts of some of those high-end events, such as the first Three Tenors concert, which took place in Rome in 1990. Again, the repeats turned into a monstrosity.
During the past decade, self-help gurus also started showing up during pledge time, in PBS-sanctioned infomercials (That's the only way to describe it.).
About the only thing viewers haven't been subject to during pledge drives is reality programming (Heaven forbid).
President Barack Obama has announced a new commitment to the arts, and he should include PBS in that. He and CPB President Patricia de Stacy Harrison need to take a hard look at how the network raises money all year.
At the very least, PBS can take some steps during pledge drives:
-Remove the infomercials.
-Do not repeat programs more than once during a single pledge drive, with at least a week's separation between the two.
-Rebroadcast special PBS programming, such as Masterpiece Theater's "Jane Austen" series. How about themed "Antique Roadshows," such as the one that was shown before last November's presidential election?
-Do not remove public affairs programming, such as "Frontline" and "Now." Those programs are essential.
-Take classic programs out of the PBS vault. How about a special broadcast of "Upstairs, Downstairs" or "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman"? How about showing vintage editions of "Live From Lincoln Center" (The hilarious 1981 concert of Danny Kaye conducting the New York Philharmanic would be a good example.) or "Great Performances"? Television viewers love nostalgia.
-And yes, bring up an independent, sustained funding source again.
Since the mid-1960s, PBS has been an important resource and a national treasure. Pledge drives and funding issues have put the taint on both. That must change.
It's PBS pledge drive time, when the best network on television turns (in parts) into one of the worst.
No "Mystery," no "Masterpiece Theater," no "American Experience," no "Frontline" and no Bill Moyers or "Now." Not even "Antiques Roadshow." But there is plenty of (ugh) Wayne Dyer and Suze Orman - people PBS wouldn't be caught dead showing otherwise. And how many times has that program with composer/producer David Foster been shown on Miami's WPBT-Channel 2? (I've counted seven so far.) I like Foster, but he's turning into the new Andre Rieu - the program PBS can't stop showing.
Even the beloved opera singers Luciano Pavarotti, Placido Domingo and Jose Carreras turned into this monster called the Three Tenors, which PBS also showed too much.
All of this goes on because American public broadcasting does not have an independent, sustained source of funding. It has the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which can sometimes be chaired by someone with a political agenda, and which, unfortunately, is subject to the whims of Congress.
The ideal system for PBS would be to have the same kind of funding system Great Britain has for the BBC: An extra fee on each new television purchased. Sadly, Congress will never allow that to happen. It just makes too much sense. Further, would Congress willingly allow themselves to lose any control over anything?
When there are no pledge drives, PBS programs have various corporate underwriters, and the promotions for some of those underwriters are beginning to look suspiciously like commercials, which PBS isn't supposed to have. That's part of the problem.
Years ago, PBS stations would abandon regular programming for weeks at a time to conduct auctions. During the 1980s, the network started to change to pledge drives. In the beginning, the special programming they put on truly was special - documentaries about great composers such as Rodgers and Hammerstein, concerts by Julie Andrews and so forth.
Sometime during the 1990s, stations started discovering they could raise gobs of money with repeated broadcasts of some of those high-end events, such as the first Three Tenors concert, which took place in Rome in 1990. Again, the repeats turned into a monstrosity.
During the past decade, self-help gurus also started showing up during pledge time, in PBS-sanctioned infomercials (That's the only way to describe it.).
About the only thing viewers haven't been subject to during pledge drives is reality programming (Heaven forbid).
President Barack Obama has announced a new commitment to the arts, and he should include PBS in that. He and CPB President Patricia de Stacy Harrison need to take a hard look at how the network raises money all year.
At the very least, PBS can take some steps during pledge drives:
-Remove the infomercials.
-Do not repeat programs more than once during a single pledge drive, with at least a week's separation between the two.
-Rebroadcast special PBS programming, such as Masterpiece Theater's "Jane Austen" series. How about themed "Antique Roadshows," such as the one that was shown before last November's presidential election?
-Do not remove public affairs programming, such as "Frontline" and "Now." Those programs are essential.
-Take classic programs out of the PBS vault. How about a special broadcast of "Upstairs, Downstairs" or "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman"? How about showing vintage editions of "Live From Lincoln Center" (The hilarious 1981 concert of Danny Kaye conducting the New York Philharmanic would be a good example.) or "Great Performances"? Television viewers love nostalgia.
-And yes, bring up an independent, sustained funding source again.
Since the mid-1960s, PBS has been an important resource and a national treasure. Pledge drives and funding issues have put the taint on both. That must change.
Monday, June 8, 2009
June 8: Don't Tear Apart All Turnpike Service Plazas
By Sylvia Gurinsky
A plea from those Floridians who remember using those Port-o-Let trailers at 9 p.m.: Please, please do not tear apart the Florida Turnpike service plazas again.
At least not all at once.
The state is spending $160 million to redo the eight service plazas for the second time in the last 20 years. That includes changing some of the vendors (If you like chocolate mocha lattes from Starbucks or Whoppers from Burger King, as is the case here, you're out of luck. Dunkin' Donuts and Checkers are replacing those other restaurants. There will be other changes, as well.).
The last time the service plazas were redone, Port-o-Let trailers and vending machines were put at each of the sites. The trailers were clean, air-conditioned and had running water, but that's not the entire point. Would you want to stop near a constuction site?
Changing vendors is one thing. Turning drivers' routines upside down is something else. Past experience dictates that drivers who see a bunch of construction will be less likely to stop - making the situation more dangerous.
The road system that advertises itself as "The Less Stressway" could potentially be far more stressful during construction time.
There will be efforts to get some answers from Florida's Department of Transportation about this project; those will be posted at a later date.
In the meantime, get ready for a bumpy ride, Florida motorists.
A plea from those Floridians who remember using those Port-o-Let trailers at 9 p.m.: Please, please do not tear apart the Florida Turnpike service plazas again.
At least not all at once.
The state is spending $160 million to redo the eight service plazas for the second time in the last 20 years. That includes changing some of the vendors (If you like chocolate mocha lattes from Starbucks or Whoppers from Burger King, as is the case here, you're out of luck. Dunkin' Donuts and Checkers are replacing those other restaurants. There will be other changes, as well.).
The last time the service plazas were redone, Port-o-Let trailers and vending machines were put at each of the sites. The trailers were clean, air-conditioned and had running water, but that's not the entire point. Would you want to stop near a constuction site?
Changing vendors is one thing. Turning drivers' routines upside down is something else. Past experience dictates that drivers who see a bunch of construction will be less likely to stop - making the situation more dangerous.
The road system that advertises itself as "The Less Stressway" could potentially be far more stressful during construction time.
There will be efforts to get some answers from Florida's Department of Transportation about this project; those will be posted at a later date.
In the meantime, get ready for a bumpy ride, Florida motorists.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
June 4: Sniglets on 20 Since Tianamen, Public Records At Colleges and Tom Glavine
By Sylvia Gurinsky
Those indelible images. The Statue of Liberty. The young man stopping the tank. Finally and tragically, the tanks killing protestors in the dark of night.
Twenty years later, the world still remembers the protests for freedom in Tianamen Square in Beijing. All the world, of course, except for one country, at least officially - The People's Republic of China. (Hong Kong, where thousands gathered for a memorial rally, is a notable exception.)
In 1989, the protestors, mostly young, were motivated by the push for freedom that was happening in a large part of the Eastern Hemisphere, particularly Eastern Europe. China had already embraced commercialism, but did not venture from the brutal totalitarianism of Mao Tse Tung's regime. That conflict flared up at Tianamen Square.
Since then, China has become a world superpower, hosting last year's Summer Olympics and currently holding a key to the future of North Korea's apparent conflict with the world. But China is also still a repressive country, with major human rights violations, the killing and jailing of dissidents and suppression of free speech, press and expression. As a global economic power, it makes and exports substandard products.
That last one may have sufficiently embarrassed the Chinese government enough to produce some baby steps at reform, at least in terms of manufacturing. China's leaders have yet to realize, however, that being a global power comes with responsibilities - something the Soviet Union found out, literally, to its peril.
Those in China who value freedom remember the events of 20 years ago. The voice of the dissident will rise again. The Chinese government, for the country's future, would do well to listen.
**************************************************************************
Great article earlier this week by Jill Riepenhoff and Todd Jones of The Columbus Dispatch on how colleges and universities across the country, including Florida, are abusing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/05/31/FERPA_MAIN.ART_ART_05-31-09_A1_VFE0G7F.html?sid=101
Sports programs have become big-money centers since Congress approved that law in 1974. Public colleges and universities are just that - public. Their records should be public record. Congress needs to modify this law so it follows the original intent of protecting students' academic records. This law shouldn't be used by schools or the NCAA as a cover-up when athletes, coaches, athletic directors or sports programs screw up.
*************************************************************************************
A big raspberry to Atlanta Braves management for suddenly releasing pitcher Tom Glavine. An additional raspberry for the excuse given - Glavine, who was on a rehabilitation assignment, wasn't scoring on the radar gun the way they wanted. Since when has Glavine been known for the speed of his pitches?
Glavine gave his all to the Braves, with whom he made his big-league debut in 1987. He was there during most of their glory years, winning two Cy Young Awards and racking up most of his 305 career wins. He has been a gentleman besides, taking the heat as a players' union leader during the 1994-95 strike with grace. He will walk easily into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown when he is eligible.
The Braves owed Glavine much more. Their treatment of him reflects the decline of a once-great baseball organization.
Those indelible images. The Statue of Liberty. The young man stopping the tank. Finally and tragically, the tanks killing protestors in the dark of night.
Twenty years later, the world still remembers the protests for freedom in Tianamen Square in Beijing. All the world, of course, except for one country, at least officially - The People's Republic of China. (Hong Kong, where thousands gathered for a memorial rally, is a notable exception.)
In 1989, the protestors, mostly young, were motivated by the push for freedom that was happening in a large part of the Eastern Hemisphere, particularly Eastern Europe. China had already embraced commercialism, but did not venture from the brutal totalitarianism of Mao Tse Tung's regime. That conflict flared up at Tianamen Square.
Since then, China has become a world superpower, hosting last year's Summer Olympics and currently holding a key to the future of North Korea's apparent conflict with the world. But China is also still a repressive country, with major human rights violations, the killing and jailing of dissidents and suppression of free speech, press and expression. As a global economic power, it makes and exports substandard products.
That last one may have sufficiently embarrassed the Chinese government enough to produce some baby steps at reform, at least in terms of manufacturing. China's leaders have yet to realize, however, that being a global power comes with responsibilities - something the Soviet Union found out, literally, to its peril.
Those in China who value freedom remember the events of 20 years ago. The voice of the dissident will rise again. The Chinese government, for the country's future, would do well to listen.
**************************************************************************
Great article earlier this week by Jill Riepenhoff and Todd Jones of The Columbus Dispatch on how colleges and universities across the country, including Florida, are abusing the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/05/31/FERPA_MAIN.ART_ART_05-31-09_A1_VFE0G7F.html?sid=101
Sports programs have become big-money centers since Congress approved that law in 1974. Public colleges and universities are just that - public. Their records should be public record. Congress needs to modify this law so it follows the original intent of protecting students' academic records. This law shouldn't be used by schools or the NCAA as a cover-up when athletes, coaches, athletic directors or sports programs screw up.
*************************************************************************************
A big raspberry to Atlanta Braves management for suddenly releasing pitcher Tom Glavine. An additional raspberry for the excuse given - Glavine, who was on a rehabilitation assignment, wasn't scoring on the radar gun the way they wanted. Since when has Glavine been known for the speed of his pitches?
Glavine gave his all to the Braves, with whom he made his big-league debut in 1987. He was there during most of their glory years, winning two Cy Young Awards and racking up most of his 305 career wins. He has been a gentleman besides, taking the heat as a players' union leader during the 1994-95 strike with grace. He will walk easily into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown when he is eligible.
The Braves owed Glavine much more. Their treatment of him reflects the decline of a once-great baseball organization.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
June 2: Reality Shows Should Be a "No-Kids" Zone
By Sylvia Gurinsky
How ironic is it that the controversies involving the Gosselin and Suleman families are happening while two surviving members of the Dionne quintuplets celebrate their 75th birthday?
The five Dionne daughters, born in Ontario May 28, 1934, were removed from a potentially exploitative home and still exploited for years by the Canadian government. They were a pre-television reality show, placed into a special hospital called Quintland, where they were displayed to the public. In 1998, three surviving sisters received $4 million from the province of Ontario for mistreatment.
Cautionary tale? You'd better believe it.
When Jon and Kate Gosselin made the decision several years ago to have the cable channel TLC - which used to be known, also ironically, as "The Learning Channel" - chronicle their lives, their eight children, which include sextuplets, were toddlers and early elementary schoolers.
TLC had done family-friendly reality shows, including "A Dating Story," "A Wedding Story" and "A Baby Story" - babies, incidentally, who usually don't show up on television after they're born.
Profiling the Gosselins seemed harmless enough - until the parents started to get into the tabloids for behavior unbecoming of a family, much less a family program.
The Pennsylvania Department of Labor is now investigating whether the Gosselins' show violates child labor laws. Here's a "Yes" vote, and a suggestion that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare might want to start its own investigation. The children didn't ask for this situation, to be constantly trailed by cameras - to become one video version of the Dionnes.
There's another potential video version, of course, in California - the 14 children, including infant octuplets, of Nadya Suleman. Naturally, a reality show is being planned. So far, at least, no pickup in the United States.
The only pickup should come from California's Department of Social Services, which should remove the children and require Suleman to enroll in parenting classes until she proves she can be a good parent. Signing up to have your children shown on television for the money doesn't qualify as good parenting.
Earlier this year, there was Jason Mesnick, the father of a young son, who appeared with his son on ABC's "The Bachelor" and also showed how not to act.
Many people want their 15 minutes of fame. If that time often comes at a price for adults - look at Susan Boyle's difficulties in Britain - how much tougher is it for children?
We already know about the travails of children like Anissa Jones, who played Buffy on the CBS series "Family Affair" and died of a drug overdose at age 18, and other young actors and actresses. They went into their situations semi-willingly. The same is not true of the Gosselin and Suleman children, who are not professional actors.
Reality programming is cutthroat television. It should become a "No-Kids" zone. The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission need to launch their own investigations and forbid for-profit reality shows from featuring children.
How ironic is it that the controversies involving the Gosselin and Suleman families are happening while two surviving members of the Dionne quintuplets celebrate their 75th birthday?
The five Dionne daughters, born in Ontario May 28, 1934, were removed from a potentially exploitative home and still exploited for years by the Canadian government. They were a pre-television reality show, placed into a special hospital called Quintland, where they were displayed to the public. In 1998, three surviving sisters received $4 million from the province of Ontario for mistreatment.
Cautionary tale? You'd better believe it.
When Jon and Kate Gosselin made the decision several years ago to have the cable channel TLC - which used to be known, also ironically, as "The Learning Channel" - chronicle their lives, their eight children, which include sextuplets, were toddlers and early elementary schoolers.
TLC had done family-friendly reality shows, including "A Dating Story," "A Wedding Story" and "A Baby Story" - babies, incidentally, who usually don't show up on television after they're born.
Profiling the Gosselins seemed harmless enough - until the parents started to get into the tabloids for behavior unbecoming of a family, much less a family program.
The Pennsylvania Department of Labor is now investigating whether the Gosselins' show violates child labor laws. Here's a "Yes" vote, and a suggestion that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare might want to start its own investigation. The children didn't ask for this situation, to be constantly trailed by cameras - to become one video version of the Dionnes.
There's another potential video version, of course, in California - the 14 children, including infant octuplets, of Nadya Suleman. Naturally, a reality show is being planned. So far, at least, no pickup in the United States.
The only pickup should come from California's Department of Social Services, which should remove the children and require Suleman to enroll in parenting classes until she proves she can be a good parent. Signing up to have your children shown on television for the money doesn't qualify as good parenting.
Earlier this year, there was Jason Mesnick, the father of a young son, who appeared with his son on ABC's "The Bachelor" and also showed how not to act.
Many people want their 15 minutes of fame. If that time often comes at a price for adults - look at Susan Boyle's difficulties in Britain - how much tougher is it for children?
We already know about the travails of children like Anissa Jones, who played Buffy on the CBS series "Family Affair" and died of a drug overdose at age 18, and other young actors and actresses. They went into their situations semi-willingly. The same is not true of the Gosselin and Suleman children, who are not professional actors.
Reality programming is cutthroat television. It should become a "No-Kids" zone. The Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission need to launch their own investigations and forbid for-profit reality shows from featuring children.
Monday, June 1, 2009
June 1: Health Insurance Reform Happening In Baby Steps
By Sylvia Gurinsky
President Barack Obama has said this year is "now or never" for health insurance reform. But moving this Congress is like moving a cow stuck in mud. And even if there is Congressional action, they're likely going to pass a health insurance bill that does nothing to solve the problems of those uninsured because of preexisting conditions.
More likely, what will happen will be piecemeal, frustrating baby steps, such as Miami-Dade Blue, which Miami-Dade County is teaming up on with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida. The Miami Herald had the details last week:
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/story/1067287.html
It does improve on the State of Florida's plan in some ways. The state's plan, with some exceptions, only kicks in if someone has been without health insurance for six months.
But Miami-Dade Blue will not cover many preexisting conditions or include various necessary medications.
The key issue that's been coming up in the debate over federal legislation has been cost. But the lowest cost does nothing for people who can't get coverage because they are ill or have been ill in the past.
Obama has seemed inclined to let Congress and the insurance companies take care of the issue. He of all people, whose dying mother battled insurance companies, needs to give Congress a few kicks. The objective is not just lower costs, but full coverage for all who want and need it.
President Barack Obama has said this year is "now or never" for health insurance reform. But moving this Congress is like moving a cow stuck in mud. And even if there is Congressional action, they're likely going to pass a health insurance bill that does nothing to solve the problems of those uninsured because of preexisting conditions.
More likely, what will happen will be piecemeal, frustrating baby steps, such as Miami-Dade Blue, which Miami-Dade County is teaming up on with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida. The Miami Herald had the details last week:
http://www.miamiherald.com/business/story/1067287.html
It does improve on the State of Florida's plan in some ways. The state's plan, with some exceptions, only kicks in if someone has been without health insurance for six months.
But Miami-Dade Blue will not cover many preexisting conditions or include various necessary medications.
The key issue that's been coming up in the debate over federal legislation has been cost. But the lowest cost does nothing for people who can't get coverage because they are ill or have been ill in the past.
Obama has seemed inclined to let Congress and the insurance companies take care of the issue. He of all people, whose dying mother battled insurance companies, needs to give Congress a few kicks. The objective is not just lower costs, but full coverage for all who want and need it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)