…You know why people think of Wal-Mart and evil in the same sentence? Because of the crap you guys do like this. Instead of letting this one go, and maybe even putting out a press release saying "we take care of our own" - maybe you get $470,000 worth of good publicity – NO. Now you get this. Wal-Mart's profit last year was over $11 billion – including $470,000 it got back from Mrs. Shank, who is, between the truck that hit her, and what you amoral Wal-Mart trolls did to her, she is so confused that she doesn't really understand that six days after you beat her in court, her 18-year-old son was killed fighting for this country in Iraq.

Wal-Mart: may your stores melt in the hot sun. Today's worst persons in the world.

Also from Mr. Countdown himself, his announcing that Wally World will remain his "Worst Person in the World" until further notice:

If your website or blog is in the Wal-Mart Affiliate Programme through LinkShare.com, may I suggest dropping same as a show of protest @ its business practices and disregard for ethics and common sense for the sake of profit above all else. And if you're considering so joining--may I suggest reconsidering, for much the same reasons.

NORMALLY, ONE DOESN'T CONSIDER THE WHITE RIVER BASIN OF EASTERN ARKANSAS TO BE WHEAT COUNTRY, as opposed to that streak from roughly I-20 in Texas northerly to the Canadian border, encompassing Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas traditionally associated with wheat cultivation (and the dividing line between such areas suited for winter wheat and spring wheat cultivation roughly being the South Dakota-Nebraska line, much of which is along the Missouri River) ... as well as some areas of irrigated wheat fields in Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington state.

But it turns out that the White River, just as it empties into the Mississippi River in eastern Arkansas, has seen 100-year flooding over recent days to the extent that wheat fields down that way may be out of production once the floodwaters recede--especially if winter wheat has already been planted.

Leaving some to wonder if there could be a major spike in bread prices in consequence--@ least until the main wheat-belt crops come in in the fall.

=============

MEANWHILE, DOWN IN THE ARGENTINE, SCENES NOT UNLIKE THE FARMERS' STRIKES IN 1930'S AMERICA have been a commonplace over recent days, particularly so in response to new taxes announced by Argentine President Cristina Fernandez on beef, soybeans and wheat (in some cases, to as much as 45%) to increase government revenues and control inflation.

Particularly galling is the fact of said taxes having been imposed ahead of the harvest season in the Southern Hemisphere, meaning Argentine farmers could be hit all the more by crop prices further diluted by the new taxes--and consumers have turned to the old-reliable standby of Latin American street protest known as the cacerolazo, where aluminum pots and pans are banged rather loudly, to protest want of food on supermarket shelves and show solidarity with farmers.

The BBC elaborates further:

Protests by farmers in Argentina are nothing new. But what is new is the scale and ferocity of these latest demonstrations.

In just a few days, farmers and their supporters have brought Argentina to a near standstill and pushed the government of President Cristina Fernandez into a corner she will find difficult to escape from.

The farmers are angry at an increase in taxes imposed on beef, soya and wheat - some amounting to 45%.

The rises were imposed to boost the country's coffers and to help in the fight against inflation, which in recent months has shown signs of getting out of control.

But what pushed the farmers and their supporters out onto the streets was the timing of the increases - just a few days before the soya harvest.

Mistrust

Then, to make matters worse, President Fernandez, in a speech designed to deflate the tension, accused the farmers of being greedy and trying to rob the country.

"I won't bow to extortion," she said.

That belligerent tone brought city dwellers out onto the streets in support of the farmers, bashing pots and pans in what has become a common Argentine form of protest.

There is a long history of mistrust in Argentina between city and countryside and this show of support from urban dwellers took many, including the government by surprise.

Each day Argentina is seeing more roadblocks erected around the country. Long-distance buses are cancelling services, food is not reaching the towns and cities, and shelves are emptying.

There have been counter-demonstrations in the capital, Buenos Aires, by government supporters who have clashed with farmers. Riot police are stationed at potential flashpoints.

Malcolm Rodman, a farmer and member of the Sociedad Rural, the main agricultural organisation in Argentina, accused the government of shooting itself in the foot.

"They simply don't understand the countryside," he said. "I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better."

Marcelo Rasetto, a farmer manning a roadblock in the northern province of Santa Fe, said: "There's no going back. What the government did was harsh - it was insolent. And this won't get them anywhere.

"This is not a countryside rebellion. This is a rebellion by the whole interior of the country. The whole interior of the country is saying 'no'."

Pampas

President Fernandez and the former president, her husband Nestor, are trying to gather their supporters for a show of force.

However, many of their ministers and regional governors are themselves landowners and farmers with loyalties split between the government in Buenos Aires and their constituents and neighbours in the countryside.

Argentina is a country built on agriculture.

Although most Argentines nowadays live in the cities, they idealise the gaucho, the Argentine cowboy, herding cattle on the flat, green plains, the Pampas.

Argentines on average eat 70kg of beef a year, far more than anywhere in the world and the dominant smell across the country at the weekends is that of meat cooking on parrillas or barbecues in back-gardens or balconies.

What happens in the countryside is felt strongly in urban areas.

The farmers also say it was their hard work and investment that helped rescue Argentina from its economic crisis of 2001 and 2002.

They were aided by the high price of soya especially on international markets. Their wheat and beef are also highly sought after.

Adding to the farmers' frustration is their claim that little of the money they pay the government is re-invested in the countryside.

Farmer Marcos Torres told a national newspaper: "The truth is, the government doesn't have a long-term plan for agriculture."

He, like many, is urging the government to admit it was wrong to raise taxes so drastically and to then sit down and negotiate.

The Argentine government says it will not negotiate until the farmers lift their roadblocks. There appears to be little room for compromise. And with both sides planning large demonstrations over the next few days, the tension is only likely to increase.

Meanwhile, the supermarket shelves are emptying and the soya is still waiting to be harvested.

=============

ALSO ON THE FOOD FRONT, DAME RUMOUR, PAINTED FULL OF TONGUES, HATH IT that Cosa Nostra connexions with garbage-removal companies in southern Italy may be to blame for an outbreak of dioxin contamination in Italian mozzarella cheese, traditionally made from water-buffalo milk.

Said water buffaloes usually feed on said trash transported from Sicily to the mozzarella-producing regions, illicitly dumped upon farm fields.

And dioxin is a known carcinogen.

In any case, mozzarella of the Campania region around Naples from 25 producers thereof has been ordered pulled from French and Australian supermarket shelves because of the dioxin risk; additionally, import bans on same have been announced by Japan and South Korea.

How that will affect action @ the National Cheese Exchange in Green Bay during their weekly trading session is hard to gauge, what with North American mozzarella supplies being of domestic origin (Wisconsin in particular).

*************

"A Great Stage Where Wings of the World Gather, Flap, and Fly Together."

SO JAPAN'S NARITA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, OUTSIDE TOKYO, DESCRIBES THEMSELVES in an English-language guide to its facilities and services.

And which BAA (the British airports operator) would like to see London Heathrow airport cast with the recent opening of Terminal 5 (for the dedicated use of British Airways, know) to ease pressure on the other four and make such more passenger-friendly.

In theory, @ least.

Now, it turns out that British Airways has had to cancel some 70 domestic flights therefrom or otherwise destined, with more cancellations expected into the weekend. (European and international flights are not afflicted otherwise.)

And plenty of finger-pointing to go around, with blame (depending on who you listen to) going to lack of proper staff training beforehand or failures in the baggage-processing system allowing checked luggage to build up to a point where staff can't get to it timely enough.

Making the embarrassment even more embarrassing is the fact of such coming on the eve (so to speak) of the Open Skies Agreement between the European Union and the United States going into effect, allowing more trans-Atlantic flights vis-a-vis the Old and New Worlds from more carriers (perhaps including cut-price carriers like Ryanair and Air-Berlin) and from more airports (more than likely out-of-the-way such not widely used for international traffic) in both EU member states and the United States.

Which, come to think of it, may actually backfire in the face of the emerging socioeconomic meltdown and increased jet fuel prices which airlines are passing through to passengers as a surcharge.

=============

AND STICKING WITH THE EMERGING SOCIOECONOMIC MELTDOWN FOR THE NONCE, Your Correspondent feels maybe it was time to start asking of the GOP just how exactly the Danger of Homosexuals and Homosexuality threatens socioeconomic stability and social order ... and how imposing restrictive laws against homosexuals would save the economy.    

see more crazy cat pics

...While Huckabee remains bitter over his inability to win over the Right's current leadership, it appears as if various other right-wing outsiders are equally bitter over the prospect of having to support John McCain and are considering defecting to the Constitution Party:

[I]s 2008 the year when a third-party candidate would find some traction among those disaffected by the abortion, marriage and national security stances found in the records of the three front-runners left in the race?

Charles Lewis, national outreach director for Christian Exodus, is one of those behind the launch of the new Save America Summit website, and believes it's not only time, it's overdue.

Among those participating in this third-party-seeking Save America Summit are Flip Benham, Wiley Drake, Bill Federer, Gordon Klingenschmitt, Howard Phillips, Chris Simcox, as well as representatives of organizations such as Gun Owners of America, the Council for National Policy, and Stop the ACLU and others who are convinced that McCain, Obama, and Clinton all plan "an EU-style unification of America with socialist Canada and Mexico during the next administration."

Sadly for Huckabee, he can't seem to get any love from these right-wing activists either, since they seem to have already narrowed down their choices for president to four people: Alan Keyes, Roy Moore, Jerome Corsi, and former Sen. Bob Smith.

To Your Correspondent, such a notion is up there with the 1992 Presidential elections, which saw the third-party bid of H. Ross Perot split the popular vote so much that Bill Clinton indirectly wound up winning the same.

Should the "Save America Summit" succeed in urging the likes of Podunk Center and Doo Wah Diddy to vote the Constitution Party's ticket, and to do so pro Deo, patria et familia, expect a similar fractured popular vote scenario as could--as in 1992--send the vote to the Democrats. As well, such a campaign should be challenged @ any and every opportunity, if such manages to go forward and attract mainstream attention especially in lower-income areas. 

DISREGARD OF TRUTH FOR THE SAKE OF "WINNING HEARTS AND MINDS" OVER TO THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA is something of an arrogant article of faith among especially the Zealots and True Believers--in particular such seeing "complete, final and binding regulatory relief" to be the Last and Only Hope for saving free-market capitalism from itself.

As well as making such an empowering tool--the "Great White Father," as it were--for the Lower Classes somehow to be seen as "chronically and helplessly dependent" upon "failed and failing systems of State welfare" all the while.

Case in point: In their desiring a "regulatory holiday" (as would review all prevailing specimens of Government regulatory burden to determine such as should be relaxed or otherwise repealed as being "anti-competitive," "outdated," "horse-and-buggy era," "archaic" or otherwise "hinders freedom of choice among consumers") towards a "complete and final" regulatory moratorium (in other words, shifting regulatory onus to industry-sponsored Codes of Good Practice as turn out to secretly condone cartel behaviour), such specimens of free-market Zealotry and True Belief will love to cite a supposed regulation of 26,911 words governing sale and marketing of cabbage.

Which, no doubt, will be likely compared to the Lord's Prayer (66 words--67 if you count "Amen"), the Gettysburg Address (286 words) and the Declaration of Independence (1,322 words) for the sake of comparitive brevity.

And which, sad to say, Snopes.com has graciously debunked and exploded for the sake of Truth made manifest.

Otherwise known as preventing Urban Legend from becoming The Big Lie for conservative "winning of hearts and minds" delusions.

As if that weren't enough, the "26,911 word cabbage regulation" story has been around since World War II, when the same first surfaced in the editorial columns of the New England Farmer magazine--attributed to the wartime Office of Price Administration (OPA), which sought to control inflation, black-marketeering and war-motivated profiteering for the sake of the war effort.

The story regained popularity during the Korean War, with credit this time going to the Office of Price Stabilisation (OPS), which sought to avoid resorting to rationing while concurently trying to control inflation.

And would gain new life in the late 1970's and early 1980's, without attributing such to any particular Government agency and, instead, citing such as an example of Big Government run amuck and uncontrolled, with reckless disregard for national interest.

In any case, those citing this "cabbage regulation" as an example of the need for "regulatory relief" as would benefit businesses and consumers equally (in theory) fail to cite specific citations in either the Federal Register or the Code of Federal Regulations as would substantiate such a claim.

Especially such having a word count of 26,911 such.

So why use an obvious myth to whip up support for a "regulatory holiday" to review to the point of gutting Government regulatory oversight, consciously aware all the while that this "cabbage regulation" doesn't exist in fact?

ABOUT THIS TIME YESTERDAY, MUCH OF THE MINNWISSIPPI REGION WHERE YOUR CORRESPONDENT RESIDETH was bracing for the possibility of another late-season snowstorm, as if Moeder Aard wanted to pull a fast one on an already record-breaking winter after much of the snow from Good Friday's storms was melting, and then some.

WELL------!!!

By about mid-afterlunch, the Weather Service cancelled the Winter Storm Watch previously issued after new forecast models indicated that the risk of heavier snow would be well to the south of us--as in Iowa and northern Illinois, not to mention areas of extreme southern Wisconsin close to the Illinois line.

In the final analysis, though, a sloppy mix could be falling on these parts by Sunday, with milder temperatures (never mind their being close to 50 degrees Fahrenheit) likely as April makes its appearence per the calendar.

Motherdear, for her part, hopes that the frost will leave the ground soon and conditions be calm enough for farmers and planters to get the first of the field work out of the way ahead of planting.

*************

WHEN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED COOK'S TOURS GO WRONG, AND THEN SOME: A Chinese Government-sanctioned tour of Tibet for a select party of foreign journalists was met by a group of irate Tibetan Buddhist monks near beautiful downtown Lhasa, taunting the group with chants like "Don't believe your masters!" and "Tibet is not free!" admidst all manner of devastation and ruin brought about by the late rioting and disorder.

Said disorder still viewed by China as being the work of agents provocateur under orders from the Dalai Lama, which said Dalai Lama denies and shifts blame upon the Chinese. Which, come to think of it, amounts to projection on Beijing's part as it seeks to present a positive and glowing image for the sake of the Beijing Olympic Games later this summer.

=============

AND SPEAKING OF PROJECTION FOR "WINNING OF HEARTS AND MINDS," consider the following exchange (as transcribed by Media Matters for America) between Bill "No-Spin Zone" O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham on the former's Fox Prolefeed Channel show of the 25th, wherein Mr. O'Reilly equates "Secular-Progressive" sites and blogs with Fascism and questions their loyalty and (presumed) want of True Patriot Love in All Thy Sons Command:

O'REILLY: Oh, absolutely. It'll be interesting to see if Obama or his supporters do anything on this. And if they do, it'll be on the far-left blogs, which are really vile--just vile. And on that subject, you broke a story--or you're following a story--about the awful, despicable Media Matters outfit. What are they doing now?

LAURA INGRAHAM (Fox News contributor and conservative radio host): Well, this guy named Paul Waldman, who works for Media Matters, and I don't--I don't--I'm not familiar with his work--but he wrote a piece essentially saying that because conservatives and others are talking about Reverend Wright, they are, quote, "putting down a marker" to bring this--bring the campaign into one of the more ugly aspects of racial prejudice.

In other words, Bill, a guy who wants to be president of the United States, have the ability and the authority to launch nuclear weapons, start a war, veto spending bills, should not be vetted. We should not be able to look at his closest relationships that have followed a course of 23 years, especially when it comes to someone like Reverend Wright. If we do that, we are going to be branded racist. That's how scared they are about this Reverend Wright issue. They know it's explosive.

O'REILLY: Well, they're going to brand people racist anyway. That's what Media--

INGRAHAM: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: --Matters does. That's what they do. But here's the interesting part about this: That outfit has been very, very pro-Hillary Clinton up and to this point; very silent about any attacks on Barack Obama. This is the first time as far as I know--I don't read them all the time; they're just disgusting--but they've been basically in the tank for Hillary Clinton, because the Clintons and John Podesta, their close confidante, were in--and we don't know the extent of it--but did have something to do with the creation of Media Matters. There's very close ties there. But I think you're right. This is basically throwing out the first salvo that if Barack Obama is the nominee, any criticism--

INGRAHAM: Tread carefully.

O'REILLY: Right.

INGRAHAM: Yeah, tread carefully.

O'REILLY: --any criticism you make about him will--that's a racist criticism. Anything.

INGRAHAM: They're inoculating Barack Obama or attempting to do so. And Bill, I think this really shows the weakness of the Obama campaign right now. The fact that Media Matters and other groups like it have to be out there saying, "Hey, don't you do that. You're making this a race thing. And you're showing the country what you really think about black people," when, in fact, Bill, you know this as well as I do, this story about Reverend Wright isn't about race. It's about anti-Americanism.

O'REILLY: Oh, absolutely, absolutely.

INGRAHAM: It's about the vile anti-Americanism spewing forth from that pulpit week after week and a man like Barack Obama, who knows better, sitting there week after week because he thought he would get street credibility by being associated with that Trinity Church. Now he doesn't need them anymore, so it'll be interesting to see how he reacts in the days and weeks to come.

O'REILLY: But Barack Obama--and I don't believe this to be true, I could be wrong--he doesn't have anything to do with what Media Matters or the Daily Kos or any of these people do. And I want everybody to be clear about this. None of the candidates can control the kind of filth and--talk about anti-Americanism. I mean, these Media Matters--

INGRAHAM: Yeah, it's unbelievable. It's unbelievable.

O'REILLY: --Huffington Post, Daily Kos--I mean, these are fascists. They're dishonest people.

INGRAHAM: But, Bill, here's the deal.

O'REILLY: But the candidates--

INGRAHAM: Yeah. OK.

O'REILLY: --don't have anything to do with them other than currying, pandering to them.

(If you'd like to see the segment for yourself, here 'tis:)

1. A governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. The philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. A fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

Its symbol was the fasces, a Roman symbol of magisterial authority and power in form of a battle axe surrounded by a bundle of bound rods, displayed in procession by such serving as attendants for magistrates.

And its articles of faith best considered as Producerist in nature, calling as they did for a "return to the land" excused by the notion that industry was already advanced enough in terms of development.

With that in mind, may I be so kind as to ask Mr. O'Reilly to please "show us your facts" equating Secular-Progressive weblogs and news portals with Fascism, in view of the above definition. Until then, such remarks should be treated as McCarthyism most rank and vile.

*************

MEANWHILE, IN THE NEW CAPITAL OF THE SO-CALLED "UNION OF MYANMAR," BY NAME NAY PYI TAW, military majordomo Gen. Than Shwe used the annual Armed Forces Day holiday to, on the one hand, reiterate his past categorical pledge to restore civilan rule in 2010 ... yet, on the other such, called upon the Myanmari people and nation to fight "destructive elements trying to sabotage the stability of the state" (Gen. Shwe's words) preparatory therefor.

And speaking of "destructive elements trying to sabotage the stability of the state:" Doesn't that sound like the sort of language which the conservative prolefeed masheen likes to use in describing real or suspected "secular-progressive" and "liberal" elements to further reinforce their delusion that only conservatives are entitled "as of right" to an exclusive, Government-Protected Monopoly on prolefeed?    

see more crazy cat pics

[S]mall grower Lance Drum, who has a farm between Wagga Wagga and Temora [in New South Wales], told the inquiry on Wednesday that scrapping the single desk because of AWB's actions was like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

"It will be to the detriment of all young and old Australian wheat growers and their families," Mr Drum said.

"It will just absolutely ruin Australian communities and families, especially those who are least able to have cash flow behind them."

Abolishing the single desk would create greater fluctuation in prices and financial uncertainty for growers, and banks would subsequently have less confidence in farmers, he said.

Velia O'Hare, a grower from south-western NSW, said the changes could destroy rural families and communities and force more people into cities.

"Come January, if there's no buyer of last resort ... you haven't seen anything yet in suicides, because the men out there are just getting so low," she said.

"We don't need this. We're down now, don't kick us in the guts," she said.

But David Ginns, chief executive of the Grains Policy Institute, said such "prognostications of disaster" were wrong.

Mr Ginns said the removal of the single desk would force marketing costs down and put more power in the hands of growers.

Doesn't that last part about "forcing costs down and putting more power in the hands of growers" sound like the usual free-market conservative broken record about the free market being the Great White Father of the Lower Classes--especially so "chronic and habitual" welfare cases expected to be "in clear need of empowerment***after years of unconsciously falling for subtle Socialism" because of welfare dependence, "empowerment which only the free market can make all the more possible"?

IN THE GREATER CONSERVATIVE SCHEME OF THINGS, THERE IS A STRONG UNEASE TOWARDS SUCH SPECIMENS OF REALKULTUR which can be regarded as "elitist" or otherwise "promoting liberal tendencies" in an otherwise "right-thinking" audience "deserving" (or so conservative thinking hath it) of a "populist" notion of Realkultur.

Which, in effect, holds public television and radio to be "un-American" and the several FreeVee networks (especially the "populist" leaning Fox) to be "American," notwithstanding annoying commercial interruptions creating the aura of such being FreeVee; in other words, we, the people, indirectly pay for FreeVee by purchasing advertised products and services.

(For "populist," read dumbed-down, trashy--in effect, prolefeed.

(But then again, there was a time when "populist" radio programming managed to attract listeners away from "elitist" such, over the objections of the powers that be: I refer to Radio Luxembourg's English-language commercial transmissions to England's Green and Pleasant Land with a "populist" programme competing with the formalised and "elitist" BBC in spite of the repeated objections of Broadcasting House, forever claiming that radio broadcasting was the Sole and Exclusive Monopoly of the Crown, by agency of the BBC ... especially so on Sunday afternoons, when "Luxy" would offer a lineup of popular musical shows, dramas and the League of Ovaltineys children's show to counter the BBC's overbearing dominance of religious and serious programmes, especially so the former.

(Even after World War II, "Luxy" attracted especially younger audiences away from the BBC's rather predictable radio lineup, and was largely responsible for helping introduce American-influenced rock-and-roll all the more to British audiences, thanks to 15- and 30-minute programmes sponsored by record companies as were mainstays of the "Luxy" programme--almost always in the evening hours--until the late 1960's, when all shows originated live from the Grand Duchy; such would remain the case until they left the air in 1992.

(And who between Land's End and John O'Groats can still remember those rather awful commercials on "Luxy" for the Horace Batchelor Infra-Draw Method, details available by writing "Department 2, Keynsham--spelled K-E-Y-N-S-H-A-M--Keynsham, Near Bristol"?)

=============

ANYHOW, BACK TO THE SUBJECT @ HAND: Eric Boehlert with Media Matters for America thus commented on how The New York Times may have recently aided and abetted conservatives opposed to the continued maintenance and support of so-called "elitist" public broadcasting, and challenges the suppositions thus addressed:

What a strange coincidence that the Bush administration recently submitted the largest funding cut ever proposed for public broadcasting, and next week, PBS' distinguished Frontline series will mark the fifth anniversary of the Iraq invasion by airing Bush's War, which PBS describes as television's definitive documentary analysis of the war. The program reportedly draws from 40 separate war-related Frontline reports aired over the last five years. I have not previewed the television event, but I doubt that Bush aides, not to mention most Americans, will draw much comfort from what they see.

So, yes, the timing between the Frontline airing and the massive budget cuts is curious, but also accidental, since the Bush administration has been attacking PBS' funding for years, and in 2005 actually helped plot a public--and bogus--campaign to rid public broadcasting of its alleged liberal bias. And to be accurate, Bush now proposes to curb the funding set aside for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the government-created umbrella organization that doles out tens of millions of dollars annually for public television and radio programming. Frontline, in fact, does not receive direct CPB funding.

Still, the juxtaposition of the White House's draconian cuts penciled in for PBS, just when the award-winning Frontline program aims its painstaking reporting at the Iraq war, remains a telling one. And it helps to remind us, as Bush prepares his final exit, just how contemptuous this president has been of journalism in general, and especially of the thoughtful, independent brand practiced at PBS.

So I understand why Bush takes cheap shots at PBS. But what's The New York Times' excuse?

If enacted, President Bush's budget proposal to Congress would reduce CPB's funding for 2009 and 2010 by 56 percent. Specifically, Bush proposes cutting half of the $400 million already appropriated for the CPB's 2009 budget, cut an additional $220 million slated for the next year, and then eliminate the entire $483 million appropriation for fiscal 2011. The CPB is usually financed three years ahead of time to insulate the system from politics, which, of course, is deeply ironic considering the never-ending game of politics Bush has played with the funding process.

That doesn't mean public broadcasting would automatically go dark. That's because stations have other funding sources, such as corporate underwriting, foundation grants, and donations from individual viewer and listeners. (About 15 percent of total PBS revenue comes from Congress via the CPB.) But the draconian cuts would make public broadcasting's task much more difficult and would especially sting outlets in rural locations that do not have as many alternate funding options and whose annual budget relies more heavily on the CPB's generosity.

Additionally, Bush would deny any funding for public radio and television's conversion from analog to digital broadcasting, a process that is federally mandated.

What makes Bush's swipe at public broadcasting so spiteful is that, thankfully, there's virtually no chance his cuts will be enacted in full. Bush is simply perpetuating this weird Beltway Kabuki dance where a Republican president, who has been incapable of tightening federal spending in any meaningful way, makes his annual decision that public broadcasting must shed huge portions of its budget in the name of trimming the federal budget. Then a bipartisan coalition forms within Congress to restore the funding cuts. Rather than call off this game after the fifth, sixth, or seventh year, Bush decided to up the stakes and take his biggest whack yet at public broadcasting.

The ritual is pointless and spiteful, but unfortunately, this year it picked up a quasi-endorsement from The New York Times in the form of a recent, above-the-fold cover piece in the newspaper's influential Sunday Arts & Leisure section headlined, "Is PBS Still Necessary?" The article, by writer-at-large Charles McGrath, echoed long-standing conservative talking points questioning the need for taxpayer-supported television since viewers today can choose from so many cable programs. "There are not only countless more channels to chose [sic] from now, but many offer the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV, and in at least some instances they do it better," he wrote.

There's certainly nothing improper about making that claim, as long as the argument is made well and made fairly. McGrath did neither. Instead, his one-sided piece, which included no original reporting and did not offer anyone from public broadcasting a chance to rebut his claim that it wasn't worth fighting Bush's latest funding cuts on PBS, really was a train wreck. There's no doubt that the Times' public editor, Clark Hoyt, should have addressed the journalistic deficiencies in the piece, which generated written responses from nearly 1,000 (mostly angry) Times readers. Consider the following:

• The article was built on the false and elitist premise that everybody has cable television. Not true. Tens of millions of American either can't afford, or choose not to pay, the ballooning monthly fees required to receive cable television, which means all those wonderful niche programming outlets McGrath rhapsodized about (i.e. the Discovery Channel) are of no use to those people.

• McGrath claimed there wasn't much need to fund public television because PBS' programming is no longer vibrant and it's losing its audience share. By contrast, McGrath compared PBS' programming woes to the vibrancy of National Public Radio, which McGrath stressed, was a "great[] success." But Bush wants to dismantle funding for both, regardless of whether they're successes or failures, so why the misleading comparison in the Times?

• McGrath failed to note that public broadcasting costs less than $1 per person, that polling consistently indicates Americans think it's a great value. And the Times writer never suggested how that federal money could be better spent by the government. In other words, what was the explicit benefit of dismantling public broadcasting? McGrath never offered an answer.

• The fact that McGrath actually compared the brief, 30-second corporate underwriting announcements that accompany some PBS programs to the 22 minutes of wall-to-wall commercials that fill up every cable television hour indicated how unserious his critique really was.

• Nowhere in his critical examination of the PBS line-up did McGrath mention any of its extensive and award-winning children's and educational programming.

• The patently contrarian piece was also at times distastefully flippant. Like when McGrath compared PBS on-air fundraisers to water-boarding, the torturous interrogation technique sometimes used on prisoners of war. Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see the humor.

The worse part though, came when McGrath addressed the news-gathering landscape:

If you're the sort of traditional PBS viewer who likes extended news broadcasts ... cable now offers channels devoted just to your interest. Cable is a little like the Internet in that respect: it siphons off the die-hards. Public television, meanwhile, more and more resembles everything else on TV.

According to McGrath, cable television's "extended news broadcasts" are now just like the news programs you see on PBS. Honestly, what cable feed is McGrath watching? Because it's certainly not the same one that beams CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News into my house around the clock. If McGrath's claim is that the cablers cover a lot of news, that is accurate, I suppose. But to claim there's no difference between CNN's The Situation Room or Fox News' Special Report and PBS' NewsHour is just silly. (MSNBC doesn't really have its own version of a nightly news program.) The first two, despite the occasional glimpse of intelligence on The Situation Room, really are relentlessly shallow in how they cover the news, as well as extraordinarily rigid in terms of the very narrow perimeter in which they dub events to be newsworthy.

But let's look beyond the evening newscasts and examine long-form news programs such as NOW and Bill Moyers Journal. McGrath didn't mention either of those stellar programs in his piece, but I'm assuming his claim that there's no difference between them and what you can find on cable still holds. Except that, of course, it's not accurate. Despite the fact CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News broadcast more than 2,000 hours each month, those PBS news programs--broadcasting less than 10 hours each month, combined--still manage to cover issues and topics, as well as conduct interviews with prominent guests, that the cable channels ignore.

For instance, here are descriptions of recent NOW installments, as taken from the program's website:

• "Will a Bush Administration effort open thousands of acres of public land to private development?"

• "How corporations are using the designation 'freelancer' to avoid paying benefits."

• "A pioneering collaboration of Republicans and Democrats on the environment."

• "How far will one oil company go to get the politics they want? A bribery scandal in Alaska."

• "As millions of homeowners face foreclosure, NOW investigates sleazy tactics of [mortgage lenders]."

• "A billionaire fights methamphetamine use in Montana."

Raise your hand if you've seen CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News devote significant chunks of uninterrupted air time in recent months to address those topics.

Meanwhile, over at Bill Moyers Journal, here's a look at some recent guest segments from the program's extended, insightful conservations regarding important topics of the day. In parentheses is the number of times that person has appeared anywhere on American television in the previous two years, according to Nexis:

• "Historian Nell Irvin Painter examines what history reveals about the current state of inequality in America." (0)

• "Sarah Chayes, author and former journalist who has been helping rebuild Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban regime, with a look at the front lines of America's war there." (3)

• "Photographer Lori Grinker takes viewers to Amman, Jordan for a devastating look at the fate of Iraqis displaced by the conflict." (0)

• "Does America's $9 trillion federal debt mean we are mortgaging our future and jeopardizing individual savings, healthcare, and retirement for generations to come? Bill Moyers gets a reality check from Public Agenda's Scott Bittle (1) and Jean Johnson (0), co-authors of Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour to the Federal Budget Crisis."

• "Is it time to rewrite the Constitution? Perspective from the University of Texas Law School's Sanford Levinson, author of Our Undemocratic Constitution." (0)

Also note that the Journal's Rick Karr has been providing some of the most in-depth reporting on the FCC's continued efforts to help consolidate major media ownership in this country. That's a news topic that traditional media outlets absolutely refuse to cover.

I'm not suggesting public broadcasting practices some sort of divine version of journalism, nor that it's above reproach. In fact, as Media Matters for America has detailed here, here, here, and here, it most certainly is not. (And I still don't understand how this journalism embarrassment ever made it on-air at PBS.)

But it is the only brand of journalism in this country that relies on the government for its funding and, based on its outstanding work, public broadcasting most certainly deserves that support. It also deserves the respect of the Bush administration, not to mention The New York Times.

Come to think of it: How do we know this Charles McGrath isn't really in the pay of His Fraudulency's "inside of the inside," let alone certain free-market Zealots and True Believers in K Street?

And how many of the world's soverign countries having supposed free-market socioeconomic policies are lacking in public-broadcasting outlets as a matter of public policy? (And I mean in the Real World, not in some fantasy Arcadia or Second Life.)