2010 Online Red Kettle, and other ways to help out this holiday season

As has been my wont for the past couple of years, I am once again hosting an Online Red Kettle for the Salvation Army, for those who have either already finished their shopping or want to plan out their donations in advance.

So, if you would like to donate through my virtual kettle, you can do so by clicking the kettle below:

(Image courtesy The Salvation Army)

A couple of other ways to help out this holiday season (and, really, any time) are as follows:

If you are in the Austin area, the Capital Area Food Bank of Texas, where, according to what they have said, your monetary donation can go about five times as far as a food donation, as they can buy in bulk and save money.  They do a lot of good work, and we've supported them before.

Also, my online friend (though we disagree politically) Kim Doyle Wille supports (and I believe I have as well, by participating in one of those retweet-this-hashtag-and-we'll-donate-money schemes) Feeding America, which is a more national program than our local food bank, obviously.

All of these options are well worth your support.  Regardless of your where your political and religious affiliations lie this holiday season, let's all help someone out who needs it.

"Snowed In" Nominated for Austin Blogger Award!

Wow.  Until today, I did not even realize there was such a thing as the Austin Blogger Awards.  (Yeah, it's new for 2010, created by local megablog Republic of Austin.)

And I was even more shocked to find that your humble author's blog was one of the five finalists in the category of "Best Local Politics Blog", particularly since a lot of the recent entries concern the decidedly non-local Bristol Palin (as does yet another upcoming entry, which will undoubtedly thrill "toque").  Well, there were also a few about up-and-comer and certain-to-be-2012-TX25-candidate Donna Campbell, as well as a couple of State House-related entries.  And who knows, maybe some nice readers still remember what was, at the time, a rather big scandal involving former City Council member Jennifer Kim.  (It should be noted that one of my local politics blog competitors had an assist in helping me break that one.)

But whatever the reason, I am pleasantly surprised, to say the least, to see my blog honored with four other blogs, all of which are rather well-known, at least by me.  I very much appreciate whoever nominated me.*  Thank you.

So, then, I would appreciate it if you would use the link below and vote for me by 5pm CST on Friday, December 3.

(Image courtesy Austin Blogger Awards)

*No, I didn't nominate myself, as far as I remember, and if I did, I probably would have kept my nomination to some category such as "Least Often Updated Local Blogs".

On a personal note...

Hello, "toque" of Hamilton, Ontario.  Thanks for the link.  Though I must say I feel a little like I'm being stalked here, what with you hitting my blog multiple times yesterday.

I'm sorry you think I'm an idiot for supporting the positions of a politician you don't like, and for voting, legitimately*, for her daughter on a reality show.  And I have to say, I see a little disconnect between your saying that you are a Christian and your calling us "these idiots"--in the same paragraph, no less.  I don't think you're an idiot, as I have no idea who you are.  But as you seem to know me so well, perhaps you can elaborate as to why my voting for Bristol makes me such an idiot, and why it is so much worse than, say, voting for Sanjaya.  (I'm pretty you know who Sanjaya is, given your more than eight thousand posts on a reality TV message board.)

Or are you, perhaps, one of many people blinded by hatred--yes, hatred--for Sarah Palin, to the point that you think anyone who might agree with her politically is either evil, stupid, or both?

In any case, the traffic is appreciated.  But you might remember that someone on the other side of the screen is still entitled to an opinion even if that person disagrees with you.  You're entitled to think I'm an idiot, just as I'm entitled to think you need to rethink your opinion.

Kthxbye.

* I never said everyone voting for Bristol was cheating in my last post.  I certainly am not.**  Yes, I know a few people are.  I may have to revisit the topic.


** Heck, the kid's using half the household votes for Kyle.  Stop the presses, it's a Disney Channel conspiracy!!!!11!!

Politics and Prizes: Are conservatives pushing Bristol, and if so, so what?

The successful run of Bristol Palin on ABC's Dancing With the Stars has caused reactions that run the gamut from delight in her success to vitriol at those awful right-wing conspirators to total indifference.  (Strangely, one person I know spends way too much time telling people that he doesn't care about things like this, which lead me to believe that he does care about things like this...)

I've written before about the haters, but now, in addition to their constant whines of "she's not a star" and various cheap shots and simply untrue statements about her character, some people have gotten it into their heads that Ms. Palin is the object of a large-scale conspiracy to cheat the system because all these Tea Partiers (I won't use their favorite term) are voting for her.

First of all, yes, there are definitely a lot of people who want to vote for Ms. Palin.  Yes, part of that, apparently, is something called "Operation Bristol", which seems to be spearheaded by online talk show host Tammy Bruce. She explained it in a recent tweet:

And in addition to "Operation Bristol", there are, in fact, a lot of other Sarah Palin fans who want to vote for her daughter, especially after the same hatred some directed at Sarah was directed at Bristol.  For both of these women, the amount of hatred some people have dished out is way, way out of proportion with their station in life.  (And yes, that was true even when Sarah Palin was governor of Alaska...some people--and I could name names, but I'm not gonna give them the attention they seem to so desperately want--threw everything in the book at her in the form of bogus ethics charges, nasty online rumors about her marriage or her fifth child, etc.  No one deserves that, even if they are a governor, or even a president.)  When I, and presumably others, see someone unfairly on the receiving end of that ugliness, we try to defend the one attacked.

Plus, Bristol is an underdog.  People love an underdog, unless they're blinded by partisan hate, and judging from the tweets every week when Bristol survives, a lot of people are so blinded. 

And, in my opinion, for what it's worth, Ms. Palin has shown a vast improvement in her dancing since this competition began.  But let's call a spade a spade.  A lot of people just like Bristol Palin, even if you don't.  (I've written about why that is the case here.)  And no amount of whiny tweets, whiny blog articles, or whatever else--such as this Tampa Tribune article linked by Free Republic (in which Bristol is unfairly characterized as having "stumbled her way through two dances" when in fact this week was her best week)--is going to keep me from voting for her.  (What will is a child wanting to vote for Kyle Massey because of having watched way too much Disney Channel.  But I digress.)

If you don't like that people are voting for Bristol, talk to ABC, which allows audience voting to determine half the score, or to Fox, which started the audience-determined reality competition craze in this country with American Idol.  They know that the audience voting is what keeps people watching, and occasionally the audience isn't going to vote for the judges' favorites.  Remember Kris Allen?  Steve Wozniak?  Sanjaya?

(Aside:  Firefox's spellchecker does not flag "Wozniak".  Somehow I'm not surprised.)

Besides, do you folks think that people are just stupid? Or that Bristol is somehow undeserving of public support because--gasp--she's related to a conservative?  Do you really think that accolades aren't given to people on the other side of the political spectrum, simply because they are on the other side of the political spectrum?

Take, for example, the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, which has previously honored such comedy legends as Richard Pryor, Bob Newhart, and Bill Cosby.  To whom was this prestigious prize given this year?

Tina Fey.

Tina "I can see Russia from my house" Fey.

Really?

Tina Fey, while a talented writer, actor, and comedian, almost certainly got this award, along with a good portion of her name recognition, for impersonating one Sarah Palin, and for the damage that did to public perception of Governor Palin, who, as much as SNL-watchers might want to believe it, is not an idiot.  Other than that, Ms. Fey had a fairly nice career, but nothing to compare with last year's winner, Mr. Cosby.  Can you tell me that politics--specifically, left-wing politics--did not play a role in this?

Don't believe it?  The Washington Post seems to.  And so does Ms. Fey:

A lot of Sarah Palin in today's Style section. It was inevitable: First, there was Tina Fey, launched to zeitgeist heights by her Sarah Palin imitation, receiving the Mark Twain Prize, and of course it came up in her acceptance speach, as she "offered some mock hands-across-the-political-divide commentary," writes Paul Farhi.

The rise of conservative women in politics, [Fey] said pointedly, is good for all women, "unless you don't want to pay for your own rape kit . . . unless you're a lesbian who wants to get married to your partner of 20 years . . . [or] unless you believe in evolution." The lines played first to nervous laughter and then to not much laughter at all.

Or, if you like, we can go back a few years to when the Dixie Chicks won multiple Grammy Awards for their song "Not Ready to Make Nice", basically a collective thumbing of their noses at people who did not care for Natalie Maines's anti-Bush statements.  Given that the song did not receive a lot of airplay on many country stations, it certainly didn't win because of a groundswell of support from radio listeners.

And, oh yeah, how about last year's Nobel Peace Prize?  You might recall that it was awarded to President Obama, partially because, as Thorbjørn Jagland put it, "no one could deny that 'the international climate' had suddenly improved, and that Mr. Obama was the main reason."  In layman's terms, President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize because he was not George W. Bush.

These three examples are just the first ones that came to mind.  I could find more.  A lot more, I'd bet.

So, yeah, at least part of Bristol Palin's success on Dancing With the Stars is political.  But don't ever tell me that the other side doesn't do this too.  And don't complain because our side is doing it back.

The light-bulb question revisited

Rick Perry's recent visit to The Daily Show appears to have been well-received by most.  With that said, though, PolitiFact took issue with a few of the comments that he made on the show; apparently he has made the same types of comments in his book, Fed Up!  Our Fight to Save America from Washington (Disclaimer:  I get paid if you buy through this link.), and PolitiFact, styling itself as a shining beacon of truth, feels the need to revisit statements it made earlier.

One of PolitiFact's statements piqued my interest, as it was something on which I have opined before, namely, the phasing out of incandescent lamps over the next few years.

(Aside:  those not in the lighting business call them "light bulbs", but from what I have seen, those in the business call them "lamps", "luminaires", etc.  One person once told me, rather haughtily, that "bulbs" are those things you plant in the ground.)

Now, PolitiFact rated Governor Perry's statement that Washington is "even telling us what kind of light bulb we can use" as Barely True.  But is that a fair assessment?  Well, let's look at PolitiFact's assertions.

What we found: In 2007, Congress voted to improve the efficiency of light bulbs. President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act, which set energy efficiency standards for kinds of incandescent lamps (light bulbs), incandescent reflector lamps (like track lighting in your kitchen), and fluorescent lamps, according to a December 2007 summary by the Congressional Research Service.

So far, so good.  The EISA was what eventually came from Congress after some rather clunky earlier attempts. 

PolitiFact continues:

Our search for instances of the government directing which bulbs residents can use unearthed a June 2010 editorial in the Washington Times objecting to Federal Trade Commission-issued regulations of light-bulb labels. The editorial says the regs were ordered by Congress as part of its 2007 decision to force the more efficient, curlicue-shaped compact fluorescent light bulb "on a public that so far has refused to embrace it willingly. Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, the editorial says, bureaucratic rules will phase in, and" conventional 100-watt bulbs "will be first on the contraband list."

It sure sounds as if Washington is meddling with the types of lamps one can use to light one's home, office, or wherever, doesn't it?  PolitiFact doesn't think so:

Jen Stutsman, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Energy, told us that conventional incandescent bulbs are not expected to meet the efficiency standards Congress set, though the government expects manufacturers to improve incandescent technologies to meet the higher standards or consumers will move to compact fluorescent light bulbs, LED technologies or halogens. She said new standards for 100-watt bulbs take effect in January 2012. New standards for 75-watt bulbs start in 2013 and standards for 60- and 40-watt bulbs start in 2014.

Stutsman said the expected shifts aren't equivalent to the government telling Americans which light bulbs to use. "Under no circumstances does it say that a consumer must purchase a specific type of light bulb," Stutsman said.

No, but it makes it impossible for a plurality, if not a majority, of the American people to get the traditional light bulb they want.  Ms. Stutsman is being generous in saying that "conventional incandescent bulbs are not expected to meet the efficiency standards Congress set".  It is simply not possible for a traditional tungsten filament incandescent lamp to meet those standards.

And why is that?  Well, let's look at the EISA itself, specifically Section 321:

`GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rated Lumen Ranges Maximum Rate Wattage Minimum Rate Lifetime Effective Date 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1490-2600                   72             1,000 hrs       1/1/2012 
1050-1489                   53             1,000 hrs       1/1/2013 
750-1049                   43             1,000 hrs       1/1/2014 
310-749                   29             1,000 hrs       1/1/2014 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the morning of January 1, 2012, the country will wake up to discover that the 100-watt incandescent lamp (which produces about 1750 lumens and therefore falls into the first category) is no more, replaced with a 72-watt bulb with something other than a tungsten filament, since the tungsten filament is pretty much the same as it was when Edison perfected it.  (Oh, and guess what:  it'll be more expensive.)

So, in that respect, if you wanted to buy a regular old 100-watt light bulb in January 2012, the government very much would have mandated that you could not do so.  I call that a lot more than a Barely True.

(Postscript:  I know the reasoning behind these moves.  I know why some people like incandescent lamps and why others don't.  I also have already said that I believe that LED lamps will be in the mainstream within five years.   I'm not trying to debate lighting at this point.  It just serves as an example of nanny-state government on the rampage.  Rick Perry was pointing that out, and PolitiFact, I believe, had to get rather technical in an attempt to score a cheap point against him.)

Where Do We Go From Here?

As in 2008, one side won big in yesterday's elections.  This year, though, the winning side was the side that did not win in 2008.  So what happens next?  Well, as in 2008, I have a few thoughts, some of which are recycled from back then:

Democrats:

1. Now is the time to congratulate the Republicans who just retook the House. Pray that God blesses them, and all our country's, and our world's, leaders with much-needed wisdom.

2. That doesn't mean that there is not room to oppose the policies and programs desired by the Republicans. Of course there's room for that. But there's a way to oppose a policy without tearing down a person.  Both sides are sadly experts on tearing people down.  Enough is enough.

3. It is time to decide if the current policies of the Democrats--specifically, the vast expansion of the federal government and trillion-dollar deficits, which can only lead to much, much higher taxes--are reasonable and proper for this country to follow.  The voters seemingly have said that they are not.

4. And that leads to the next action item: do not let the MSM and quasi-conservative pundits tell you that the problem was that your side did not get its message out.  Trust me, you did.  It was rejected.

5. Like it or not, the other side holds a better hand at this time. There will be opportunities to work with them on items that are important to both sides.  For example, you may have noticed that you're running out of time to avoid having a nasty tax increase (about which I wrote here) hit the American people.

6. Absolutely, positively, don't be jerks about it. Yes, the voters resoundingly disagreed with you. That doesn't mean they're any less intelligent or more evil, or that they hate people. (And, as I've said before, they're overwhelmingly not racists.)  Do not sink to the level to which some on your side descended six years ago. Remember the disparaging cries of "Jesusland"? The contempt directed toward middle America? Jim Treacher will remind you, if you really want to revisit that era. (Some of his examples of that behavior are NSFW/language.)

Republicans:

1. Yes, by all means celebrate this win. Realize, though, that in most instances, you did not earn it, in all seriousness.  This was a repudiation of the Democrats' policies and their absolute overreach with regard to the size and job of the federal government.

2. Remember that it is possible for people to oppose your policies, too, without being evil, stupid, or whatever.

3. There will be opportunities to work with the Dems on policies, but remember, you were elected because the majority of voters want government to change course from the direction in which it was headed, not just during the Obama Administration, but during most of the Bush Administration as well.  Don't compromise the principles the voters affirmed.

4. Can we stop the infighting, please?  I see people all over Twitter saying the Tea Party cost the Republicans the Senate (no, they didn't), and of course, the quasi-conservative pundits have taken shots at Sarah Palin since the day her VP candidacy was announced.  Stop already.

5. Again, do not be jerks about it. And don't go around telling the other side its viewpoint is invalid because our side lost this one.  I may disagree with your opinion, but that doesn't invalid it.

And for everyone: be thankful it's over, and enjoy the Christmas ads!

Donna Campbell: Fired Up

On Friday night, a debate was scheduled for the two major-party candidates for Texas's 25th Congressional District.  Unfortunately, it was well-known that one of the candidates, Democratic incumbent Lloyd Doggett, had no interest in debating or discussing his record, apparently.

KXAN covered Mr. Doggett's refusal to debate here, pointing out that Mr. Doggett, Donna Campbell, and Libertarian Jim Stutsman did all meet together at a candidate forum in Bastrop.  However, my understanding of that get-together was that Mr. Doggett placed severe restrictions on the format of the event, leading to a setup in which he was always able to have the last word, distorted or not, against anything said by Dr. Campbell.  The way it was related to me, it did not sound like a fair debate.

(And since someone will call me on this if I don't say it, I would have liked to see Rick Perry have a fair debate with Bill White as well.  With that said, I still prefer Gov. Perry's policies to Mr. White's.  But I digress.)

In any case, Dr. Campbell's invitation to debate, having not been the "gimmicky, last-minute attempt" that Mr. Doggett portrayed it to be (the invitation was made over a month ago), was pretty much blown off by Mr. Doggett, and so, as promised by the Campbell campaign, the would-be debate became a rally for Dr. Donna.

I got to be present at this rally, and I noticed a lot of people more fired up about an election in which Lloyd Doggett was on the ballot than I have seen, well, ever.  The convention wisdom, of course, says that District 25 is too blue for a conservative to overcome, but these people were excited.  Several people related stories of the responses they were getting in different areas of the district, including here in Austin.

And Dr. Donna, when she spoke, was pretty much radiating excitement (despite being hampered presently by a broken leg) about the campaign, about getting to work for the people of District 25, and about setting the record straight with regard to statements made by Mr. Doggett.

For example, she relayed a story about meeting a student at Texas State University this week who parroted the usual Doggett talking points ("she's too extreme", et al), and she got into a discussion with him in which she mentioned the Doggett Amendment, which will result in Texas losing $830 million in education funding.  The student refused to believe that Mr. Doggett was responsible for Texas losing the education funding in that way, and so Dr. Donna led him to Mr. Doggett, who happened to be on campus that day as well (he appears to be campaigning much harder this year than he usually needs to do), and she asked him whether he voted to cost Texas $830 million in education funding.  As she relayed it, Mr. Doggett's answer was first to try to duck the question entirely, and then, eventually, to turn his back on them while mumbling "it's Rick Perry's fault".  There needed to be more of an answer from Mr. Doggett to this question, which is certainly not as cut-and-dry as he would like to make it out to be.

And, of course, she talked about Mr. Doggett's other education attack, which this blog has discussed previously, that, of course, being his outrageous statement that Donna Campbell is against education funding.  PolitiFact, which has previously come under fire in this space for misrepresenting facts itself, got into the middle of this question, rating Mr. Doggett's statement "mostly true". 

Whatever, PolitiFact.  Let's take a look at Dr. Donna's statement on federal funding, as presented in Mr. Doggett's ad, in answer to the question "Would you vote to end federal funding for education?"

Federal funding for education? Yes.

The clip abruptly cuts off there in Mr. Doggett's ad.  Obviously, then, Donna Campbell wants children to be uneducated!

Once again, the record must be corrected.  PolitiFact presents her answer in context:

Federal funding for education? Yes. Because ... it’s a job of the states. Choices need to be put back in the hands of the parents and state.

Dr. Campbell is not talking about shutting down funding for schools; she is talking about cutting the federal government out of the middle of it.  Her position is this:  why should we send a billion dollars to the federal government, just to get $830 million back (or not, thanks to Mr. Doggett)?  Is education for children any better because we have however many bureaucrats in Washington making rules about how our education monies should be spent, or how our children should be taught?

(And no, this is not just an Obama Administration issue...this blog has previously spoken about the travesty known as "No Child Left Behind", or, as Mrs. Snowed calls it, "Every Child Left Behind".  More federal government involvement is not a boon to education, regardless of who the president is.  Period.)

Before Dr. Campbell finished, she made a point of wanting to shake the hand of every person at the rally.  I had not met her before (although her team did give my blog its best traffic day in almost a year* by linking to this post), so I welcomed the chance to say hello to her.  She understood that my circumstances prevented my doing much more than writing a fourth-rate blog with only a few regular readers**, and so she personally asked me to write about the rally.

And in return, thank you to Dr. Donna for your energy, your stances, and your willingness to serve this district.  And best wishes for a quick recovery for the broken leg.

Please check out Dr. Donna's website here, and be sure to vote on Tuesday.

*It rather puts my political blogging in perspective when I admit that my biggest traffic day in the past year was due to a hip-hop station biting the dust.

**The author once again takes this time to say hello to his father.

Running Scared

Apparently the projected Republican landslide is affecting the campaign strategies of several Democratic incumbents from around the greater Austin area.  Some of these strategies are pretty much par for the course for some of these incumbents, but for others, they're quite new.

An example of the same-old-same-old strategies in use is District 47 incumbent Valinda Bolton, who has gone negative on Paul Workman, as she does to every challenger.  Her latest ad isn't up on YouTube yet (and it came out most likely too late to get the PolitiFact treatment it so richly deserves), but it appears to say that Paul Workman wants to impose a massive sales tax on everyone.  Haven't we heard this scare story before?

Oh, but Ms. Bolton's story takes the FairTax idea (which no one is actually proposing but some people like) to a new level:  Mr. Workman wants large corporations to escape paying property taxes!  Yeah, that is how a FairTax works.  And guess who else would no longer be paying thousands a year in property taxes:  you, Ms. Homeowner, and you, Mr. Renter.  (Again, see here if you believe renters aren't affected by property taxes.)

At this point, this author expects little else from Valinda Bolton, so let's move on.

Here's something no one would have expected to see two years ago:  Lloyd Doggett has a serious opponent in TX-25!  How serious is this race for Mr. Doggett?  Well, in over ten years in Austin, I have never seen a Doggett television commercial until this year.

The first Doggett commercial seemed a bit like Patrick Rose's first ad as well in that it presents Mr. Doggett as a friend of business:



(Incidentally, this video is unlisted for some reason...I wonder why.)

A couple of things jumped out for me:  first, "I said no to these big bank bailouts."  Well, yes, Mr. Doggett did vote against TARP.  That, at least, was good.  What wasn't so great were his votes later for things like the Porkulus bill and lots of other giveaways of our money.

And this leads to the second thing that I noticed:  "I can actually run a small business. I can create jobs because of Lloyd Doggett."  This was a statement by Michael Kuhn of ImagineSolar, which describes itself as "a world-class solar intelligence company and provider of solar training".  Well, that sounds good, right?

Well, things are not exactly as they appear.  Someone named Facetwitch, who sometimes blogs at RedState, did the digging on this one, and look at this press release they found:

AUSTIN – Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis today announced nearly $100 million in green jobs training grants, as authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The Austin Electrical Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (AEJATC), in partnership with Workforce Solutions–Capital Area and ImagineSolar, received $4,842,424 as one of 25 projects selected nationally – and one of only three in the State of Texas.

For those who've forgotten, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was the original stimulus, or Porkulus, which Mr. Doggett voted to support.  That does rather answer why Mr. Kuhn was so eager to appear in a commercial for Mr. Doggett.  (As Facetwitch points out, there is nothing illegal about any of this, but disclosure would have been nice.)


But apparently things are still not going as well as Mr. Doggett would like in this campaign, and so, again for the first time that I can remember, he has gone negative on his opponent, Dr. Donna Campbell.  See for yourself:



Now I think I understand why his campaign ads are unlisted:  to make them difficult to find for bloggers who want to embed them on their sites.

This ad completely misrepresents the opinion of Dr. Campbell about education funding.  Yeah, let's cut those darned schools off entirely!  Come on.  There is a world of difference between cutting the federal government out of the middle of school funding (thus eliminating a lot of bureaucracy) and not funding schools at all, but Mr. Doggett hopes that you don't notice it.

And while we're discussing silly attack tactics, how about Patrick Rose lookalike Mark Strama in District 50?  Of all the things to say about his opponent, Patrick McGuinness, Mr. Strama says he blogs under "a fake name" (as if this is a very shady thing to do...insert your favorite insinuation about me here).  From there, Mr. Strama pulls items from his blog (The Travis Monitor) way out of context in an attempt to paint him as wild-eyed and hyperpartisan.  Mr. McGuiness, of course, had a very easy response, which I like to call "context":

My opponents [sic] is painting a false picture of where I stand on the basis of a few snippets, but the internet has the best memory and you can be the judge of where I really stand and what I really said. I have put links below of the items he went to.

It's worth a full read.

This season has seen lots of Democrats wondering if their seats are still safe and turning out lots of attack ads, lots of scare tactics...basically, a lot of junk.  Is it any wonder that I am ready for Christmas commercials after a season full of stuff like this?

Update:  Thanks for the link, Dr. Donna!

Is public broadcasting still viable?

From the "this story will eventually be given the attention it deserves" file:

Longtime Los Angeles PBS affiliate KCET has announced that it is giving up its PBS affiliation at the end of 2010.  Apparently the dues that PBS requires from KCET have become a bit too cumbersome:

Last year, the dues totaled nearly $7 million, or almost one-fifth of the station's $37-million net operating revenue. Station officials say that amount is far too high. PBS, fearing that a reduction in the sum could lead to demands for similar discounts from other member stations, refused to budge.

The back-and-forth between the two parties appears a little bit like a circular firing squad.

So where does this leave KCET?  They are losing the ever-popular Sesame Street (the last PBS program in production that actually predates PBS itself) and whatever other kids' programming they have now (and I've written recently about the popularity of at least one of those programs), as well as the PBS NewsHour, Nova, Masterpiece, Nature, and so on.  With that said, this doesn't leave KCET with no programming whatsoever, of course.  Per Al Jerome, president/CEO of KCET:

"As an independent public television station, KCET will be committed to investing in Southern California by developing, acquiring, producing and distributing content across all media platforms," he added. "We will continue to offer the KCET audience programming from leading national and international sources. Some of these series are currently on our air."

And, of course, there are many programs aired on public television that do not come from PBS, including a lot of British shows, most notably longtime favorites such as Doctor Who.  There is also a fairly large public television syndicator, American Public Television, which offers programs in just about all genres.

Suffice it to say, then, that KCET will not be at a loss for programming.  But will its members (and the literally millions of people in the LA area who are not members) be happy about these changes?  The response has been mixed, as per these two comments at the LA Times blog:

Al Jerome is a smart guy. I've known him for years. He once headed up the NBC stations. He's right on target for making this decision. PBS charges way too much for its programming--considering there are multiple PBS stations in the LA area carrying the same thing. KCET now has an opportunity to reinvent itself. They can still get many of the series that PBS carries directly from the program suppliers--who will do great deals because they want their programming seen in LA on the major (once) PBS outlet. 

Bad move. They've lost me as a loyal viewer and annual contributor.

PBS, meanwhile, is not without an outlet in the LA area, as they have multiple stations available there.  Orange County station KOCE is poised to become the primary affiliate in the area.  (KOCE's statement about the matter may be found here.)

But this situation leads to the question about whether the departure of such a cornerstone affiliate from PBS is an aberration or the beginning of something larger.  Public television has survived, thus far, in an era in which myriad viewing options offering similar programming to PBS are available to the viewer, but this seems unlikely to continue indefinitely.  The question has been raised, and is being raised more often now, whether PBS needs to be funded at all.  Would Sesame Street be different if it were on another channel, for example?  (And the answer to that, for several years, was no, Sesame Street was no different when it aired on Noggin.)

Another part of the equation, from my observation, is this:  pledges aren't going as far as they once did.  The PBS affiliate where I grew up had one pledge drive a year (Festival, they called it then, and for all I know they still do) in March, and then there were no more annoying interruptions for the rest of the year.  I know that there are now more pledge drives now in the area where I grew up, just as there are probably multiple pledge drives a year for most PBS stations.  This may relate to the previous example I gave; why give to PBS when the kids can watch Nick Jr, or whatever?  And why bother with my local station at all when I can watch just about all PBS shows online?  (This is where I think we're headed:  entertainment and/or instructive programming entirely on demand.)

And the last part, as evidenced by the recent firing of Juan Williams from NPR, is, of course, that public broadcasting has long been seen as partisan and liberal.  Already many (including one Sarah Palin) have called for federal funding for NPR to be killed, and some, such as Senator Jim DeMint, have included PBS in the defunding call for perceived (by many, including me) liberal bias.  (You wouldn't want to give federal funding to Fox News, now, would you?  Neither would I.)

So what is the answer?  Is public broadcasting going to survive?  I say no...at least not in its present form.

And KCET and PBS's lose-lose situation is just going to accelerate the decline.

Austin Energy GreenChoice customers: your fuel rates may go up in March

If, like me, you got in very early on Austin Energy's GreenChoice program, you have received the benefit of a fuel price less than half of the present standard rate (1.7 cents per KWH vs. 3.65 cents), and as a result of this, you probably pay quite a bit less than your non-GreenChoice neighbors.

For some of us, that ends in March 2011.

You see, the "batches", or subscriptions, for wind energy in Austin come with expiration dates.  Batches 1 and 2 (the fuel price for Batch 2 is 2.85 cents) expire March 1, 2011, as Austin Energy released recently.  This leaves customers with a choice:  do you let your fuel charge return to the "standard", or non-green, rate of 3.65 cents, or do you sign up for Batch 6, which carries a fuel charge of 5.7 cents?

It's not as obvious as a choice as one might think, unless one is a militant environmentalist.  But even if you don't happen to make Mother Earth paramount in your life, Batch 6 might be a good investment for you.  With each batch, subscribers have started out paying more per KWH than the standard charge, and so far, the trend has been for the standard charge to continue to increase until it passes the GreenChoice fuel price.  As Austin Energy put it:

A batch 1 customer paying 1.7 cents per kWh and averaging 1,000 kWh per month will have saved about $1,300 when their subscription ends March 1.

Batch 1 and 2 subscribers may sign up for Batch 6 starting on January 3, 2011.  Based on the history so far (with the caveat that past performance is no guarantee of future results), it seems like a good move.