Whadya know

Jonathan Cook wrote:
Just thought I'd report that I was in a Wal-Mart yesterday,
and I had on a T-shirt that said "Support Public Television".
Beneath the words it had the logo of our local PBS station,
WKRG.

I figure that, these days, my shirt would certainly offend
someone, but no, not even a peep! Not even a strange stare!
Maybe everyone down here was just too polite to say anything.

Worse yet, we bought a couple hundred dollars worth of food
and toiletries, and I'm pretty sure none of it was made in
China! Indeed, the Roberto's frozen tamales (yum!) were made
just a few streets away, as were the tortilla chips.

What's this world coming to?

;-)

Jon.

OBROFF: were supposed to go camping this weekend to do a little
scouting in the Gila, and I would've brought my KPOS3wt to
try the Middle Fork a bit, but the torrential rains down here
made us decide to try next weekend instead.

In all seriousness...who would view PBS as offensive?

Your pal,

TBone

wrote:

In all seriousness...who would view PBS as offensive?

Jesse Helms and Newt Gingrich do.


Chuck Vance

wrote in message
ups.com...


In all seriousness...who would view PBS as offensive?

Your pal,

TBone


I think it's admirable to support PBS, if that's what you like. I just don't
think public money (i.e. taxes) should be used to support it. They run lots
of fund raising campaigns and I hope they get enough. If something in the
arts is worthwhile, it should be self supporting. The cream will float to
the top.

Gene

Gene Cottrell wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


In all seriousness...who would view PBS as offensive?

Your pal,

TBone


I think it's admirable to support PBS, if that's what you like. I just don't
think public money (i.e. taxes) should be used to support it. They run lots
of fund raising campaigns and I hope they get enough. If something in the
arts is worthwhile, it should be self supporting. The cream will float to
the top.

Gene

An admirable humanistic philosophy.....but why artificially limit its
scope to the arts? Is the same not true for all human endeavor? In
fact, is this not simply the expression of natural law, as indicated by
the use of a metaphor describing a well-known natural phenomenon? Why
should public funds be used to support anything? Leave it alone,
whatever "it" may be, it'll sort itself out.

For that matter, why even have public funds at all?

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gene Cottrell wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


In all seriousness...who would view PBS as offensive?

Your pal,

TBone


I think it's admirable to support PBS, if that's what you like. I just
don't
think public money (i.e. taxes) should be used to support it. They run
lots
of fund raising campaigns and I hope they get enough. If something in the
arts is worthwhile, it should be self supporting. The cream will float to
the top.

Gene

An admirable humanistic philosophy.....but why artificially limit its
scope to the arts? Is the same not true for all human endeavor? In
fact, is this not simply the expression of natural law, as indicated by
the use of a metaphor describing a well-known natural phenomenon? Why
should public funds be used to support anything? Leave it alone,
whatever "it" may be, it'll sort itself out.

For that matter, why even have public funds at all?

Wolfgang

Yeah, I ain't so happy about *my* public funds supporting the murder of
innocent Iraqis, Afghans and a myriad of other peoples around the world who
happen to live in countries where our gov. wishes to foment death and
destruction--regardless of the presiding administration!

Op