March for Our Lives

Why do the NRA, gun advocates, and many Republicans have to insult, dismiss and denigrate the students involved in the March for Our Lives movement? 

We all know you disagree with their views on gun violence and gun control. That is a valid, although I think wrong, opinion. Simply stating those opinions and beliefs along with your reasons, facts, statistics, talking points, etc. should be a sufficient response. Argue on the issues, not the age of your opponents. 

Instead, you hurl insults at teenagers. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school students have been accused of being crisis actors, being coached by the media and radical Democrats. They were criticized for smiling during some photos and TV appearances. Of course, they are too young to have any idea what they are talking about. 

NRA spokesman Colion Noir said  “No one would know your names” if a student gunman hadn’t stormed into their school and killed three staff members and 14 students. I would guess they would readily trade their newfound and unasked for fame in exchange for their 17 fallen friends. 

Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: "How about kids instead of looking to someone else to solve their problem, do something about it, maybe taking CPR classes or trying to deal with situations that when there is a violent shooter that you can actually respond to that,". Yes, CPR training will definitely stop gun violence. Maybe as a deterrent, they could post signs at schools informing shooters that the students know CPR.

On Fox News Sunday, when Newt Gingrich was asked a question about the March for Our Lives demonstrations. He replied: "who paid for it?". Another attack on the sincerity of the young demonstrators. The NRA and many Republicans are saying that the march was funded by radical and violent Democrats. They offer no credible evidence to support those claims.

You know, it is just possible that the young people involved in the March for Our Lives movement are actually intelligent, articulate, well informed, capable, and sincere. Their agenda is to save young lives. The NRA and those they fund are interested in selling guns, making profits and retaining their elected office. 

It was young people who fueled the civil rights movement and the opposition to the Vietnam war back in the 50's, 60's and early 70's. They were dismissed then as too young and uninformed. Maybe the youth of 2018 can bring about real change in America's gun violence problem. We adults certainly haven't done very well over the past few decades.   

Those earlier movements took years to finally see results. Will the Marjory Stoneman Douglas students remain involved and invested in their cause? Will those who support them stay interested? Will they be able to break the NRA's stranglehold on our elected officials? Will the electorate vote against NRA supported candidates in the 2018 elections? Will the Parkland shooting be the tipping point? 

It will be months and years before we know the outcome. This could all be just another temporary period of outrage and demands. The usual thoughts and prayers followed by mostly inaction. It could also be the beginning of an enduring movement that brings about real change. There have already been some legislative changes in Florida and at the federal level.

Regardless, let's stop making personal attacks against the young folks. The Stoneman Douglas students and Parkland residents just went through a horrific event. They lost friends, classmates, relatives, and teachers. That is real. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that their outrage and objectives are sincere. Disagree with them if you are so inclined, but act like an adult should when you do.

wjh

Beyond 100 Days

The second half of the old Charlie Rose PBS timeslot is now filled by Beyond 100 Days which is produced by the BBC. The program has been on BBC World News since the Trump inauguration. It is co-hosted by Katty Kay in Washington DC and Christian Fraser in London. Along with Amanpour on PBS, Beyond 100 Days should mean a little more international flavor to the PBS late-night lineup. 

This program is more of a traditional newscast. The anchors open with the top stories of the day. They have BBC reporting and video from around the world. There are usually a few stories they cover more in-depth. For these, they will often interview experts or the BBC reporters covering the story, some in studio and some via satellite. So far, their guests have not been the actual newsmakers for the most part. Katie was in Davos for the World Economic Conference and did a couple of interviews there.

The anchors also weigh in on the stories, adding their own knowledge or insight. There is also a small amount of chitchat between the anchors.  

Other than the international flavor and additional perspectives, this is not a must-see news program. Both anchors are competent, articulate and pleasant enough. 

I'll continue to watch when I have time. For now I'll give it an average grade of C. 

wjh

Armanpour on PBS

In mid-December 2017, PBS began airing Amanpour on PBS in the first half of the old Charlie Rose Show timeslot. My local PBS station didn't begin carrying the program until the first of 2018. Christiane Amanpour is an anchor and the Chief International Correspondent for CNN. She has been with CNN since 1983 except for a brief stint with ABC. She was raised in Iran and England and brings a unique perspective to the news. She is based in London but does many shows from New York also.

This is primarily an interview show. Occasionally she recaps a top story or two at the top of the show. The format is one or two guest interviews during the half hour. These guests are a combination of the newsmakers, experts, and other journalists. So far, she very rarely has more than one guest on at a time. On those occasions, the guests have been mostly civil and didn't talk over each other. It was a bit heated one night when a representative of Palestine and one from Israel were on together. Thankfully, both on satellite from different locations. 

I enjoy the news value and especially the more international perspective than we usually see on US news programs. 

I am not a big fan of Christiane's interview style. She often comes across as agreeing with her guests rather than being objective. That can lead to some softball questions. She can be tougher but also may apologize before asking the tough question. 

Overall, I like getting the information and the international flavor. It is not yet a real substitute for Charlie Rose.

The program has only been on the air for a little over two months, so there is plenty of time for improvement. I'll continue to watch, at least for now. My grade after two months is a C+.

wjh

Very Random Thoughts - February 2018

• Easy Open is not necessarily true.
• Remember when you would read the morning paper or watch The Today Show and you were done with the news until Walter Cronkite came on that evening? Now it is a fulltime job.
• It is way past time to stop the Groundhog Day nonsense.
• How pissed are those Florida stone crabs? Every couple of years some guy comes along and cuts off their claw(s).
• When did laundry detergents begin advertising during the Super Bowl? Tide and Persil.
• God/Jesus still does not care who won the Super Bowl, or any other sporting event. 
• I was going to order a BLT the other day, but I didn't know how to pronounce it.
• The older I get, the longer winter seems to last. 
• Whatever happened to all the private detective shows on TV? They've gone the way of the westerns.
• When someone says, "I'm not bragging but...". They are definitely bragging.
• Until Google allows an individualized wake word for the Google Assistant devices, no TV commercials should be allowed to say "Hey Google" or "OK Google. When they do, my phone, tablet, and Home wake up and talk to me. Scary.  
• Oxymoron. There is a National Prayer Breakfast Dinner.
• Paraphrase - at the end of the Super Bowl as Brady's Hail Mary pass went incomplete, Al Michaels said: "once again the Super Bowl ends on the last play". I'm wondering when Super Bowls usually end?
• Just because one side accuses the other of being hypocritical doesn't preclude them from being hypocritical too. 
• I got an email from Spotify with the following message: The hits that soundtracked your days at school are here: stream a playlist now for a walk back in time. I clicked the link just to see what it was. Turns out Spotify thinks I went to school in the 70's. I'm feeling a little younger now.
• Does it bother the hell out of you that you pay $10 to see a movie and then have to sit through 15 or 20 minutes of previews and ads before the feature starts? Me too.
• I'm too old to put my tongue on a frozen flagpole, but I sometimes forget to completely dry my hands before I grab some ice cubes. 
• I had to date something, so I looked on my computer to see what the correct date was. It was my birthday. You would think I could remember that date.
• At what age, if ever, can you call your parents friends by their first name? 
• Why are the police officers assigned to schools called "resource officers"? 
• Basketball is often referred to as round ball. How does that specify basketball? Aren't almost all balls are round except a football and rugby ball.

wjh