I would like you to ask Jim Lehrer about the narrowness of his lens. He never has peace activists on his show though he has military people on. (If he says the military peole aren't political, merely do strategy, please refer him to the expose in the NYT on this subject.) He doesn't have environmentalists on the show though he has corporate leaders who pollute. Why such a narrow lens? Does he think that his policy has had an impact on the voter, on the decision to go to war? Does he feel that he bers any responsibility for the US decision to go to war? His "insider" approach is very frustrating for many of us to watch his show. I have written the Newshour numerous times on this subject but never received a response, which under the circumstances I am describing, should be no surprise. As a result of his elitism my family gives money to KBDI, not KRMA. We congratulate KBDI for doing more to inform us all. 

Cheryl:

We certainly appreciate your enthusiam for our news and informational programming. We continuously try to provide a counterpoint for what is available elsewhere in the media landscape. Counting on our loyal viewers for feedback, comments, and contributions literally keep us going, and for this I cannot thank you enough.

Cheers!

I was please to hear a few seconds devoted to the question of population growth as it relates to climate change. The UN has pinned the cause of climate change on people yet one rarely hears anything about this major part of the problem. How can we achieve any net reduction in green house gas emissions in the U.S. at the same time as our population is doubling again by the end of this century? It will be like swimming upstream to expect that technical measures alone will be able to achieve any significant improvement in the total emissions given unfettered population growth. According to the UN, the annual per capita output of carbon pollutants in the U.S. is 20 metric tons. If we add another 300 million people, that will add 6 billions more tons of those pollutants every year. It would take a 50% reduction in the current output per capita just to stay even as we double our population. I suggest this would be an excellent topic for a full program's discussion sometime in the future. If you are interested, I would be glad to suggest some authorities who might be willing to participate. It is not just the environment that concerns me. It is the fact that most natural resources are finite. The mathematical concept of a "limit" is a useful way of looking at this. The limit of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. The question is how far down that road do we want to go.