Chabot College TV needs proper funds
The city of Alameda receives funds from the Public, Educational and Government-access and the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act every quarter to be used to serve the public for viewing local happenings on TV. Local events are shown by independent producers through Chabot College media center, which is also for the development of educational, entertainment and communications fields.
The City of Alameda has received more than $200,000 in PEG funds and not made any contributions benefiting college broadcasting to the Alameda public of the work of Alameda producers.
For 12 years in the city of Alameda, I created television programs of ethnic cultural groups and artists that were underrepresented in commercial television. These videos are cultural and educational treasures from the '70s and '80s, and a community service. I produced these shows with volunteer production crews, trained when Alameda had public access stations, before the DIVCA, which eliminated all local public access stations for regional ones.
Chabot is one of the regional centers. Chabot College is the only institution known to me with a three-fourths inch tape deck to convert these tapes to DVDs, for broadcast on their Educational Channel 27 and 28, which are the public access channels Chabot operates that serve the city and people of Alameda.
An intern at Chabot College media center was in the process of converting these tapes for broadcast, but is no longer here due to the lack of funds that the media center at the college was to receive, which are channeled through the city of Alameda.
As an artist-producer, who devoted these many years of public service for these shows, this is extremely frustrating to me personally, and I feel it is unjust to Alameda producers, myself and others and gravely unfair to students desiring a communications education for the city to not give from these funds to Chabot College to continue their services to Alameda and communications department education. I have a media certification in communications, and I realize the great value of this. I am joining others in asking that a portion of the PEG/DIVCA be granted to Chabot College without further delay.
Gun control domain of states, not Feds
I agree with the statement in the Aug. 16 letter, "Anti-NRA people totally brainwashed," that they may wish to read the First Amendment in this regard. I agree, but for a different reason.
One needs to read the discussions of the First Congress (1789) debate on arms and militias. This records the draft amendment discussions and final approval of the Second Amendment. It is available online. The first point is that nowhere in the discussion, draft amendment or anywhere does it refer to anyone being able to "bear arms." History shows that during the Battle of Independence a few years earlier, Congress felt that although the 13 colonies' militias preformed well during battles with the British, that it was necessary to have a more coordinated effort.
In 1774, Congress approved the formation of a unified continental army to fight the British. George Washington, who was a colonel in the Virginia militia at the time, was called upon and was appointed commander-in-chief despite objections voiced by some of the colonies who were concerned about losing control of their own militias.
Following the Declaration of Independence and the enactment of the 1787 Constitution, the colonies were determined to keep their own militias and considered it a blow to freedom for the government to have a standing army. The result, after many draft proposals between the House and Senate, was the Second Amendment.
Some earlier drafts included "but no person religious scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service." Each able-bodied man was required to have a firearm which was kept at his home and therefore ready to act when called upon. As I have stated, there is no record about anyone being able to bear arms, but it is clear that able-bodied men should not be deprived of the right to bear arms.
Much more could be said, but the Congressional record speaks for itself. The militia is the subject of the somewhat awkward wording of the Second Amendment. No doubt it was the product of committee work.
As militias have been replaced by state national guards, it could be said with some truth that the Second Amendment is now redundant. It is up to the individual States to enact their own gun control laws and not the central government.