Falwell challenged on anti-Clinton tapes – Jerry Falwell

July 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm · Filed under Uncategorized


Evangelist Tony Campolo, a supporter of President Clinton, has demanded time on Jerry Falwell’s Old Time Gospel Hour to rebut accusations about Clinton’s personal and political behavior made in a video Falwell is selling on his religious broadcast. “You have challenged the president of the United States to respond to the charges and issues raised in the video,” Campolo, a Philadelphia based Baptist minister and professor at Eastern College in St. Davids, Pennsylvania, said in a january 23 letter to Falwell.”as his [Clinton's] personal friend I am asking you to allow me time on your TV show to respond to these charges.”

Mark DeMoss, a Falwell spokesman, indicated that Falwell would reject the request and said “Campolo should take issue with the people who made the video, who appear in the video-not with Falwell, who is only one of dozens of people distributing the video.”

Campolo, well-known preacher in evangelical and mainline Protestant circles, is especially popular among youth groups. He developed a leadership program for poor urban teenagers that Clinton praised in his 1994 State of the Union speech. Fallwell best known as founder of the now-defunct Moral Majority and as a television preacher, is a harsh critic of the president’s personal morality and political policies.

“It is Bill Clinton’s attempt to dupe the religious public while performing as the most radical left-wing president ever to sit in the Oval Office that really upsets thinking Christians,” Falwell told the Washington Times last September. Falwell has promoted and offered for sale on his program two anti-clinton videos-”clinton’s Circle of Power” and “The Clinton Chronicles,” produced by a California-based group, Citizens for Honest Government. The videos, which sell for $40 a set, make a number of unsubstantiated charges about Clinton’s personal and political life.

Among the allegations: that Clinton, before gaining the White House, was involved in a series of mysterious deaths in Arkansas, was hooked on cocaine and was part of an international drug-smuggling operation. In addition, Clinton’s wife, Hillary, is accused-without proof-of having had sexual relations with Vincent Foster, a longtime Clinton friend who committed suicide while serving as a White House legal adviser.

Falwell did not produce the videos nor has he said he believes the allegations. Appearing on CNN’S Crossfire in early May, when the controversy over the vidoes first erupted, Falwell acknowledged that he had no evidence to back up the charges. But he insisted that Clinton has a responsibility to answer them. Falwell aired portions of the tapes on The Old Time Gospel Hour in April and August of 1994, and the ministry continues to sell them.

DeMoss defended the sales at that time: “It is not for jerry Falwell to say whether any of the charges are true or false, but they ought to be covered, and people can make decisions. I think all that Falwell wants is people to take an honest look.”

Campolo stated in a news release that he challenged Falwell to provide air time for a rebuttal because Falwell’s “effective preaching of the gospel gives him a legitimacy that leads people to accept anything he says as unquestioned truth.” Christians “ought Dot to be spreading rumors if we can’t prove they’re true,” Campolo said. “It becomes essential that we as evangelicals hold each other accountable for what we say and do.

“It is absolutely vital that we separate evangelism from political ideology,” he added. “The gospel is neither Republican nor Democratic.” He said Falwell has sold about 40,000 sets of the two tapes.

Leave a Comment

Pennsylvania Bio Applauds PA House of Representatives for Launching Life Sciences Caucus; Bi-Partisan Caucus to Be Led by Representatives Eachus, Reichley, Stetler and Turzai

February 19, 2008 at 9:55 pm · Filed under Bioscience, Industry, government


PHILADELPHIA — Fritz Bittenbender, president of Pennsylvania Bio, the statewide trade association representing Pennsylvania’s biosciences community, today praised the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for forming a bi-partisan life sciences caucus, which will be co-chaired by Representatives Todd Eachus (D-116), Doug Reichley (R-134), Stephen Stetler (D-95), and Mike Turzai (R-28). The announcement by the House of Representatives was made at the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s 2005 International Conference in Philadelphia.

The life sciences caucus will address policy issues of importance to the biotechnology and life sciences industry in Pennsylvania.

“This is a very important industry to the Commonwealth and we applaud this move by the Pennsylvania House of Representatives to create a forum to take up the issues that the industry faces as it continues to grow and thrive in Pennsylvania,” said Bittenbender. “With nearly 84,000 Pennsylvanians employed by the more than 2,000 bioscience and directly related companies in the Commonwealth, this industry is integral to Pennsylvania’s economic future. Most importantly, though, the companies and research institutions in Pennsylvania are working every day to help people live better, healthier lives by uncovering treatments for conditions for which today there is no cure. Pennsylvania Bio looks forward to working with these talented caucus co-chairs and House members who join this caucus.”

“Bio 2005 provides the world’s top biotechnology experts the opportunity to meet and learn about new trends in their industry, and is also an opportunity for lawmakers to hear firsthand from technology leaders about the issues that directly affect and impact them,” said Speaker of the House John M. Perzel (R-Philadelphia). “It is my goal to have the members of the life sciences caucus work with these experts to see how we can make Pennsylvania an even better place for biotechnology and life sciences companies to do business.”

The Commonwealth is widely recognized as a policy leader in innovative programs that will support the development of therapies, devices, diagnostics and vaccines to treat patients who suffer from debilitating conditions. In 2001, through the tobacco settlement legislation, Pennsylvania created three regionally based life sciences greenhouses, which have become a national model for state funding of early-stage risk capital in the life sciences; a venture program investing $60 million in venture capital investments specifically for the life sciences that is yielding a 3-to-1 private sector match for the Commonwealth’s commitment; and the Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement (CURE) Program that supports R&D projects at Pennsylvania’s world-class research institutions. Pennsylvania recently expanded the R&D tax credit, adding a tradability provision, and has implemented other initiatives that will help sustain the growth of the life sciences industry.

Leave a Comment

Personal exposure to the pollution controversy

February 6, 2008 at 9:06 am · Filed under pollution

Recently, while surfing the Web, I entered the name of my hometown, Elrama, Pennsylvania, a metropolis with a total population of 903 people. Lo and behold, up comes a picture of 536 white crosses, placed by Greenpeace, on the little league baseball field in this small town. They are protesting deaths probably due to pollution from the coal-fired plants and other polluting industries so ubiquitous in the western Pennsylvania of older times. They have chosen this small town as the first of a number of public reminders in the Pittsburgh area. Part of that baseball field covered my garden, which in 1950 was a 12-year-old’s attempt at breaking into major farming. The picture includes at least four high-tension electrical towers, and a coal-fired, smoke-belching plant that produces electricity. It sits on the west bank of the Monongahela River, about 15 miles south of Pittsburgh and five miles from a town of more infamy called Donora, where some of my family worked, and my parents regularly shopped. Donora is famous for an inversion-layer-induced smog that trapped the smoke from a zinc processing plant, along with additional steel smelting plants in the area. The smog during that December hindered driving, and operating a motor vehicle was prohibited because of added pollution. The local football game between Donora and neighboring Monongahela was unique to say the least, since kickoffs and punts were lost to the players and fans alike.

The Donora smog occurred in 1948 and is said to have killed 20 citizens, sickened 7,000 people, and according to researcher and epidemiologist, Dr. Devra Davis, probably contributed to lifelong disability and ill health for many thousands more. Dr. Davis, whose website is www.whensmokeranlikewater.com, was raised in the town of Donora. Her recent text, also entitled, When Smoke Ran Like Water, is an interesting read on exposure and corporate malfeasance, such as adding tetraethyl lead to the gasoline in this country, and then admittedly using a female spokesperson named Ethyl to quell any concerns of personal harm to the populace.

Her text describes the disaster that struck Donora and also references the great London killer smog in 1952. One anecdote relates one resident’s inability to find his house because of the smog. He finally heard the tapping cane of a blind man, who took him to his home. London citizens, as well as those of Donora, literally could not see their feet or their hands stretched out in front of them. Even theaters were closed since the smog permeated the auditoriums. That famous inversion layer over London killed an estimated 12,000 citizens. They only realized the extent of the disaster when undertakers ran out of coffins, and florists ran out of flowers.

Being well-versed in scientific research involving the environment, Dr. Davis was requested by Senator Inouye of Hawaii to provide an explanation for why he “got sick” every time he flew non-stop from Hawaii to Washington, D.C. Her assessment of the air quality in the aircraft for such a long trip suggested that the air the passengers breathed left a lot to be desired. That research resulted in media exposure for Dr. Davis and her very capable work. Other authors suggested everything from inactivity, altitude, less oxygen, and jet lag as major factors that may cause ill health coincident with long aircraft flights.

My personal entry into this story revolves around statements from my mother about how I was carried around on a pillow until I was five years old. Some undetermined malady kept me in dire straits as a child, with symptom residuals that extend throughout my lifetime. I was finally seen by a Dr. McClusky in Pittsburgh, who apparently had an alternative healing bent. He advised my mother to massage me each night with castor oil. She complied, and I recovered. Dr. McClusky called me his “McClusky husky” and complimented my mother for her diligence in following his directions.

As was typical in those days, in Elrama and elsewhere, my mother cut a lock of my head hair for my baby book, and dated the sample at November of 1939 at six months of age. Recently unearthing this tome revealed the well-preserved lock of hair in place. I immediately rushed it to the laboratory where I am a consultant, and requested an assessment for mineral load.

In line with the history of smog in the greater Pittsburgh area and Donora locally, concomitant with that piece of geography being referred to as the smoggiest city in the world, my hair mineral readings confirm the probable reasons for my childhood ill health. Confirming further this polluting contamination, my mother would tell me of hanging bed sheets out to dry on the clothes line (there were no clothes dryers), and when she was finished with the last sheet, the first one hung out would be dirty. I was born at home, raised in that environment, and this town of Elrama was next to a major coal-fired, steam engine, switching-yard … the Pennsylvania Railroad.

My 1939 heavy/toxic metal readings are as follows:

          MGS%  Parts per million  Optimum

Mercury   0.18   1.8                <.03 MG%
Cadmium   0.12   1.2                <.02 MG%
Aluminum  5.24  52.4               <0.9 MG%
Iron      7.20  72.0               <1.8 MG%
Lead      4.57  45.7               <0.5 MG%

The above results clearly place my young body in a seriously ill category–unbeknownst to the medical establishment at the time–and commonly overlooked today. Iron is a nutritional mineral and a necessary element in the right amount. Excess iron, however, can easily be deadly. Major concerns in Poison Control Centers throughout this country center on children who might swallow four commonly available iron tablets. Death from iron ingestion for a 4- or 5-year-old is a significant possibility. Further complicating the threat is the fact that these tablets resemble M & M chocolate candies.

Further assessments of my nutritional minerals suggest severe adrenal gland “burnout,” along with profound adrenal stress and a marked hyperthyroidism, no doubt an attempt at compensation to the toxic metal overload. As is common in iron toxicity, manganese excess was also noted. I am advised that manganese is now the element of choice replacing lead in the gasoline supply. The presence of manganese as an exhaust factor may yet prove a significant threat to the health of the citizenry. Patients exhibiting the readings that I demonstrated at six months of age are candidates for imminent death, based upon our lab’s experience. The owner of the laboratory expressed wonder that I did not die, considering the severe amount of toxic minerals and the almost total collapse of immune capabilities.

Toxic metal pollution from coal-fired engines, along with steel mills and other metal processing plants is well-documented. These emissions have been proven to release large amounts of mercury and are allegedly the cause of acid rain and mercury-contaminated fish. Two grams of mercury in 20 acres of water render the fish so toxic, they should not be eaten by humans or animals.

Elrama is center-stage in the ongoing efforts of Greenpeace in cleaning up the environment. They are also revisiting my hopes of starting a truck farm. But even then much of the Pennsylvania hillsides adjacent to these plants were rendered devoid of vegetation due to toxic metal emissions. My attempts at cornering the vegetable market would no doubt have been fruitless. I will have to seek other means of making a living.

Leave a Comment

Penn State University’s president promotes newspapers to students

February 5, 2008 at 8:05 am · Filed under 746, Universities, newspapers

President Graham Spanier’s Dailies-In-Dorms program at Pennsylvania State University has brought about a sevenfold increase in newspaper reading.

The president of a major university took action in early 1997 to promote newspaper reading among college students, a subset of the young adult population whose lack of interest in reading newspapers threatens the future of the industry. Graham B. Spanier, president of Pennsylvania State University, commissioned an experiment in promoting newspaper reading in the spring semester,1997, by having the New York Times and the Centre Daily Times, the local daily newspaper, delivered free Monday through Friday to all rooms in three co-educational residence halls occupied by 940 students at the University Park main campus. In the fall semester, 1997, the newspapers-in-dormitories program was widened to all main campus residence halls, which house 13,000 students, and 4,000 students who live in residence halls at eight of Penn State’s branch campuses served by daily newspapers: Altoona, Pittsburgh, Erie, Harrisburg, Reading, Hazelton and Waynesboro.

A third newspaper, USA Today, also a national newspaper, was made a part of the program on the nine campuses. All students were assessed a fee of $5 per semester as part of their room and board bill for the services and the three newspapers were made available for pickup throughout the building along with the Penn State University student newspaper, the Daily Collegian. Bill Asbury, vice president for student affairs, said that the papers were placed in convenient spots near dormitory elevators and in dormitory lobbies, noting that the Daily Collegian, which receives a $200,000 annual subsidy from the university, would benefit from improved distribution points.1

In justifying the innovation, President Spanier, who first publicly discussed the concept of widespread newspaper availability in dormitories in the winter of 1996, stated “It’s clear through this experiment that newspaper readership can have a positive impact on the lives of our students.” He added that the students’ use of newspapers will be monitored and adjusted according to the students’ preferences. “We are prepared to make as many newspapers available as students want.”

Spanier claimed that Penn State was the first major university to begin this type of program. “It is critical that college students have an understanding of the world, both local and international, where they will soon go out to live, have jobs and raise families. Reading a daily newspaper is a perfect way to gain a better understanding of that world.” Spanier noted that he backed the program for competitive reasons because his university strives for excellence in competition with other institutions of higher education because he believes it will “improve the quality of the undergraduate experience” at Penn State?

Studies show college students avoid newspapers

Thirty years ago 60 percent of young adults (18-to-29-year-olds) read a daily newspaper every day; now that figure has dropped to 25 percent or below.3 The No. 1 problem in the daily newspaper industry is the continued hemorrhage of young-adult readers. One newspaper that has resisted that tide is USA Today, the national newspaper founded in 1982. The average age of its six to seven million daily readers is about 40 years while the typical daily newspaper’s reader is more likely to average 50 years. USA Today has been described as the daily newspaper best able to relate to young adults.4

The indication that newspapers were losing their young adult readers began appearing in newspaper-industry publications more than two decades ago. Ernest Larkin, Gerald Grotta and Philip Stout reported that newspapers were having trouble appealing to young adults.5 The study stated that 21-to-34year-olds were not nearly as interested in reading newspapers as their parents.5 The newspaper industry did not like this rebuke of its supremacy over all age brackets. Seventeen months later John P. Robinson reported that more young people read newspapers than watched television news.6

A 1979 study replicating Larkin, Grotta, and Stout’s research compared the interest level of young adults in two competing publications – the Marion, Ohio Star, a daily newspaper, and Marion News-Life, a twice weekly free circulation newspaper. Both papers had a penetration rate of 90 percent among 21-to-34-year olds, but the News-Life outranked the Star in 5 of 10 value words (accurate, economical, easy-to-use, relaxing and less old-fashioned) and tied it in 2 (ethical and not biased), while the Star rated higher in 3 (informative, essential and helpful). The study, published in 1983, concluded that “there is no strong sentiment among 21-34s that a daily newspaper is vital to their lives.7

Four years later, John K. Hartman postulated that USA Today was the best model for winning back young adult readers because it kept its stories short, used color and flashy graphics, heavily covered entertainment and sports, and maintained an upbeat tone as compared with the more somber and bad-news filled traditional daily newspapers.8 Hartman described young adults as follows: “What we have is a TV generation, people who grew up with a TV by their crib, maybe even a color TV. The average scene on TV changes every three seconds. These people like it quick, they like it flashy, they tend toward a newspaper with quick cuts. They don’t want to hunt for information. And they like to be entertained while they are informed. They like it non-linear.”9

Meanwhile, newspaper researcher Christine Urban in 1987 came out with her Rule of Two study to explain the differences between readers by age. She found that persons under age 35 were twice as likely as persons over 35 to not read newspapers, to spend less than 15 minutes reading newspapers if they picked one up, half as likely to subscribe to a newspaper and twice as likely to be occasional readers even if they subscribed. Urban reported that under-35s found newspapers dull and not written to address their interests. What would under-35s like in a newspaper? Urban listed the following: reviews, consumer news, advice, trends, better layout and packaging promotions guiding them to stories of interests to young adults, more personality, and creativity.10

A top newspaper executive, Burl Osborne, was even blunter, stating that studies showed that if people don’t get the newspaper habit by the age 20, they never get it. He pointed out that young adults were not getting married, having kids, buying a house, and holding a steady job – all predictors of newspaper reading.11

Knight-Ridder Newspapers, the second largest newspaper chain in the country behind Gannett, weighed in on the loss of young adult readership in 1989 when it began its 25/43 Project. The Boca Raton, Florida News was converted into a young-adult friendly publication after extensive research under the direction of editor Lou Heldman, Jr., who by 1997 was the publisher of the Centre Daily Times, one of three daily newspapers being made widely available to Penn State dormitory residents. Heldman wrote in 1989 that focus groups of young adults wanted information applicable to their lives and quick access to that information, that women wanted data on family and relationships and that men wanted consumer information.12

The Los Angeles Times’ Center for People and the Press (Times Mirror, 1990) reported that young adults reading the newspaper every day plummeted to 20 percent in 1990, from 67 percent in 1965. The center characterized young adults as a generation that “knows less, cares less and reads newspapers less.”13 Hartman labeled them as Citizen Lite.14

Studies reported in 1992 continued to show declining readership among young adults, especially those in the 18-24 bracket, which included most undergraduate college students. The Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press reported that only 23 percent of 21-24s said they read a newspaper the day before.ls Edward D. Miller cited a News Inc. study that only 27 percent of 18-34s read a newspaper every day, while Curtis Gans of the Committee for the Study of the Electorate said that 67 percent of 18-24s do not read newspapers, leaving 33 percent who do.16 Margaret Carter (1993) reported a gender gap among 1824s with men 12.5 percent more likely to read newspapers than women, according to a Simmons Market Research Bureau study.17

A discrepancy emerged in 1994 over exactly what was being asked. Simmons reported that 52 percent of 18-24s read a daily newspaper “on an average weekday,” while the National Opinion Research Center reported that for the years 1990 to 1993 only 26 percent of 18-29s read a daily newspaper “every day” compared to 48 percent from 1972 to 1975 inclusive.18 Guido H. Stemple III and Thomas Hargrove found in a 1995 study that 52 percent of those under 35 read a daily newspaper four or more days a week.19

In 1996 a Yankelovich Partners researcher found that about 40 percent of 16-29s read a daily newspaper “occasionally or regularly,” while about 25 percent never read a newspaper.20 Charles D’Oyly of Yankelovich Partners put it succinctly: “…Generation X reads newspapers to a lesser degree than any other generation.”21

Method tested in three dorms Beginning in January, 1997, free copies of the New York Times and the Centre Daily Times were delivered to 550 rooms occupied by 940 students in three dormitories at Penn State’s University Park campus. Students also could pick up free copies of the Daily Collegian at drop points in their dorms and elsewhere across campus. Questionnaires were prepared under the direction of Betty L. Moore of the Research and Assessment office of Student Affairs, and administered to the 940 students in January 1997, when the first issues of newspapers were delivered, and again in April 1997, during the last week of classes.

A control group was created and surveyed in two other dormitories. The number of students who responded was 406 in January and 533 in April. Additional data were gained from individual interviews, discussions with small focus groups and responses to open-ended questions on the second survey. The final survey found that newspapers were cited by 82 percent as a means of learning the news, followed by television, 72 percent; magazines, 58 percent; radio, 46 percent and online, 29 percent. Eighty percent said they would rather have a printed copy of a newspaper compared to 20 percent who preferred online.22

The experimental group spent more time reading the two daily newspapers and less time with the campus newspaper over 15 weeks. Centre Daily Times readership rose from 3 percent to 31 percent, the New York Times readership rose from 8 percent to 27 percent, and the Daily Collegian readership fell from 69 percent to 60 percent. The control group’s readership was 8 percent, 6 percent and 62 percent, respectively. Other papers read by members of the experimental group in April,1997, were: Philadelphia Inquirer, USA Today and Wall Street Journal, 3 percent each; Washington Post, 2 percent; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Christian Science Monitor, 1 percent each.23

In the April survey, students in the control and experimental groups, respectively, gave the following reasons for not reading a newspaper: lack of time, 65 percent for control group and 78 percent for the experimental group; cost, 49 percent and 40 percent; don’t like to read, 22 and 10; get news elsewhere, 45 and 33; too much advertising,28 and 12; don’t like editorial stance, 35 and 10; reports have hidden agenda, 34 and 15; not in habit of reading newspapers, 43 and 36; don’t believe information printed, 22 and 8; not interested, 38 and 23; newspapers not read at home, 22 and 11.

Thirty-five percent of the students said that “reading a newspaper this semester had contributed to their classroom learning,” while 46 percent said “newspaper readership had contributed to their overall general education at Penn State.” Students from the control group were more likely to agree with the latter statement. Moore concluded, “It is apparent that making newspapers easily accessible increases readership among college students. The relationship between newspaper readership and impact on educational outcomes is generally positive, but requires more study.24

Research conducted in September 1997 by Moore found the Daily Collegian was read “often or daily” by 64 percent of the 672 University Park students responding, while USA Today was read by 38 percent, the New York Times, by 18 percent, and the Centre Daily Times by 16 percent. This shows a small decline in the readership of the student newspaper from 69 percent in spring 1997, and increases in the readership of USA Today, 4 percent; the New York Times, 8 percent; and the Centre Daily Times, 3 percent. The latter figures are skewed by the fact that the latter two papers were made widely available in three dormitories in the spring while USA Today was not. Most importantly for the newspaper industry, roughly five times more students were regularly reading daily newspapers in the fall than in the spring. Removing the three experimental dorm situations, there would probably be six to seven times more dorm-dwelling students reading daily newspapers in fall 1997 than a year before.25

Bill Mahon, Penn State’s director of public information, said that a study done in the first week of November 1997 found that nearly 40,000 papers were picked up each week by students on the University Park campus. He reported that 14,200 copies of USA Today were taken, followed by 11,000 copies of the Daily Collegian (noting that thousands of other copies of the student newspaper are picked up for free elsewhere on campus), 7,500 of the Centre Daily Times; and 6,800 of New York Times. Dividing each of the preceding numbers by five would result in average daily distribution of, 2,840,2,200,1,500, and 1,360, respectively.26

William Pollak, executive vice president of circulation of the New York Times, said that about 2,500 copies of his newspaper were being made available on the University Park campus and about 90 percent were being picked up by students and that the number made available had gone up by more than 500 since the beginning of the semester. He said that the Times sells 100,000 copies a day on college campuses and was selling 950 daily at Penn State before the program began. It is now selling 450 daily, which, added to the papers it is distributing in the dailies-in-dorms program, resulted in a net gain of 1,500 to 2,000 students regularly reading the Times. He said the high level of interest that Penn State students were displaying confirmed his belief that the Times had a significant appeal to young adults and that students will read newspapers if made easily available and if they are shown the benefits of newspapers. He said the Penn State program creates a model that should be implemented around the country and that the university has dealt effectively with all the issues that might prevent such a program. He noted that for decades West Point Military Academy has required all its students to read the Times and that Tufts University has instituted a program to make the New York Times widely available to its students. Pollak said he believed that a national implementation of the Penn State program is the “most important thing” newspapers can do to reverse the decline in readership among young adults.”

Lou Heldman, Jr., publisher of the Centre Daily Times, a seven mornings a week Knight-Ridder newspaper with a daily circulation of about 33,000, said the demand for his newspaper exceeded the supply at the beginning, causing the supply to be increased by approximately 300 copies each on the highest demand days, Monday and Friday. He said draws were adjusted daily and returns averaged 5-10 percent. Heldman strongly believed that making newspapers widely available to college students would increase the likelihood that students will get and keep the newspaper reading habit after graduation and that, if rolled out nationally, the dailies-in-dorms program might reverse three-decade-long slide in young-adult newspaper readership.28

Gerry Hamilton, general manager at the Daily Collegian, said that being in the middle of this experimental program had made his job more interesting and more challenging. His paper is what is commonly known as an independent student newspaper. It distributes 20,000 copies free on campus and sells about 200 copies off campus each weekday. It distributes 6,350 copies to residence halls and dining areas each weekday. The rest were available for pickup at other campus locations. Returns averaged about 3 percent, according to Hamilton. The paper increased its press run to 20,200 when the newspapersin-dormitories program was inaugurated, about 5,000 more than required by its contract with the university. He stated that it would be hard to oppose a national program built on the Penn State model, but at Penn State he believed that the Daily Collegian “has been training college students to read newspapers for 100 years.” He would not speculate as to whether Penn State students exposed to this program would be more likely to become newspapers readers in the future than students in the past.29

Conclusions and recommendations

Though his intention was to develop more enlightened students and prepare them for the future by making daily newspapers widely available in residence halls, Penn State’s Spanier may have discovered the formula for reversing the 30-year decline in young-adult newspaper reading. The daily newspapers-in-dormitories program that was implemented fully in Penn State housing in the fall of 1997 has resulted in a sevenfold increase in the number of students reading a daily newspaper, while the readership of the student newspaper has fallen only about 5 percent. Nearly 29,000 copies of USA Today, the Centre Daily Times, and the New York Times are being read each week by Penn State hall residents compared to an estimated 4,000 a year earlier. This amounts to about 5,000 additional daily newspaper readers (Monday through Friday) in fall 1997, compared to a year earlier. It proves that college students, a subset of young adults, will read daily newspapers if they are literally put in their hands through wide distribution and a nominal charge.

Will the Penn State students exposed to daily newspapers through the program be more likely to be newspaper readers in later life? If the newspapersin-dormitories program was implemented nationwide to millions of students over a period of years, would it result in an upturn in the young-adult readership statistic, reversing a 30-rear decline? Will the Penn State students exposed to daily newspapers through the program be better informed and more successful adults? Would university students nationally be better informed and more successful adults for having been exposed to the program? It is too early to tell the answers to these questions.

Is the program’ worth a try? Absolutely.

Not since the invention of USA Today September15, 1982, has there been such a promising approach to reversing the ebbing tide of young-adult readership. Subtract the circulation and readership of USA Today, which indexes high with young adults, and the overall daily newspaper picture of young-adult attraction would be even worse. USA Today’s attraction to college students is borne out by its commanding lead over the Centre Daily Times and the New York Times and slight lead over the Daily Collegian in the dailies-indorms program. This is more evidence that USA Today is the model of the newspaper of the future that attracts young adults while traditional dailies struggle to appeal to them.

There are many related issues that deserve further study: First, longitudinal studies should be made over a decade or more of the impact of newspapers-in-dormitories programs at Penn State and elsewhere.

Second, longitudinal studies should be made of the effect of the program on participating newspapers’ websites. This may be the way for newspapers to get a leg up on broadcast, cable, and magazine website competitors as well as on other online competitors by introducing students to and promoting newspaper websites through the print product and vice versa.

Third, studies should be made of newspaper and website use differences among college students by gender and race. Off-campus dwellers should be surveyed, too.

Fourth, studies should be made of the ramifications for college newspapers of the arrival of off-campus competition in the dormitories. The college newspapers, most of whom enjoy a monopoly in advertising and readership, may have to revamp their marketing, distribution, advertising, editorial and website operations in the face of stiffer competition.

Fifth, the New York Times’ lack of appeal to college students and young adults compared to USA Today’s strong appeal should lead to studies of how the Times can maintain its traditions of journalistic excellence and still appeal to the MTV generation through both its print and online versions.

Sixth, studies of community dailies in university towns, such as KnightRidder’s Centre Daily Times should be undertaken for ways that these dailies can use to penetrate the college marketplace.

Seventh, USA Today’s proven appeal to college students, as shown by its readership parity with the student newspaper among dorm residents, needs to be explored in the context of its already demonstrated strong appeal to young adults. Few college newspapers have adopted USA Today’s format and content. Should other daily newspapers do so if they want to increase their appeal to students and ward off competition from local dailies and websites? The role of USA Today’s website in all this should be explored, too.

Eighth, a newspaper battleground that includes representatives of the two largest newspaper chains, Gannett (through its flagship newspaper) and Knight-Ridder, and the flagship of the New York Times Co. demands study.

Leave a Comment

In Pennsylvania, its tough times for beer

February 3, 2008 at 5:00 am · Filed under alcohol, beer, food


AP–Brewers, wholesalers and distributors in Pennsylvania are crying in their beer these days.

Beer sales edged down 1.3 percent the first six months this year compared with the same period a year ago, following an even bigger drop from 2002 to 2003, Pennsylvania state tax receipts show.

While the industry nationwide is as flat as a day-old glass of lager, some of Pennsylvania’s beer purveyors say they are struggling just to survive.

Changing tastes are partly to blame, they say, along with the low-carb diet craze. But some in the industry also fault 70-year-old state rules that prohibit distributors from opening on Sundays, and limit them to selling cases and kegs.

When it comes to selling beer, “Pennsylvania is in a world by itself,” said Harry Schumacher, editor and publisher of Beer Business Daily.

Last week, national brewers, in tandem with the Pennsylvania Beer Wholesalers Association, started a group called Modernize Our Beer Laws, or MOBL, to push legislation to revamp the way beer is sold in the Keystone State.

They have an ally in Sen. Joe Conti, R-Bucks, chairman of the Senate committee that handles liquor control issues. Conti said there is near unanimous support among committee members to allow distributors to open on Sundays, adding that legislation would be introduced in early November.

“We haven’t done anything for the beer consumer in Pennsylvania in decades, and that feeling is making its way through the Legislature,” Conti said.

The prospects for passage in the full House and Senate are uncertain. But Jay Goldstein, president of the wholesalers association and MOBL’s spokesman, said there is more enthusiasm for change among lawmakers than at any time in the past 20 years.

Pennsylvania’s crazy-quilt rules for selling beer, which date to 1934, are among the most restrictive in the nation. Convenience stores and supermarkets are prohibited from selling beer; taverns and sandwich shops may sell six-packs, but prices there are usually high; and distributors are limited to selling cases and kegs, six days a week.

“It’s ridiculous,” said George Gardner, 34, who was buying a case of Milwaukee’s Best at a South Philadelphia distributor last week. “I’d love to be able to buy beer on a Sunday.”

Industry officials argue the restrictions cause “border bleed”–customers from the heavily populated Pittsburgh and Philadelphia areas illegally crossing into Ohio, Delaware and New Jersey to buy beer. They point to the experience of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which enjoyed a sales surge after making itself more consumer-friendly–including opening dozens of its wine and liquor stores on Sundays.

Augie Guarneri, manager of Chappy’s Beer Butts and Bets, is all for changing the rules. The South Philadelphia distributor is a stone’s throw from Lincoln Financial Field, home of the Eagles and the place where thousands of tailgating football fans drink beer every Sunday. As it stands now, Chappy’s is dark on what could be a very lucrative day.

“They take this path to go to the stadium,” Guarneri said. “It would benefit us tremendously.”

But not everyone is on board with MOBL, whose members include Anheuser-Busch, Miller and Coors, the nation’s three largest brewers.

Some of the state’s small and mid-sized breweries are suspicious of the group’s agenda, worrying that its ultimate goal is to win approval to sell beer in supermarkets–and ultimately in places such as Costco and Wal-Mart. That would give the big brewers a competitive advantage by allowing them to slash prices, while at the same time spelling trouble for independent distributors.

“Supermarket sales are something the big brewers would love to see, but if you come in here and open up supermarkets to beer sales, what is going to happen to the 1,300 independent beer distributors?” said David Casinelli, executive vice president of D.G. Yuengling & Son Inc. in Pottsville, home of the nation’s oldest brewery.

MOBL’s Goldstein acknowledged the competing interests, but said Sunday sales are a “no-brainer” that everyone in the industry should be able to support.

“Consumers are no longer satisfied with a law like that,” he said. Yet even some distributors are resistant to opening on Sundays, predicting that would merely shift some of their business from Fridays and Saturdays.

At Cicione Beverage Company, which opened in 1933 and calls itself the oldest beer distributor in Philadelphia, president Vince Cicione said he is opposed to any attempt to allow Sunday beer sales.

“I have a family and I don’t want to work seven days a week,” he said. “Six days is enough.”

Leave a Comment

Reviews — Harrisburg Industrializes: The Coming of Factories to an American Community by Gerald S. Eggert

February 2, 2008 at 4:59 am · Filed under Historical Snooze Fest


Adams, Graham JrHarrisburg Industrializes: The Coming of Factories to an American Community, by Gerald S. Eggert. University Park, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1993. xix, 412 pp. $35.00 U.S.

America’s transition from an agrarian and rural society to an industrial and urban one has always ranked as among the most important themes in U.S. history. Gerald Eggert presents Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as a case study of a medium sized city in the throes of industrialization. In doing so, he challenges several generally accepted ideas regarding the effects of this process.

Located on the east bank of the Susquehanna River, Harrisburg had functioned as a north-south river route since colonial times. It might have remained a relatively obscure farming and trading town had not the Pennsylvania legislature designated it as the state capital in 1810. As a result of its new status, Harrisburg built a solid infrastructure of transportation, banking and public utilities which established a base for further economic development.

Industrialization began in Harrisburg in 1850. The next five years witnessed construction of the first blast furnaces, large rolling mills, a cotton factory, and machine shops. Nature bad provided Harrisburg with substantial deposits of charcoal limestone, and iron, all of which served as essentials for the making of iron products. Forges and foundries sprang up and the introduction of large anthracite furnaces allowed for fabrication of pig iron. The Pennsylvania Railroad, which already dominated Harrisburg’s freight transportation, moved into car manufacture. Five leading families, Baileys, Camerons, Burkes, Haldemans, and McCormicks rose to dominate the city’s economic, social, and political life.

Harrisburg’s strategic location and its role as an important railroad centre enhanced its affluence during the Civil War. Confederate forces moving on Washington, D.C. twice threatened the city while Union troops used Harrisburg as a point of departure for forays into Virginia. Simon Cameron, a leading iron manufacturer and Lincoln’s first secretary of war, channelled lucrative government contracts to many of Harrisburg’s firms including his own.

Harrisburg expanded and prospered for the next twenty years. Railroading iron, and steel led the way along with boiler plate and nail production. With the onslaught of the Panic of 1893, Harrisburg lost several major industries and those that survived never again enjoyed the grow of previous decades; the city did not attract any new businesses. Harrisburg’s leaders blamed competition from the gigantic U.S. Steel Corporation and unfair railroad rates for this economic stagnation. Eggert notes, however, that the city’s entrepreneurs failed to secure control over needed raw materials and displayed a lack of innovative technics. When bituminous coal replaced anthracite, production of iron and steel flowed to Pittsburgh and nearby vicinities. After 1900 the city’s economic base shifted to government administration and services; the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania became Harrisburg’s largest employer.

Eggert disputes the widely held theory that industrialization relentlessly turned skilled independent craftsmen into machine tending wage slaves who had lost control both over their tools and their time. Harrisburg’s gradual conversion to the factory system did not suddenly displace all of its artisans and craftsmen, most of whom continued to pursue their original occupations for many years. Those who left their crafts went into other businesses such as retail shops, clerical work, grocery stores, and politics. Younger workers adapted to modern methods with relative ease. Factory work promised them cash payments, steady employment, except in time of recession, and the camaraderie of shared social activities. Unlike many other American communities, Harrisburg did not receive a flood of immigrants from other nations. Foreign born residents never comprised more than 12 per cent of the city’s population; 75-85 per cent of Harrisburg’s inhabitants were native Pennsylvanians and the city remained free from ethnic strife. Harrisburg’s managers and owners proved sensitive to employee needs and in the few strikes which did occur, management never hired scabs and usually sought compromise rather than confrontation. When labourers complained, they sought a redress of grievances not revolution. Eggert does not consider Harrisburg as unique but finds similar patterns of peaceful evolution in cities such as Trenton, Reading, Albany, and Wilmington. He suggests that this may explain the lack of radicalism and militancy in the American labour movement.

Eggert’s conclusions may apply quite readily to Harrisburg and the other cities under his examination but this does not erase the fact that violent clashes periodically rocked the nation throughout the era of industrialization. The Haymarket Riot, Homestead Strike, Pullman Strike, Coeur d’Alene, Telluride, Wheatlands Hops, Ludlow Massacre, Steel Strike of 1919, and the sit down strikes of the 1930s plus many more testify to the obvious existence of profound social discontent. During the Great Depression, the C.I.O. reinvigorated labour’s militancy if not its radicalism.

Eggert has demonstrated that industrialization did not always generate dark satanic mills, soul destroying drudgery, and violent class hatred. His thoroughly researched and well written study has modified but not replaced the prevailing analysis of the effects of the industrial revolution.

Leave a Comment

PADEP, Governor Honored for Renewable Energy Commitment

February 1, 2008 at 3:58 am · Filed under Energy, government


The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) recently announced that Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future has presented the fourth annual “Green Power: Turn It On! Award” to Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell and PADEP secretary Kathleen McGinty “for their leadership and commitment to Pennsylvania’s renewable energy industry.”

According to PADEP, the state earlier this year increased its green energy purchase to 10 percent of its total usage and launched a $5-million Pennsylvania Energy Harvest Initiative to “help farmers install clean and renewable energy technologies.”

“We appreciate PennFuture’s acknowledgement of the commonwealth’s commitment to renewable energy and the further use of its indigenous resources,” said PADEP Office of Energy and Technology Development deputy secretary Daniel Desmond. “Embracing new technologies will ensure the state realizes dividends in environmental protection, economic growth and energy security. Pennsylvania has the potential to become a national leader in clean energy generation.”

Leave a Comment

Investment In 27 airports announced by PennDOT

January 30, 2008 at 10:04 pm · Filed under airports, government


AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION-(C)1997-2007 M2 COMMUNICATIONS LTD

A sum of almost USD4m in funding to improve safety and upgrade facilities at 27 airports throughout Pennsylvania, US has been announced by PennDOT Secretary Allen D Biehler, PE.

Biehler stated that the funds will be utilised for a range of projects, including runway and taxiway rehabilitation, acquisition of snow removal equipment and maintenance and airport development planning.

PennDOT’s Bureau of Aviation are administering the grants, which are completely funded by revenue from Pennsylvania’s jet fuel tax. The state grants reportedly leverage more than USD1.4m in local matching funds.

Leave a Comment

Allegheny Power Files Rate Petition in Pennsylvania

January 29, 2008 at 9:03 am · Filed under Energy, Inflation, Utilities


GREENSBURG, Pa. — Allegheny Power, the delivery unit of Allegheny Energy, Inc. (NYSE:AYE), today filed with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission for approval to facilitate the recovery of stranded costs and provide rate certainty for its more than 690,000 electric customers in Pennsylvania through an extended transition to competition. The Office of Consumer Advocate, the Office of Small Business Advocate and The West Penn Power Industrial Intervenors joined in the filing.

“We believe this extension of rate caps will provide customer rate protection and a smooth transition to competitive market-based rates,” said Paul J. Evanson, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Allegheny Energy, Inc. “Allegheny hasn’t increased rates in a decade, and our customer rates are among the lowest in Pennsylvania.”

Highlights of the filing include:

–Extension of the distribution rate caps for an additional two years through 2007 for all Pennsylvania retail customers.

–Extension of generation rate caps for an additional two years through 2010, with additional generation rate increases in 2007, 2009 and 2010. Allegheny’s 1998 restructuring agreement previously provided for rate increases in 2006 and 2008. Between the 1998 restructuring agreement and the amended agreement proposed today, average unit rates for residential customers will gradually increase from 6.79 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 2005 to 7.13 cents per kWh in 2006, 7.49 cents per kWh in 2007, 7.86 cents per kWh in 2008, 8.81 cents per kWh in 2009 and 9.09 cents per kWh in 2010.

–Securitization of approximately $115 million of stranded costs.

The new customer rates would enable Allegheny Energy to realize generation prices of approximately $30.10 per megawatt-hour (MWh) for 2005, $32.80 per MWh for 2006, $35.50 per MWh for 2007, $38.30 per MWh for 2008, $46.90 per MWh for 2009 and $50.80 per MWh for 2010 before moving to market prices. Under the current agreement, generation prices are approximately $30.10 per MWh for 2005, $32.80 per MWh for 2006 and 2007 and $35.40 per MWh for 2008 before moving to market prices.

Allegheny’s request will go before an administrative law judge, who will make a recommendation to the Commission for further action.

Headquartered in Greensburg, Pa., Allegheny Energy is an integrated energy company with a portfolio of businesses, including Allegheny Energy Supply, which owns and operates electric generating facilities, and Allegheny Power, which delivers low-cost, reliable electric and natural gas service to about four million people in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, Virginia and Ohio. More information about Allegheny Energy is available at www.alleghenyenergy.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

In addition to historical information, this release contains a number of “forward-looking statements” as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Words such as anticipate, expect, project, intend, plan, believe, and words and terms of similar substance used in connection with any discussion of future plans, actions, or events identify forward-looking statements. These include statements with respect to: regulation and the status of retail generation service supply competition in states served by Allegheny Energy’s delivery business, Allegheny Power; the closing of various agreements; results of litigation; financing plans; demand for energy and the cost and availability of inputs; demand for products and services; capacity purchase commitments; results of operations; capital expenditures; regulatory matters; internal controls and procedures and accounting issues; and stockholder rights plans. Forward-looking statements involve estimates, expectations, and projections and, as a result, are subject to risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that actual results will not materially differ from expectations. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, among others, the following: execution of restructuring activity and liquidity enhancement plans; complications or other factors that render it difficult or impossible to obtain necessary lender consents or regulatory authorizations on a timely basis; general economic and business conditions; changes in access to capital markets; the continuing effects of global instability, terrorism, and war; changes in industry capacity, development, and other activities by Allegheny’s competitors; changes in the weather and other natural phenomena; changes in technology; changes in the price of power and fuel for electric generation; the results of regulatory proceedings, including those related to rates; changes in the underlying inputs, including market conditions, and assumptions used to estimate the fair values of commodity contracts; changes in laws and regulations applicable to Allegheny, its markets, or its activities; environmental regulations; the loss of any significant customers and suppliers; the effect of accounting policies issued periodically by accounting standard-setting bodies; additional collateral calls; and changes in business strategy, operations, or development plans. Additional risks and uncertainties are identified and discussed in Allegheny Energy’s reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Leave a Comment

V-SPAN Named One of the Fastest Growing Technology Companies in Eastern Pennsylvania by Deloitte & Touche’s ‘Fast 50′ Program; V-SPAN Takes Second Place With 16,405% Sales Growth

January 28, 2008 at 6:01 am · Filed under Business, Hype and Fluff


Business Editors/Hi-Tech Writers

KING OF PRUSSIA, Pa.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Sept. 19, 2000

V-SPAN, a leading provider of virtual communication solutions, has been awarded second place in Deloitte & Touche’s “Fast 50″ program for Eastern Pennsylvania, a ranking of the 50 fastest growing technology companies in the area.

Rankings are based on the percentage of growth in revenues from 1995-1999.

“It is a great honor to be recognized as one of the fastest growing technology companies in Eastern, Pennsylvania with a five-year sales growth of 16,405 percent. Our geometric growth is a product of hard work, dedicated employees, unrivaled customer dedication and a flourishing virtual communications industry,” states Ken Hayward, president and founder of V-SPAN.

To qualify for the Fast 50, companies must have had revenues of at least $50,000 in 1995 and at least $1 million in 1999; must be public or private companies headquartered in Eastern Pennsylvania; and be “technology” companies, defined as companies that produce technology, manufacture a technology product, are technologically intensive, use technology in problem-solving or devote a high percentage of effort to research and development of technology.

Winners of the 21 regional Fast 50 programs in the United States are automatically entered into the Deloitte & Touche Technology Fast 500 program, which ranks the nation’s top 500 fastest-growing technology companies. For more information on the Deloitte & Touche Fast 50 or Fast 500 programs, visit the Web site at www.fast50.com.

“Technology as we know it has been part of our lives for less than 50 years, yet it has become a part of our everyday existence. We at Deloitte & Touche salute V-SPAN, whose leaders had the vision and whose staff had the capabilities to keep up with the demands of today’s fast-paced technology marketplace,” said Michael Purcell and Samuel Silvers, Managers of the Fast 50 Program.

About V-SPAN

V-SPAN provides virtual global communications solutions over traditional and next generation networks to corporations, carriers, and ISPs. V-SPAN’s suite of applications and back office network connectivity services enable on-demand multimedia conferencing and streaming for meetings, events and training.

Through its premiere customer service, V-SPAN empowers enterprises to extend their communications reach, reducing business cycles, expanding global presence and maximizing competitive advantages.

V-SPAN’s award-winning services include: broadband gateway connectivity between traditional (ISDN) and new media networks (i.e.: Internet, wireless, cable modems, XDSL, VoIP, POTS & public/private switched), multipoint bridging, videoconference network management, Web-Enhanced Teleconferencing, audioconferencing, Managed Conference Services, Internet streaming, worldwide scheduling & reservations and help desk services.

V-SPAN corporate headquarters is located in King of Prussia, PA with offices worldwide. For additional information about V-SPAN services and unrivaled customer dedication, please contact 888/44V-SPAN or visit our Web site at www.v-span.com.

About Deloitte & Touche

Deloitte & Touche, one of the nation’s leading professional services firms, provides assurance, advisory, tax, and management consulting services through 30,000 people in more than 100 U.S. cities. The firm is dedicated to helping our clients and our people excel.

Known as an employer of choice for its innovative human resources programs, Deloitte & Touche has been recognized as one of the “100 Best Companies to Work for in America” by Fortune magazine for three consecutive years. Deloitte & Touche is part of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, one of the world’s leading professional services firms, with more than 90,000 people in over 130 countries.

For more information, please visit Deloitte & Touche’s Web site at www.us.deloitte.com.

V-SPAN is a service mark of V-SPAN, Inc. All other trademarks and trade names are the property of their respective companies.

Leave a Comment

Older Posts »