Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Who Needs NPR?

Who Needs NPR?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

When you can listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity for free, who needs NPR? It reaches 33 million listeners through its member stations, with its 36 bureaus and offices around the world, and local coverage produced by more than 270 independent NPR member public radio stations across the country. Republicans hate that. In the House of Representatives they voted their conscience, and this tells us everything we need to know. It’s not about the money.

National Public Radio logoFour decades ago, Congress passed and President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967. In his comments about the new law, President Johnson said, “I believe the time has come to enlist the computer and the satellite, as well as television and radio, and to enlist them in the cause of education.” He further prophesied, “Think of the lives that this would change:–the student in a small college could tap the resources of a great university.”

To provide programming not generally available commercially was the idea that congress foresaw at the time. Lawmakers envisioned educational shows and cultural enrichment programs, not to mention informing the electorate through news programming and in-depth analysis of current issues. Another objective was to make such programs available to less affluent Americans and residents of small communities and rural areas.

The law that created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting says, “It is in the public interest for the Federal Government to ensure that all citizens of the United States have access to public telecommunications services through all appropriate available telecommunications distribution technologies.”

However, the prescience of Johnson’s comments and the nobility of the legal language evaporated when a hidden camera captured NPR executive Ron Shiller saying that NPR would be better off without federal funding. But that’s not all. Shiller also ripped into the tea party movement as a bunch of “gun toting racists,” adding “and not just Islamaphobic, but really xenophobic.”

In response, tea party activist Sarah Palin was not on a hidden camera but on Fox when she said NPR needs to be “on the chopping block.” She told her public audience, “NPR, National Endowment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, all those kind of frivolous things that government shouldn’t be in the business of funding with tax dollars — those should all be on the chopping block as we talk about the $14-trillion debt that we’re going to hand to our kids and our grandkids … Yes, those are the type of things that for more than one reason need to be cut.”

The proposal to ban any federal money from going to NPR, including funding through competitive grants from federal agencies and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, passed the House 228 to192. Only seven Republicans voted no and all Democrats present voted against it. The public radio organization gets about $5.4 million a year from the federal government. According to the New York Times, “Most of its $65 million budget comes from fees that local stations pay for its programming.”

The GOP gleefully points to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office report that says the federal budget deficit would be $2.3 trillion higher than the Obama administration had predicted as if that is good news for them. The national debt at the moment is $14.2 trillion. That is 14.2 million millions. The Republican argument that saving $5.4 million by cutting NPR funds is necessary to reduce the deficit is pretty weak. Their arithmetic does not support their action.

The bill is not likely to pass the senate. So the new House majority has succeeded in passing another victorious failure. If, as I suggested, they voted their conscience, they have shown their constituents a troublesome trend of being more interested in appearance than in substance. Successfully losing is not why they were elected. But that is the message they are sending.

Powered by

About Tommy Mack

Tommy Mack began his career in broadcasting and is a US Army graduate of the Defense Information School. He worked in Army Public and Command Information and earned a BS in Liberal Studies from the State University of New York, Albany. A marketing communications executive, Tommy became a business management consultant for a major international consulting company and its affiliates before establishing Tommy Mack Organization, a business consulting practice specializing in organization and communications management. A professional writer and blogger, he writes about politics, business, and culture.
  • http://arsenisms.blogspot.com/ Fat Arse

    I “Need” NPR! As a Canadian who’s been inundated with every aspect of the drivel that spews from the MSM south of my border these past four decades; NPR is one of the few venues that gives me faith and the reassurance I need to believe that there is still, in fact, an American Dream worth lauding and promoting. A dream that deserves to be propagated, a dream worthy of consideration, a national dream to inspire others less fortunate than us to seek not just wealth and power; but a dream that prizes not just freedom – but also truth, equality, fairness, and compassion. In short, a dream that matters. Without NPR the dream will be shortchanged.

  • troll

    Mack is clearly trying to get gun-toting crazed leftists to target house republicans with his npr graphic…whatever happens is on his head

  • Doug Hunter

    Certainly, since we’re $14 Trillion in debt saving anything less that $100 Billion is just spinning your wheels, might as well not even bother cutting it…. geniuses.

    There are 300 million of us, every $300 million of waste is *ONLY* $1 per person and there’s always a good cause or greedy pocket or special interest group or corporate welfare case that could use $300 million. Their interest in getting a third of a billion is more than your interest in defending $1 of debt (that you’ll never actually pay in tax as it will be paid by the Chinese). That’s why we are doomed to monetary collapse.

  • Baronius

    In one sense, every budget conversation other than Medicare/Medicaid reform is just spinning the wheels. Still, any cut of an unnecessary program is a positive thing. Tommy, you fail to make the case that NPR spending is necessary; in fact, on the financial side, you make the opposite case.

    The deeper question is the matter of NPR’s political leaning. You suspect the Republicans’ vote of being motivated by NPR’s content. Do you think NPR is simply to the left of Limbaugh, or do you think that they’re on the left? The Democrats voted as more of a bloc than the Republicans on this one: do you think the Democrats could have been motivated by politics as well? If a magazine were published that nearly every Republican opposed, and every present Democrat favored, wouldn’t you suspect that magazine of being pro-D and anti-R? Would you have any qualms if that magazine were published with your tax dollars?

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    House Republicans held an emergency session on HR 1076, the NPR funding cut. What was the emergency?

    The left politics or right politics argument is referred to as the False Dichotomy Fallacy, which excludes anything in the middle. The majority of NPR programming is neither left nor right. NPR stations broadcast programs ranging from A Prairie Home Companion and The Thistle & Shamrock to Car Talk and Wait Wait . . . Don’t Tell Me. The news programs Fresh Air and All Things Considered must drive the GOP nuts.

    As I said, it’s not about the money. It is all about the content. The GOP doesn’t like NPR content because they are focusing on a small percentage of it that they disagree with. I am sure Rush Limbaugh agrees with me.

    Tommy

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    “I’m Bob Edwards, and this is Morning Edition – on National Public Radio.”

    For over two decades this is what I woke up to in the morning. I sent money to these guys when I could (which was not all that often), and felt that for the most part, I was getting better coverage than what I would get on commercial radio, with all of its used tires hucksters.

    Then I moved here. I couldn’t pick up NPR, but started to realize that NPR had been feeding me a line of pro-Arab bullshit for all the years I had been sending them money. I’d like my money back. When I heard this fool of a “development executive” say that NPR would be better off without the government’s money, and that the Zionists and the Jews ran the media in America, I was convinced that these guys were a pack of shit.

    Let these scamsters make money the old fashioned way – earning it. The good stuff on public radio, by the way, does not come from these fucking leftist bastards – it comes from the empire builder, Bill Kling, and his baby, American Public Radio.

  • Boeke

    There’s not much to cheer a leftist on NPR, but one suspects that rightists get angry at anything not exclusively rightist.

    When I hear a partisan issue on NPR I sometimes grab a stopwatch and measure how much time they give to left and right spokesmen for each side and the result is that they are equal, usually to the second. Try it yourself, and report the results.

  • Dan

    Bravo to James O’keefe for exposing the ugly bigotry at NPR.

    It’s not so much about the dollar amount as it is about principle. NPR is a propaganda tool of the Democrat party. They can dispense their slanted distortions all they want, but let their deluded supporters pay for it.

    I would be in favor of O’keefe receiving a federally subsidised whistle blower fee for his good work. The savings to taxpayers in defunding the fraud infested, child prostitution enablers at ACORN amounts to several billion.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Boeke #7 –

    Well said – amen!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    Are you aware of the fact that O’Keefe EDITED his tape again? And just like the Shirley Sherrod tape, the UNEDITED tape shows the speaker saying something that was NOT what O’Keefe made it seem with his arbitrary editing.

    But that’s not important to you, is it? It doesn’t matter that O’Keefe uses lies and outright deception to make YOU – that’s YOU, Dan – cheer him on for using those lies and deceptions to get you what you want!

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    Glenn is right on. Here is an interview with O’Keefe you might or might not like.

    What part of the John DeLorean episode did so many executives miss? Are they just too young to recall? Just asking.

    Tommy

  • Boeke

    O’Keefe is a proven liar. He’s been exposed on both the Acorn tapes and the Sherrod tape. He edits innocent comments and re-arranges statements to create an appearance of incrimination.

    Anyone who credits O’Keefe is either a fool or a rightist eager to be deceived by propaganda.

    So, the question really is: why did the mainstream media so eagerly accept the story from O’Keefe and repeat it everywhere? Are the MSM people ultra-rightist or are they stupid?

    Incidentally, one might ask “why doesn’t someone pull the same stunt on O’Keefe himself and publicize it?” And the answer is: someone did. The radio program “On The Media”, which broadcasts a weekly report on events in the media, interviewed O’Keefe and then pulled an O’Keefe on him, making him look quite mad.

  • Dan

    Accusations of deceptive editing in any of O’Keefes expose’s are absurd.

    Delusional leftists can choose not to believe their lying eyes, but the truth marches on. That’s why people got fired, and ACORN was defunded.

    Continue on with your denial though. The refusal to confront reality in these instances of progressive malfeasance offers far better testimony to sane people about the hopeless zealotry of the radical left.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And why do you believe that, Dan? Because you do NOT have an earnest desire to be OBJECTIVE. If you did, if you actually were determined to find out BOTH sides of the story, then you’d know better than to defend O’Keefe.

    If you’ll check around, Dave Nalle and Clavos and even Arch-Con all know better than to defend O’Keefe. Maybe you should get a clue from their silence….

  • El Bicho

    “Accusations of deceptive editing in any of O’Keefes expose’s are absurd.”

    And yet accurate. Even right-leaning organizations have reported on it, so who exactly is the delusional one?

  • Dan

    O’Keefe does not need defending. He is the one doing the exposing. Attacking the messenger is a foolish way of defending the exposed.

    Only someone who has lost the desire to be “OBJECTIVE” engages in your group think mentality anyway.

    Although if you were to “check around” you’d see that your view of O’Keefe is not the dominant one. Again, that is why people were fired and ACORN was defunded. There was no adequate defense for those O’Keefe exposed.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Okay, Dan –

    Go HERE and see how O’Keefe’s NPR video WAS edited, and deceptively so.

    And who was it that exposed the deceptive editing? Irony of ironies, it was GLENN BECK’s website, The Blaze!

    And while you’re at it, you can check out how O’Keefe deceptively edited the ACORN videos. The same reference quotes an independent legal review, a former attorney general who said, “Although Mr. O’Keefe appeared in all videos dressed as a pimp, in fact, when he appeared at each and every office, he was dressed like a college student — in slacks and a button down shirt.”

    SO HOW IS THAT NOT DECEPTIVE EDITING, DAN????

    And let’s not forget Shirly Sherrod. From the Christian Science Monitor:

    Mr. Breitbart published on his website a 2-1/2 minute clip of a video showing Sherrod at an NAACP luncheon, talking about how she did not use the full force of her office to help a white farmer. The clip set off a furor, resulting in Sherrod’s forced resignation, tendered via BlackBerry from the side of a road.

    A full airing of the video, however, showed that Sherrod, who grew up in the Jim Crow South, was making a point about her own journey – how she has stopped stereotyping based on race and realized that the greatest inequality in America today is class. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and President Obama both apologized to Sherrod, and offered her another job in the Agriculture Department.

    And even Andrew Breitbart had some words for O’Keefe!

    I think he needs to listen to what his supporters have to say when they have a problem with this. Not to be so head strung, to listen when some people give you advice… There are people out there who are trying to reach him and telling him that he’s going to be held to a higher standard and that he should hold himself to that higher standard.”

    OKAY, Dan? So…exactly how are you going to explain away all this? By still claiming that O’Keefe didn’t deceptively edit anything? Even after all this EVIDENCE showing that he did?

    I betcha won’t even answer…because if you do, you’ll either have to man up and apologize…or make yourself look even more naive.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    You are correct, Dan. He does not need defending, here. He might need defending in court, but that is another matter.

    Don Imus perfected such stunts as O’s in the ’70s on radio. It’s just that Imus knew the boundaries he pushed. He worked for a network with lawyers.

    I know of few people, however, that relied on an Imus stunt for their opinion.

    Tommy

  • El Bicho

    “Only someone who has lost the desire to be ‘OBJECTIVE’ engages in your group think mentality anyway.”

    A point you repeatedly prove in your defense of O’Keefe’s tactics.

  • zingzing

    dan, to me you’re either stupid or a liar or an ass or something else entirely for letting o’keefe sucker you. but i’m betting on one of the first two. i will fuck horses.

    –or, in o’keefe style–

    dan, i… bet… you’re… a… stupid… liar. or else… i… will… let… dan… ‘s… horses… ass… fuck… me.

    seriously, you can’t be that easily manipulated. it’s just not possible. you have to be able to figure out what’s going on in those videos. it’s blatantly obvious. please, please don’t be that dumb.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    “I don’ wanna believe what my lyin’ eyes tell me! They edited the tape! It’s all a lie!!”

    And there will be a ten dollar silver coin under your pillow when you all lose your wisdom teeth. You wisdom never came in, so you don’t need your wisdom teeth fer nuthin’.

    Fer satisfacrion, contact:

    The Tooth Fairy
    North Pole (currently on the move)
    Slip Code: 3378945618733441

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Ruvy, by that logic, I assume you watched the heavily-edited tape of Inception and concluded that it proves Leonardo DiCaprio really can break into people’s dreams.

  • Baronius

    NPR’s funding would have been an issue whether or not O’Keefe made that tape.

  • zingzing

    baronius–and maybe for good reason. i read an interesting article about another formerly gov’t-sponsored org that weaned itself off such sponsorship and is doing all the better for it, including the fact that it’s no longer beholden to any political interests whatsoever. the way they did it, iirc, is that they asked that funding not be completely cut off, but successively lowered down to nothing over a three year period. over that period, they were able to convince their audience that in order for them to continue doing the work that they do, their audience needed to fund them more and more until they were free of federal funding.

    that said, the republican’s current plans, which will never get through the senate, so whatever, would just be another republican plan that kills jobs. yay, right? and besides, this is pretty much the republicans trying to punish npr for its perceived liberal bias, no matter how you try to spin it. beyond that, it’s a waste of time and political posturing. the house has bigger fish to fry, and that they spent a second on this is just kind of pathetic. between this and that king guy, watching the republicans “get to work” has been very disappointing indeed.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    There is nothing like a tempest in a tea party pot, which is what the new House majority seems to be all about. Their emergency meeting on NPR funding is just one of many items on a growing list to stuff that they know is doomed to successful failure. There are health care bills they know they can’t pass, abortion bills they know they can’t pass, climate bills they know they can’t pass, and budget bills they know they can’t pass.

    The voters that elected them must really be impressed with the amount of time, money and energy their House GOP representatives have spent on defending the Defense of Marriage Act, recklessly accusing Muslim Americans of disloyalty, and pushing culture-war bills related to vouchers, English as the ‘official’ language, and ‘In God We Trust.’

    Baronius is right when he says, “NPR’s funding would have been an issue whether or not O’Keefe made that tape.” Senator Saxby Chambliss agrees about that, but also says, “You know, an awful lot of conservatives listen to NPR. It provides a very valuable service.” The Georgia Republican also thinks that “total elimination of funding is probably not the wisest thing to do.” He is being politically kind.

    Tommy

  • Boeke

    One can make a better case that most of the commercial stations should have their licenses lifted since they have done such a poor job of promoting the public interest as required by their FCC licenses. After all, that FCC license is a de facto government subsidy since it grants a monopoly license.

    The commercial stations and networks are so stingy about informing and involving the public that they put on crap like O’Keefe and call it news.

  • Clavos

    Using data published on NPR’s own website, writer Mark Browning, in an article published at American Thinker, demonstrates that NPR’s funding from federal sources is actually 25% of the total of its funding from outside sources, not the 2% (or 3%) NPR claims.

  • zingzing

    he also demonstrates a lot of dithering and assumptions to get to that figure (the bit on universities really sticks out). and i’ve seen npr state that they get about 6% directly from federal funding, not 2-3%, although just because i haven’t seen it written doesn’t mean it hasn’t been.

    also, is cpb funding up for grabs as well?

  • zingzing

    ah, the 6% figure is from “federal, state and local governments.”

  • Clavos

    also, is cpb funding up for grabs as well?

    Dunno. It should be.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    What I’d like to see is a law requiring that news be completely factual…and that networks who broadcast false or obviously misleading news be not allowed to call their broadcast ‘news’.

  • Baronius

    The questions should be (imho) –

    Is it a legitimate government activity?
    If yes, is it a government activity that’s worth the cost, given our current finances?
    If yes, is it being run well, ie politically neutrally?

    The Republicans would say “no” to all three questions. If the answer is “yes” to the first two and “no” to the third, then that’s a question of administration, not of funding.

  • zingzing

    as for the first two questions, what are your feelings on nasa, the national endowment for the arts, national agency for int’l dev, national science foundation, etc?

    i would think (and it’s been true in the past) that republicans would have problems with these programs as well, and it’s got nothing to do with politics and everything to do with elections, if you can see the difference.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    Let’s remember the 1st Amendment, here.

    Other than NPR stations, radio is owned by the right. Television is owned by the sponsors. That’s why journalism and television have become as oil and water. Television journalism has become an oxymoron. The reason is that television is show business.

    “Mack, guys like you [journalists] are like icing on the cake. We don’t really need you,” the Sales Manager of WJCL TV, Savannah, said to me after I got pulled off of a story I was working. “If it doesn’t sell beer or cars, it doesn’t go on the air.”

    As to news presenters, they are their own little institutions. They are actors playing the rolls of journalists. They are talking hairdos. The scripts they read are becoming more and more shallow, almost vapid. Their script writers are too lazy to use Google.

    Incidentally, if you think that one broadcast or cable news organization is any better than another, please think again. Aside from NPR and PBS, all other “self-respecting news organizations” ask themselves two basic questions. Does it sell beer? Does it sell cars?

    O’Keefe’s productions sell both.

    Tommy

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Pretty impressive anecdote, Tommy – the kind that separates those of us who think we know what we’re talking about from those of you who really do know what you’re talking about….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And I notice that Dan is no longer claiming that O’Keefe didn’t deceptively edit his videos…

    …just as I predicted.

    Some have the courage to own up to when they’re wrong…and some don’t.

  • Clavos

    Someone said the NPR audience is 33M. That’s almost exactly 10% of the population.

    Why should the other 90% pay for a service used only by the ten percent?

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    People who don’t own cars pay for roads. People who don’t have kids pay for schools.

    What’s your point?

    Tommy

  • Boeke

    For the same reason 90% pay the bailout for the 10% that got handouts in TARP.

    For the same reason that 90% pay for the 10% that profit from war.

    For the same reason that 90% pay for the 10% that profit from television ads.

    Etc., etc., etc. Use whichever example and numbers you please.

    The fact is that our society, like any society, constantly bestows some favor on 10% that is paid for by the other 90%. As a rightist, since the rightists are usually the beneficiaries of such elitism, one would think that you’d know that. Interesting that your alarm only went off when it worked against you.

  • Clavos

    There is a national benefit in both roads and schools. There is no national benefit in a radio service serving a mere 10% of the population. Also, roads are primarily paid for by fuel taxes; people who don’t own cars don’t buy much fuel (except maybe for their boats, fuel for which is exempt from road taxes). Schools are paid for by property taxes; fewer than half the population are property owners.

    Additionally, NPR can seek other sources of funding (Soros gave it $1.8 million just last year); roads and schools have no such options.

    No other broadcast entity is supported by the government (except its propaganda outlets like V of A and Radio Marti, which are not the same thing), nor should they be, especially not such a narrow spectrum outlet.

  • Clavos

    For the same reason 90% pay the bailout for the 10% that got handouts in TARP.

    Also shouldn’t have been done.

    For the same reason that 90% pay for the 10% that profit from war.

    Ditto. See above.

    For the same reason that 90% pay for the 10% that profit from television ads.

    Apples and oranges. Nobody’s taking money at gunpoint from the viewers of TV, as the government does from taxpayers.

    The fact is that our society, like any society, constantly bestows some favor on 10% that is paid for by the other 90%.

    Hard to believe, but in any case, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    I’m not a “rightist;” I don’t even know what one of those is.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    So why should the taxpayers fund charter schools that serve less than 10% of the population?

    and why should blue states year after year after year pay more federal tax dollars than they receive, while red states year after year after year get more federal tax dollars than they pay out?

    And why should Big Oil get billions in federal tax subsidies when they don’t pay a single penny in taxes???????

    And that last injustice is a heck of a lot bigger than anything we’ve ever done for NPR…even cumulatively since NPR’s inception!

  • Clavos

    None of those things should be happening, but we do have a corrupt bunch of turkeys in congress who are bribed by businesses and unions, even the elderly (AARP bribes hundreds of legislators every election cycle with millions in campaign donations), in return for which the congressclowns enable all of those things — especially the subsidies to big oil.

    Exxon did pay $15 billion in taxes last year, though all overseas, where they are now domiciled. That’s one effect of taxation, especially on the rich: they can (and do) move to a country with lower taxes. The Swedish rock group Abba did just that several years ago, when their incremental tax level in Sweden reached 90%.

  • Clavos

    The only way the government should be “funding”charter schools is by giving the taxpayers their own money back in the form of vouchers redeemable at the school of their choice.

  • troll

    …as the Supremes made clear – bribery is free speech too

    so shut the fuck up

  • Dan

    “Go HERE and see how O’Keefe’s NPR video WAS edited, and deceptively so.”—Glenn C.

    Thanks for the link Glenn. I hadn’t heard of the controversy and was a little worried that maybe you had something this time. I think one of the commenters to that article, HAPPYSTRETCHEDTHIN says it best:

    “Journalists have a tough job. They need to elicit the truth, and personal beliefs from people not eager to share them or not honest enough to reveal them publicly. Playing a role in a way that elicits the truth is not the same as setting a person up to fall a certain way. O’Keefe walked the line on that, in all fairness, but clearly Schiller thought it was safe to reveal things he believed, and that was the only way his true beliefs could be brought to light. Kudos to Mr. O’Keefe”

    What you and other ideological zealots call “deceptive editing”, is simply highlighting.

    The proof of O’Keefes honest intent is in the fact that he made all of the raw footage available to be scrutinized. That is the action of a man with nothing to hide. (unlike say, Obama and his Harvard and Columbia school records, hospital generated certificate of live birth etc.)

    I’ve already addressed the ACORN expose’. Your claim that O’Keefe and Giles intended to give the impression that they dressed in feathered hats and hooker boots during the interviews is not even of peripheral importance. It’s simply misdirectional.

    Shirley Sherrod and her journey from abusing her power to discriminate against whites. was only a bi-product of the real focus of revealing how the atmosphere at NAACP meetings is similar to what one might expect at a klan rally.

    “You are correct, Dan. He does not need defending, here. He might need defending in court, but that is another matter.”—Tommy Mack

    Excellent point Tommy. Certainly many reputations have been damaged. Loss of livelihood too. Shirley Sherrod made a lot of noise about a lawsuit, as is her custom. The ACORN people were threatening litigation, but that was only for surreptitiously recording them. Seems sort of curious doesn’t it. hmmmm.

    “dan, to me you’re either stupid or a liar or an ass or something else entirely for letting o’keefe sucker you. but i’m betting on one of the first two. i will fuck horses”—zingzing

    Sorry zing, but your comment #20 is largely unintelligible to me. [Edited]

    “And I notice that Dan is no longer claiming that O’Keefe didn’t deceptively edit his videos…

    …just as I predicted.”—Glenn C.

    wrong again.

    It’s true that I enjoy injecting a little reality into these discussions from time to time, but for the most part I consider it a waste of time. My inevitable absence from this thread or any other shouldn’t be construed as a cowardly retreat from a superior argument. That’s never happened.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    1 – So Exxon paid $15B in overseas taxes…which means they paid FAR less than in America…but are they moving out of those countries? No – even though they pay the taxes in those countries, they’re still making tons of money in those countries. Otherwise they wouldn’t be doing business there.

    2 – So Sweden’s top marginal tax rate is 90%? How’s their economy doing? Are they slipping into a Depression just like we did NOT do when ours was 90% during the 1950’s? Read on:

    The Swedish economy emerged from the financial crisis as one of the strongest in Europe. A high-tech local economy and a comprehensive system of welfare benefits allow Sweden to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. Sweden has one of the most globalized and competitive economies today.

    Yeah, those social safety nets and high taxes really drive a nation into economic disaster, huh?

  • Clavos

    as the Supremes made clear – bribery is free speech too

    Then impeach and deport the Supremes and repeal the First Amendment.

    I’m tired of this shit.

    I just bought “your” bridge from the state, troll.

    Now get out from under my bridge…

  • Clavos

    Yeah, those social safety nets and high taxes really drive a nation into economic disaster, huh?

    WTF??

    Did I even mention Sweden’s economy? No.

    Your reading comprehension has descended to about second grade level, Glenn. Another proud alumnus of the government school system.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    as the Supremes made clear – bribery is free speech too

    Ah yes. But not one of their best-known hits.

    Reached number 3 in 1968, as I recall.

    ;-)

  • Clavos

    which means they paid FAR less than in America..

    Actually, they paid zero in amerika, because they’re not obligated to, now that they moved out.

  • Clavos

    Yeah, Doc, I think one of ‘em had a sore throat when they recorded that little gem.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Gov’t shouldn’t be funding schools at all, imo. Schools as conceived by society are best for non-thinking brainwashed robot training.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Does a country’s tax rate have much to do with its economy? VERY MUCH SO – that is, unless you want to ignore the opinion of any economist you care to name, for the government is normally by far a nation’s largest single employer. When you mentioned Sweden’s tax rate, that opened up Sweden’s economy to discussion. And thanks for giving me a little bit more ammo against the tax-cut-are-the-cure-for-all-that-ails-you crowd.

    Also, “paid far less than in America” – that was a typo. Pls. delete the word “than”.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy
  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cindy –

    So who pays for schools, then? And if we should just pay tuition for our own kids’ school, then what about the poor? And what about school for the disabled?

    Cindy, when someone points out to me a private school that:

    – truly accepts everyone regardless of (1) ethnicity, (2) disability, (3) proficiency (or lack thereof) in English, (4) ability to pay, and (5) behavioral issues;

    – provides bus transportation for ALL students within their specified district;

    – provides free meals for those students who can’t afford them;

    – provides nursing and caregiving staff for any and all disabled students (like my Foster kids);

    – refuses to allow students to be pressured about religion or ethnic issues;

    – AND does all this for less than a public school does…

    …then and ONLY then will I even consider the arguments against public schools. But until then, I will only point back to all the nations – past and present – where the government does NOT provide free primary education for all children.

    In other words, Cindy, first prove to me your way can work…because it hasn’t yet worked in all of human history.

  • Clavos

    When you mentioned Sweden’s tax rate…

    When I mentioned Sweden’s tax rate, it was to point out that it induces high earners to leave for greener pastures, but you in your continual partisanship decided to employ your old friend, misdirection (well said, Dan!) and steer the conversation away from my point without addressing it.

    I wasn’t discussing the Swedish economy, only its tax rates.

    But you knew that.

    However, since you did bring it up, Sweden’s economy has also been hard hit by the ongoing worldwide recession, having reached a thirty year low last year, from which it is still attempting recovery. At 8.3%, its unemployment rate rivals ours, and is still rising.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    Incredible. Absolutely incredible. Never before have I seen such an effort to ignore and twist into meaninglessness the obvious evidence.

    There’s ignorance…and then there’s willful ignorance. You’re in the second group, Dan, along with all those who excuse and eagerly accept lies and deceptions and wild claims just so long as they support your personal opinion.

    That’s real sad.

    (Note to all those who accuse me of rabid partisanship – see Dan…for THAT, sirs is true partisanship)

  • Clavos

    You’re right about private schools, Glenn. All they do is educate.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Sweden’s unemployment is 8.3%? Gee, that’s interesting, ’cause here’s what I found:

    According to Swedish Statistics, unemployment in November 2010 was 7.1% in the general population and 19.9% amongst 15-25 year olds.

    Around eighty percent of the Swedish labour force is unionised.

    Wow! 90% top tax rate, 80% unionization, yet the unemployment rate is 7.1% and they STILL regularly rank among the top three in the world when it comes to standards of living!

    But don’t pay any attention to all this, now, ’cause this is all part of an eeeeevil liberal misinformation campaign, ’cause we’d nevereverever tell the real truth about how terrible life really is for the Swedes….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    You’re right about private schools, Glenn. All they do is educate.

    Do they now? Do they educate the disabled? Do they educate the kids whose parents can’t afford to send them there? Do they educate the kids whose parents can’t drive them back and forth to school every day (since many (or most) private schools don’t provide transportation)? Do they educate kids whose proficiency in English is not up to everyone else’s? Do they provide nursing and caregiving staff for medically-fragile kids like my Foster kids? And do they feed the kids who can’t afford to eat lunch?

    DO THEY EDUCATE ALL THESE, Clavos?

    No. But you don’t worry about that, now, because if we just privatize all the schools even though there’s a few million kids who’ll be left out without having a chance to go to school, at least you’ll be able to keep a few more of your tax dollars…and we all know that keeping the government from taking some of your taxes is FAR better than ensuring that ALL kids have a chance for a decent education!

    But I’ll issue the same challenge to you as I did to Cindy – show me a private school – even ONE private school – that does all that a public school does, yet does it for less (and without a religious agenda, mind you), then I’ll consider your argument…and not before.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    Glenn,

    What does not work, throughout the entirety of human history, is the system we have now.

    Why not show me where our school system works to encourage real thinking as opposed to accepting what is and turning out worker bees who have been whittled down and told to obey as well as socially corrupted.

    You want to fee kids? Stop talking to me about why a school is needed to do that.

  • http://thingsalongtheway.blogspot.com/ Cindy

    That would be ‘feed’ kids…

  • Clavos

    Sweden’s unemployment is 8.3%? Gee, that’s interesting,…

    Yes, it is, according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    So the CIA says one thing, and the Swedes say another. Didn’t you once tell me that our government can’t do anything right? And now you’re using them as a trusted reference?

    But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt! That means Sweden has:

    – an 8.3% unemployment rate (compared to our 8.9%)

    – an 80% unionization rate

    – a 90% top marginal tax rate

    …and yet they STILL consistently rank in the top three nations in the world in terms of standard of living!

    So…would you like to tell me more about how bad off Sweden is?

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    Back in #40 Clavos commented, “No other broadcast entity is supported by the government (except its propaganda outlets like V of A and Radio Marti . . . ” Actually there is. AFRTS, Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, is part of the Department of Defense.

    As a graduate of the Defense Information School, which trains all AFRTS personnel, let me assure you that AFRTS is in no danger of being defunded. It broadcasts Rush Limbaugh as part of its “stateside radio and television programming, “a touch of home,” to U.S. service men and women, DoD civilians, and their families serving outside the continental United States.” Those are places like Afghanistan and Iraq, among others.

    Don’t forget that House Republicans held an emergency session on HR 1076 waiving O’Keefe’s misleading editing, distorted quotes, and untruth and promoted his tape as gospel. The emergency was on. They won.

    The bill has no chance in the Senate. The president has a pen full of veto ink. NPR will continue to receive federal funding, as will the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts, those “frivolous” institutions recently trashed by the Arch Republican Sarah Palin.

    By the way, AFRTS is available in Sweden and Israel.

    Tommy

  • Glenn Contrarian

    AFARTS – which is what we called it – they broadcast Rush? Man, but it’s worse than I thought….

  • Clavos

    So…would you like to tell me more about how bad off Sweden is?

    Glenn, I’m getting really fucking tired of you reading more into my comments than I write; you’ve been doing it for years, and invariably it’s an attempt on your part to set up strawmen.

    You can’t possibly be so stupid as to consistently misinterpret everything everyone you disagree with says, so I can only conclude you’re just a shit stirrer.

    I never said Sweden was bad off; all I said was that their tax rates are high enough to drive off the wealthy, and the same thing will happen here if the tax rates get too high. However, did it ever occur to you that the Squareheads might be lying (or fudging) their unemployment rate? After all, the US government does that routinely; are the Swedes so much more full of character they wouldn’t? I doubt it.

    Even though I have literally dozens of relatives in Sweden (I am of Swedish descent, though by birth and culturally Mexican), I don’t give a rat’s ass how wonderful their politics are, their weather alone would deter me from spending more than a summer there (which I have done a handful of times, staying with family), so they can have their little socialist “paradise.” Among other things their anality in things like punctuality drive this Mexican crazy.

  • Clavos

    Back in #40 Clavos commented, “No other broadcast entity is supported by the government (except its propaganda outlets like V of A and Radio Marti . . . ” Actually there is. AFRTS, Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, is part of the Department of Defense.

    Point taken, Tommy, I forgot about good ole AFRTS, which I unfortunately was subjected to ad nauseam in Nam.

  • Dan

    “(Note to all those who accuse me of rabid partisanship – see Dan…for THAT, sirs is true partisanship)”—Glenn

    Thanks for what I’ll welcome as an unintended endorsement by contrast Glenn.

    A ironically interesting defense of my non-partisanship occurs to me. ACORN, NAACP, and NPR all shamelessly pose as non-partisan. Progressives here at BC have argued that quite sanctimoniously.

    So then why should I be branded “partisan” for acknowledging the sane and inescapable conclusion that O’Keefe exposed bigotry, racism, and criminality in “non-partisan” organizations?

    See what I mean? I think it’s called “being hoisted by ones own petard”.

  • zingzing

    “So then why should I be branded “partisan” for acknowledging the sane and inescapable conclusion that O’Keefe exposed bigotry, racism, and criminality in “non-partisan” organizations?”

    because you either so partisan you actually believe it, or you’re such a fool you can’t help but gobble it down without the least bit of critical thought. i’ll let you decide which one fits better.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I had to chuckle at your ‘punctuality’ observation – the Filipinos are much like the Mexicans in this regard.

    I did take the conversation off on a tangent – but your mention of the Swedes’ tax rate was too good to pass up. I had to use it to once more point out that no, tax cuts are NOT the cure for all that ails us.

    That’s not a strawman by any stretch of the word, nor is it a deliberate attempt to divert from the original topic. What it was, was a side discussion…and you know better than I that discussions on BC (and any other forum) usually go off in directions often completely unrelated to the original topic.

    You can get mad if you like, but I wasn’t about to pass up the fact that you just gave me a bit more ammo for the next time we argue about the supposed evils of progressive taxation…and you can rest assured I won’t forget it.

  • Dan

    Sorry zing, your nonsensical response indicates you don’t understand the question.

  • zingzing

    no, it clearly suggests that you don’t understand how editing works.

  • zingzing

    o’keefe and breitbart are laughing at you all the way to the bank, dan. you’ve been taken. at least realize that what you’re seeing is not anywhere near the literal truth. it’s not what was said in response to the questions (sup)posed. at least have that much common sense.

  • Dan

    “o’keefe and breitbart are laughing at you all the way to the bank, dan. you’ve been taken…”

    No zingzing, it’s worse than that. Nearly everyone has been snookered by these two evil propagandists. Innocent people who’s only crime was to spread truth and justice have had their funds cut and turned out into the street.

    Only a select few know the truth. You and Glenn, probably because of your brilliance, can detect the diabolical, heavy editing. The rest of us ignorant sheep cannot even understand how it is critically important that O’keefe and Giles did not actually wear their pimp and hooker costumes during interviews with ACORN workers. Possibly because we are distracted by the hotness of the evil seductress Hanna Giles.

    And the worst of it is that there seems not to be any of the brilliant heavy edit detectors among the ranks of trial lawyers who will bring these easily winable cases to trial and put these evil doers behind bars where they belong.

    oh the injustice! But you hang in there zing. Fight the good fight. Continue to combatively assert the undeniable truth with all the vigor of a Fred Phelps street preacher.

  • zingzing

    “Only a select few know the truth. You and Glenn, probably because of your brilliance, can detect the diabolical, heavy editing.”

    and everyone else who has looked at the damn things. including glenn beck’s website. just look up “james o’keefe editing” on google. 3.6 million hits. you keep trying, dan. put them blinders on. you really think just glenn and i are suspicious of these videos? you really need to get out of the house.

    if you really can’t see the editing for what it is, why don’t you go look at the unedited tapes that have been released? if you can really come to the same conclusions after seeing the unedited tapes, i’ll just have to give up on you. in the sherrod case, he took what she was saying and completely and obviously turned the meaning around. do you not see that?

    by the way, npr recently interviewed o’keefe. his heroes, apparently, are “G.K. Chesterton, underage prostitutes, Attorney General Gerry Brown and hyperbole and obfuscation.”

    “And the worst of it is that there seems not to be any of the brilliant heavy edit detectors among the ranks of trial lawyers who will bring these easily winable cases to trial and put these evil doers behind bars where they belong.”

    on what charge? lying in the media? quite a can of worms there, isn’t it? they’d have to get them on something very specific, and the burden of proof is upon those who would wish to prosecute. he’s caused a few job loses, and those are sparking some lawsuits.

    the (former employee of) acorn lawsuit in california against him is still going. he just cited “punk’d,” the mtv program, as proof that he can record people without their express permission. he’s citing ashton kutcher, dan.

    in the PA acorn lawsuit, he settled out of court (he paid them off, if you can’t figure it out). the maryland acorn lawsuit was dismissed due to procedural mistakes.

    your “undeniable truth” is that you’ve shit in your pants but you won’t admit it.

  • Costello

    Dan, is it that you don’t care becasue O’Keefe is taking down people don’t like or are you really uninformed about his tactics? I want to know if you are unprincipled or ignorant before commenting further

  • Boeke

    Tommy Mack,

    Now I’m curious about AFRTS, so I spent a couple hours going through material on the ‘net.

    It seems hard to find actual schedule information, but some general principles seem to be that the music is bland and religious programs are permitted as long as they don’t attack each other (presumably, they all can gang up on atheists, agnostics, pantheists, non-theists and other such heretics).

    I was specifically looking to see if they carry programming from Pacifica Foundation, Classic Arts Showcase (CAS from the Lloyd Rigler foundation) and foreign public feeds such as Al Jazeera, BBC, France24, Russia Today, Taiwan Report, Deutsche Welle, NHK, etc., but I could find nothing. Does anyone have a good citation for that information.

    Lacking such diversity I would be concerned that AFRTS has become an Establishment propaganda tool which is financed by the taxpayer. If that’s the case, they are far more eligible for scrutiny and budget trimming than NPR, which has a rather tepid broadcast personality.

  • zingzing

    costello, i think it must be that dan doesn’t care what means are used to take down perceived enemies. no one can be that ignorant, unless it’s willful.

  • Dan

    yes yes, of course. Many lawsuits are “sparking”. The wheels of justice are slow to turn. But eventually truth will prevail. hundreds of ACORN employees will be back in the saddle. Their funding will be restored with damages, and they’ll be able to resume the legal battle against all those scurrilous election tampering charges evil people have been hounding them with.

    Vivian and Ron Schiller will be back at NPR and all those bigoted, tea party homophobe, “racist racists” will just have to suck it.

    Of course, Breitbart and O’Keefe will be facing a very deserved hard time in the hoosegow. Although Hanna Giles will likely get off with just probation. (they always let the women off easy, especially the hot ones)

    And you my friend, will be vindicated for sticking to your guns, unfaltering in your faith, one of only a few heroic voices of reason, who somehow were able to see through the rush of conventional wisdom to grasp the elusive truth. Bravo, Braaaavo!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    Gents, in my own encounters with Dan I’ve found that even the soundest arguments made against him are like water off a duck’s back. He sincerely believes that the set of opinions he holds have been arrived at through pure reason, and that any dissenting viewpoint must therefore be irrational. It makes him a propagandist extraordinaire.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    see through the rush of conventional wisdom…

    Pun intended, Dan? :-)

  • Dan

    Costello, haven’t you been paying attention? O’Keefe hasn’t “taken down” anyone. It is just a temporary setback. Everyone is innocent. It is O’Keefe who will be taken down. As soon as justice prevails.

  • Dan

    ah, Dr. Dreadful. I like how you walk the line. The “soundness” of an argument is of course subjective, as is the “irrationality” of one. That’s why we argue.

    I do have quite an extensive electronic paper trail here. I like to think that trail demonstrates a formidable integrity, if not the most popularly fashionable viewpoints.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    The “soundness” of an argument is of course subjective, as is the “irrationality” of one. That’s why we argue.

    Although there are logical precepts which can help to determine whether an argument is sound or irrational.

    I like to think that trail demonstrates a formidable integrity, if not the most popularly fashionable viewpoints.

    You’re certainly unwavering, Dan. If you’re defending a position purely because it’s unfashionable, though, that in itself can lead to fallacious reasoning.

  • Costello

    So you are unprincipled, Dan. I’ll do my best to ignore you

  • Clavos

    If you’re defending a position purely because it’s unfashionable,…

    I doubt he is Doc, because, while some of his views might be “unfashionable” here at BC, most of them don’t bear that stigma out in the real world.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    Boeke #79 writes he would be “concerned that AFRTS has become an Establishment propaganda tool which is financed by the taxpayer” and asks about it’s scheduling.

    First and foremost let me point out that the service is for Armed Forces and Department of Defense personnel serving the United States overseas, not in the continental US. For scheduling, you should look to AFN, American Forces Network, which is a part of the Department of Defense (DoD).

    Second, one could argue that AFRTS is an establishment propaganda tool, that establishment being the federal military/industrial establishment, once again the DoD. One could also argue that the context in which the word “propaganda” is used must be considered. The context usually depends on what side one is on.

    Third, with regard to scrutiny and budget trimming, that goes directly to the DoD Budget itself, which is Holy to Republicans. They would just as soon burn an autographed picture of Ronald Reagan than to touch the so called Defense budget. But that is what would have to happen before any cutting of the pittance paid for media.

    In 1947 the DoD, the acronym for United States Department of Defense, is what became of the Department of War, which was founded in 1789. It has the largest budget of any US Department headed by a single secretary. Its budget is more than 4.5 % of Assumed Nominal GDP and accounts for more than 21% of the US Federal Budget. One wonders if it would be so much if it was still called the Department of War.

    Name changes and propaganda give us the US Navy as a “Global Force for Good”. Good aiming, see CNN. While I am at it, the job of the US Army and US Marine Corps is not peace keeping. Their job is to seek out an enemy and to destroy it.

    Take it from a former US Army propagandist [Awards winning Military Journalist]. But, I digress.

    Tommy

  • zingzing

    clavos: “while some of [dan’s] views might be “unfashionable” here at BC, most of them don’t bear that stigma out in the real world.”

    it’s hard to know if “dan” is really “dan,” as “dan” is a common name, even around here, but if it’s the same “dan,” dan has some pretty nasty views (he’ll pass them off as “politically incorrect,” i’m sure).

    i know i’ve run into a “dan” (or maybe two) around here with views that are nothing short of bigotry. but who knows if its the same dan. (it’s a pretty good trick, naming yourself an anonymous john.)

    and i also notice you’re not stepping up to agree with dan that o’keefe is just telling the truth.

  • Clavos

    the job of the US Army and US Marine Corps is not peace keeping.

    True. It’s breaking things and killing people.

  • Boeke

    It looks like this subject is petering out in the usual BlogCritics welter of personal abuse and insult, but as a Parthian shot I want to say that NPR seems like the LEAST likely target for complaint about tax money supporting partisanship, most of which complaint is authored by people who never listen to NPR.

    IMO both AFRTS and standard commercial radio/TV broadcasters are FAR more susceptible to complaints about partisanship and wasted tax moneys.

    I’m prepared to argue that the commercial airwaves should be radically re-structured to reflect the possibilities of modern technology which can almost eliminate the monopoly control of information communication that now exists and liberate the radio and TV to much greater diversity and expression.

    But all I see here on this retarded Blog site is rightists trying to stamp out any expression that hasn’t signed the Rightist Loyalty Oath, and limp wristed leftists who have a foggy notion that they should defend NPR whether they listen to it or not, because even they have bought into the notion that NPR is peculiarly partisan, and peculiarly tax supported.

    Maybe I should write an article about a new FCC charter, but I think it’s Pearls Before Swine in this atmosphere.

  • http://tmackorg.com/ Tommy Mack

    Boeke, I think you should write an article about a new FCC charter. It is long overdue. You might start your research with an article about the FCC Fairness Doctrine I wrote a little while ago. As a former broadcaster and NPR station advocate, I’d be very interested to know what you think.

    Tommy

  • Dan

    “If you’re defending a position purely because it’s unfashionable, though, that in itself can lead to fallacious reasoning.”—Dr. Dreadful

    There is nothing inherent in any position or any motivation driving ones position, fashionable or not, that necessarily leads to fallacious reasoning.

    Objective detachment and cognitive capacity are two important traits that enhance ones ability to argue logically. They are in short supply around here.

    I’ve admitted before that I am drawn to the irrational logic of the progressive ideology. It is like a puzzle of perversity.

    Sal Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals does alleviate some bewilderment though. His candid endorsement of dishonesty and hypocrisy as a tool to harness the gullible masses in the service of societal upheaval is now standard operating procedure among progressive elites.

    “So you are unprincipled, Dan. I’ll do my best to ignore you”—Costello

    You’re doing a poor job so far.

    “…all I see here on this retarded Blog site is rightists trying to stamp out any expression that hasn’t signed the Rightist Loyalty Oath”—Boeke

    No one is trying to “stamp out” NPR’s bigoted expression. We just don’t want to be forced to pay for it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    Objective detachment and cognitive capacity are two important traits that enhance ones ability to argue logically. They are in short supply around here.

    Yes, and thanks to your dogged insistence that O’Keefe didn’t deceptively edit his ‘exposes’ when even an attorney general and Andrew Breitbart and even Glenn Beck think otherwise, you are solid proof of that!

  • Dan

    Glenn, I believe I’ve looked at all your “evidence”. Your nutty “deceptive editing” schtick fools no one. At least no one in a position to act on it. (thank God) That is why the Schillings are out of work, and ACORN is out of funding, and O’Keefe is probably planning his next expose’.

  • zingzing

    so, dan… why did the acorn guy in california call the police? and why do the unedited videos always show a very, very different story? does this not matter one bit to you?

  • Igor

    Conservatives might be surprised at how impartial NPR really is, if they just listened to NPR.

    For example, I just listened to the NPR-Affilliate broadcast of a Commonwealth Club address by Margaret Hoover (whose great-grandfather and life hero was Herbert Hoover) who gave a solid hour of un-interrupted conservative Talking Points (she´s a fast, articulate and intense speaker) without anyone raising objection.

    If you´re a conservative and you want a good roundup of contemporary conservative opinion and rejoinders to liberals, look up her speech at the Commonwealth Club website or NPR.

    Of course, the contrast occurred to me that conservative radio feeds would never offer a similar venue to some liberal speaker.

    Overall, in my experience, NPR is at least fair to conservatives and often leans over backward for conservatives.

    Give it a try.

  • Igor

    As an example of how NPR leans over backward to please conservatives (who, apparently, will never listen to NPR anyway) this morning they had a report on Bidens meeting with the Chinese and the commentary was ONLY by the hard-right Pete Peterson institute. No countervailing leftist opinion.

    Conservatives: start listening to NPR! (And don´t forget to send in your pledge checks).

  • Igor

    I wouldn want my conservative friends to miss any pleasure, so here? some URLs to Hoovers speech:

    podcast

    Youtube

    blog

  • Igor

    (Sorry about the typos, my KB is acting up).