So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally anti-American?
Let's face it: they didn't fire Juan Williams for expressing an independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an independent opinion that didn't jibe with theirs. And it was worse, because he did it on Fox News - two words that bring a pained sneer across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener.
But, hell, everyone can see NPR's duplicity. They never police their lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn't because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he's black? Or because he's black and didn't do what he was told?
Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR.
Because if we don't, they go away.
And we can't have that. We need them around to remind ourselves what subsidized failure looks like. As long as NPR drones listlessly on, we can point to it and say, "yeah, we're letting them live."
It's like allowing the drunk at the pub to wipe down the tables for pocket change. It's more out of pity, than anything.
Which leads me to that thing with Rachel Maddow. Remember, she accused a man of having advanced knowledge of the Oklahoma bombing. When exposed for her error, she blamed it on an "editing" mistake - and then angrily mocked those who corrected her.
If you want to see the face of the angry and the entitled, that was it. How else can you explain someone assuming her mistakes are above reproach?
But hey - what do you expect from someone who had a heads-up on 9/11?
(I kid, Rachel - we'll fix that in edit)
And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, editphobe.
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Web-Site.com> wrote: > So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why > should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally > anti-American?
> Let's face it: they didn't fire Juan Williams for expressing an > independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an > independent opinion that didn't jibe with theirs. And it was worse, > because he did it on Fox News - two words that bring a pained sneer > across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener.
> But, hell, everyone can see NPR's duplicity. They never police their > lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn't > because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he's black? Or > because he's black and didn't do what he was told?
> Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR.
> Because if we don't, they go away.
I am of the opinion that the only way to beat the left is to defund them everywhere we can. I look forward to the day when every lefty has to make his living flipping hamburgers and sweeping floors in the private sector. Most of them effectively produce negative value and they get paid good money to do so. Let us all see how valuable those fancy degrees are when they don't get a huge government paycheck.
<buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Oct 31, 2:07 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My- >Web-Site.com> wrote: >> So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why >> should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally >> anti-American?
>> Let's face it: they didn't fire Juan Williams for expressing an >> independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an >> independent opinion that didn't jibe with theirs. And it was worse, >> because he did it on Fox News - two words that bring a pained sneer >> across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener.
>> But, hell, everyone can see NPR's duplicity. They never police their >> lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn't >> because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he's black? Or >> because he's black and didn't do what he was told?
>> Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR.
>> Because if we don't, they go away.
>I am of the opinion that the only way to beat the left is to defund >them everywhere we can. I look forward to the day when every lefty >has to make his living flipping hamburgers and sweeping floors in the >private sector. Most of them effectively produce negative value and >they get paid good money to do so. Let us all see how valuable those >fancy degrees are when they don't get a huge government paycheck.
My hope also. Let 'em work for a living and find out what it's like.
However, I doubt it will actually happen, at least not in my lifetime.
We'll mire deep into socialism. Finally have a revolution, and I'll miss out on all the fun you young bucks will have killing leftists :-)
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
On Oct 31, 2:32 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My-
Web-Site.com> wrote: > We'll mire deep into socialism. Finally have a revolution, and I'll > miss out on all the fun you young bucks will have killing leftists :-)
> ...Jim Thompson
I just want to see them roaming the streets mumbling about how important they are and holding up signs that say :
<buleg...@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >On Oct 31, 2:32 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-My- >Web-Site.com> wrote:
>> We'll mire deep into socialism. Finally have a revolution, and I'll >> miss out on all the fun you young bucks will have killing leftists :-)
>> ...Jim Thompson
>I just want to see them roaming the streets mumbling about how >important they are and holding up signs that say :
>Will show you my law degree for Food
Bwahahahahahaha! Good one!
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Web-Site.com> wrote: > So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why > should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally > anti-American?
> Let's face it: they didn't fire Juan Williams for expressing an > independent opinion, they fired Juan Williams for expressing an > independent opinion that didn't jibe with theirs. And it was worse, > because he did it on Fox News - two words that bring a pained sneer > across the faces of the already contorted NPR listener.
> But, hell, everyone can see NPR's duplicity. They never police their > lefty employees, and suddenly, Juan Williams is fired? If it wasn't > because of his views, what was it then? Was it because he's black? Or > because he's black and didn't do what he was told?
> Anyway, I'm one of the few to say, keep funding NPR.
> Because if we don't, they go away.
> And we can't have that. We need them around to remind ourselves what > subsidized failure looks like. As long as NPR drones listlessly on, we > can point to it and say, "yeah, we're letting them live."
> It's like allowing the drunk at the pub to wipe down the tables for > pocket change. It's more out of pity, than anything.
> Which leads me to that thing with Rachel Maddow. Remember, she accused > a man of having advanced knowledge of the Oklahoma bombing. When > exposed for her error, she blamed it on an "editing" mistake - and > then angrily mocked those who corrected her.
> If you want to see the face of the angry and the entitled, that was > it. How else can you explain someone assuming her mistakes are above > reproach?
> But hey - what do you expect from someone who had a heads-up on 9/11?
> (I kid, Rachel - we'll fix that in edit)
> And if you disagree with me, you're a racist, homophobic, editphobe.
> Fact of the matter is, even without consulting the Constitution there > is no compelling reason whatsoever for government to fund NPR.
NPR actually obtains the vast majority of its funding from non-government sources these days (what does come from the government mostly comes through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) -- this might explain while they figure it's OK if they're clearly a bit liberally biased these days --, so I expect that if you completely removed government funds most of the stations would still survive. Indeed, this was tried during the '70s and '80s, weaning them off of goverment funds... but it looked like they really were about to die completely in 1983 -- having amassed a $7M debt -- and that was some shuffling of people and policies (and restored government funding) to keep them around -- presumably with at least a bit of tacit approval from the reigning Reagan administration.
Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue.
--- When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on November 7, 1967, he described its purpose:
It announces to the world that our Nation wants more than just material wealth; our Nation wants more than a "chicken in every pot"[1]. We in America have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. That is the purpose of this act.[2] More concretely:
It will give a wider and, I think, stronger voice to educational radio and television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities. It will launch a major study of television's use in the Nation's classrooms and their potential use throughout the world. Finally - and most important - it builds a new institution: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. ---
More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- it's no accident that in many smaller venues the public radio stations are the only ones broadcasting in so-called "HD radio:" They were given a grant to change over their transmitters, to "demonstrate" HD radio's (really not that great) technology and hence try to expedite its adoption by commercial radio stations.
<zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote: >"flipper" <flip...@fish.net> wrote in message >news:ukosc6dts9lmce6ngbulmne4b2d6ngottr@4ax.com... >> Fact of the matter is, even without consulting the Constitution there >> is no compelling reason whatsoever for government to fund NPR.
>NPR actually obtains the vast majority of its funding from non-government >sources these days (what does come from the government mostly comes through >the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) -- this might explain while they >figure it's OK if they're clearly a bit liberally biased these days --, so I >expect that if you completely removed government funds most of the stations >would still survive.
I think you're wrong. Most of NPR's funding is via operation by universities... OUR tax funds via a different route.
I don't see any reason for publicly funded universities.
Fund education via [competitive] scholarships.
As for PBS, nothing fit to watch except during "gimme" campaigns.
[snip]
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I can see Election Results and Dismembered Democrats :-)
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:33:22 -0500, flipper wrote: > On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:07:59 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why >>should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally >>anti-American?
> That shouldn't be a consideration. Freedom of the Press, you know.
Freedom of the press, sure, but NOT ON MY DIME!
In other words, don't confiscate my money (i.e., tax) to pay a bunch of socialist propagandists to spew their redistributionist dogma. Let them spew their dogma at their OWN expense, not mine.
> "flipper" <flip...@fish.net> wrote in message > news:ukosc6dts9lmce6ngbulmne4b2d6ngottr@4ax.com... > > Fact of the matter is, even without consulting the Constitution there > > is no compelling reason whatsoever for government to fund NPR.
> NPR actually obtains the vast majority of its funding from non-government > sources these days (what does come from the government mostly comes through > the Corporation for Public Broadcasting) -- this might explain while they > figure it's OK if they're clearly a bit liberally biased these days --, so I > expect that if you completely removed government funds most of the stations > would still survive. Indeed, this was tried during the '70s and '80s, weaning > them off of goverment funds... but it looked like they really were about to > die completely in 1983 -- having amassed a $7M debt -- and that was some > shuffling of people and policies (and restored government funding) to keep > them around -- presumably with at least a bit of tacit approval from the > reigning Reagan administration.
> Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip > anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue.
> --- > When Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act into law on November 7, 1967, he > described its purpose:
> It announces to the world that our Nation wants more than just material > wealth; our Nation wants more than a "chicken in every pot"[1]. We in America > have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new > goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. > That is the purpose of this act.[2] > More concretely:
> It will give a wider and, I think, stronger voice to educational radio and > television by providing new funds for broadcast facilities. It will launch a > major study of television's use in the Nation's classrooms and their potential > use throughout the world. Finally - and most important - it builds a new > institution: the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. > ---
> More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- it's > no accident that in many smaller venues the public radio stations are the only > ones broadcasting in so-called "HD radio:" They were given a grant to change > over their transmitters, to "demonstrate" HD radio's (really not that great) > technology and hence try to expedite its adoption by commercial radio > stations.
On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to listen to them. :)
-- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them.
On Oct 31, 11:07 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On-
My-Web-Site.com> wrote: > So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why > should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally > anti-American?
So, a partly-publicly funded institution is sensitive to popular opinion, in 'vox populi, vox dei' fashion. That's nothing new (thus the Latin phrase).
The real problem here, is intolerance of viewpoints offered by a wide range of individuals; it either makes sense to allow a newsreader to editorialize (many do), or it is punishable by firing (again, that can happen). The real onus here, though, is on the predictable public outcry of folk who, rather than treat the incident as an anomaly, then want to defund an institution on the basis of its having made a decision that's controversial.
Get real, guys: all controversial decisions seem wrong to almost 50% of the audience. That doesn't mean they don't get made.
On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:23:15 -0500, flipper wrote: > On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:45:16 -0700, Rich Grise <richgr...@example.net> >>On Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:33:22 -0500, flipper wrote: >>> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 11:07:59 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>>>So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why >>>>should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally >>>>anti-American?
>>> That shouldn't be a consideration. Freedom of the Press, you know.
>>Freedom of the press, sure, but NOT ON MY DIME!
>>In other words, don't confiscate my money (i.e., tax) to pay a bunch >>of socialist propagandists to spew their redistributionist dogma. Let >>them spew their dogma at their OWN expense, not mine.
> And in the parts you snipped out I said there is no compelling reason > for government to fund NPR so you are arguing to no purpose.
Yeah, OK, I reacted first thing; but if you're going to say something inflammatory like that, it'd be polite to give the disclaimers first.
> On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to > listen to them. :)
Indeed. As with HDTV, it seems that HD radio was rolled out a bit too quickly without enough field trials or good engineering behind it (i.e., HDTV doesn't handle multi-path distortion very well, HD radio doesn't handle picket fencing -- as commonly experienced in an automobile! -- very well). It's actually rather fantastic when you consider that the FCC handed a monopoly on the technology to one company (iBiquity) for all time -- every single HD radio receiver and transmitter made requires royalty payments to iBiquity.
That being said, for city dwellers, at least in a stationary environment HD radio is a nice little upgrade to traditional AM/FM.
> Terrific but it doesn't alter the fact that the Constitution does not > grant the power and there's no compelling reason for government > funding.
Well, yes, but after some of the massive entitlement programs such as Medicare, it shouldn't be much of a surprise there's tons of little programs like the CPB around.
>>Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip >>anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue. > So what?
I was just agreeing with Jim that one might consider funding them on the basis of pity :-) -- Rush sure doesn't need any government support.
[LBJ's quote]
> Read those excuses again. First the arrogance that government is going > to "enrich man's spirit" but the "most important" is it builds a new > institution. Are you kidding me? This is a 'goal': building > institutions?
A lot of people relate to those beliefs, and while I agree some of the results may be constitutionally questionable, I believe the supreme court ruled a few times that that isn't the case. If anyone is going to try to re-open that issue, then, it's going to have to be the Tea Party folks -- the Republicans and Democrats have been going along with it for many decades now.
>>More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- > Since when did Congress ever have the slightest inkling about > 'technology' and what should be made or not made?
Congress empowers the FCC to conduct technology trials. In theory the FCC is supposed to create technological mandates that are in the best interest of the people, although in actuality that often doesn't seem to happen.
>I'll tell you when: > never. Someone comes in and 'sells' an 'idea' that Congress 'buys' > with your money whether you want it or not. If it works then fine and > if it doesn't work then fine because they have no money or risk in the > damn thing anyway. It's YOUR friggin money that's hurled down the > toilet and, casara, there's more where that came from.
Agreed, that does seem to have happened -- to a certain extent -- with HDTV and HD radio.
There was a time when the FCC was filled largely with engineers, but these days I'm told it's mostly all lawyers. That explains a few things...
> As if commercial stations can't figure out if it works or not so > government has to turn on a 'public' transmitter to show, see, it > works, eh?
They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are very risk-adverse critters by nature. :-)
On Mon, 1 Nov 2010 12:04:57 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 31, 11:07 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@On- >My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >> So, many people are calling for the defunding of NPR. After all, why >> should Americans have to pay for something that's so fundamentally >> anti-American?
>So, a partly-publicly funded institution is sensitive to popular >opinion, >in 'vox populi, vox dei' fashion. That's nothing new (thus the Latin >phrase).
>The real problem here, is intolerance of viewpoints offered by a wide >range of individuals; it either makes sense to allow a newsreader to >editorialize (many do), or it is punishable by firing (again, that can >happen). The real onus here, though, is on the predictable public >outcry of folk who, rather than treat the incident as an anomaly, then >want to defund an institution on the basis of its having made a >decision that's controversial.
>Get real, guys: all controversial decisions seem wrong to almost 50% >of the audience. That doesn't mean they don't get made.
No, at issue is whether it is a legitimate job of GOVERNMENT to fund political speech.
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:_vGdnavCU_evllLRnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d@earthlink.com... > > On the bright side, there aren't people screaming to buy HD radios to > > listen to them. :)
> Indeed. As with HDTV, it seems that HD radio was rolled out a bit too quickly > without enough field trials or good engineering behind it (i.e., HDTV doesn't > handle multi-path distortion very well, HD radio doesn't handle picket > fencing -- as commonly experienced in an automobile! -- very well). It's > actually rather fantastic when you consider that the FCC handed a monopoly on > the technology to one company (iBiquity) for all time -- every single HD radio > receiver and transmitter made requires royalty payments to iBiquity.
> That being said, for city dwellers, at least in a stationary environment HD > radio is a nice little upgrade to traditional AM/FM.
Sure, if you want 57 stations with the same talk radio. :(
-- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them.
> "flipper" <flip...@fish.net> wrote in message > news:su4uc69mqoeu3snjfv3v29llu0ahfmc5uo@4ax.com... > > Terrific but it doesn't alter the fact that the Constitution does not > > grant the power and there's no compelling reason for government > > funding.
> Well, yes, but after some of the massive entitlement programs such as > Medicare, it shouldn't be much of a surprise there's tons of little programs > like the CPB around.
> >>Clearly popular conservative talk shows like Rush Limbaugh's far overstrip > >>anything NPR has to offer in terms of the number of listeners and revenue. > > So what?
> I was just agreeing with Jim that one might consider funding them on the basis > of pity :-) -- Rush sure doesn't need any government support.
> [LBJ's quote]
> > Read those excuses again. First the arrogance that government is going > > to "enrich man's spirit" but the "most important" is it builds a new > > institution. Are you kidding me? This is a 'goal': building > > institutions?
> A lot of people relate to those beliefs, and while I agree some of the results > may be constitutionally questionable, I believe the supreme court ruled a few > times that that isn't the case. If anyone is going to try to re-open that > issue, then, it's going to have to be the Tea Party folks -- the Republicans > and Democrats have been going along with it for many decades now.
> >>More recently, the CPB has been used for "technology trials" as well -- > > Since when did Congress ever have the slightest inkling about > > 'technology' and what should be made or not made?
> Congress empowers the FCC to conduct technology trials. In theory the FCC is > supposed to create technological mandates that are in the best interest of the > people, although in actuality that often doesn't seem to happen.
> >I'll tell you when: > > never. Someone comes in and 'sells' an 'idea' that Congress 'buys' > > with your money whether you want it or not. If it works then fine and > > if it doesn't work then fine because they have no money or risk in the > > damn thing anyway. It's YOUR friggin money that's hurled down the > > toilet and, casara, there's more where that came from.
> Agreed, that does seem to have happened -- to a certain extent -- with HDTV > and HD radio.
> There was a time when the FCC was filled largely with engineers, but these > days I'm told it's mostly all lawyers. That explains a few things...
> > As if commercial stations can't figure out if it works or not so > > government has to turn on a 'public' transmitter to show, see, it > > works, eh?
> They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are very > risk-adverse critters by nature. :-)
Not really. You should see the risks they take by not spending money on proper maintainence.
-- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them.
> Joel Koltner wrote: >> They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are >> very >> risk-adverse critters by nature. :-) > Not really. You should see the risks they take by not spending money > on proper maintainence.
Ha... good point!
When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the nearest tech" is the way to go, too...
> "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:_pqdnQrUOqzTxlLRnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d@earthlink.com... > > Joel Koltner wrote: > >> They're trying to avoid a Catch-22 problem -- commercial broadcasters are > >> very > >> risk-adverse critters by nature. :-) > > Not really. You should see the risks they take by not spending money > > on proper maintainence.
> Ha... good point!
> When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the > nearest tech" is the way to go, too...
No, they have to track down their 'contract engineer' and see when he can get them back on the air. Thanks to 'Broadcast deregulation' most radio stations under 50 KW don't have any engineers on staff. Allowing stations to eliminate their engineering staff created the problems of 'Investor owned' radio stations that milked them of every cent they could. When they get too run down, companies like Clear Channel buy them and turn them into satellite fed clones.
I know of one transmitter site that shares one engineer for five FM radio stations. He is on salary, and has to live in the transmitter building because he is on call 24/7. That is, whenever they can keep someone there.
-- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them.
> "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:g6Jzo.298310$Qg.121585@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com... > > When things do break they probably figure that "management by telling at the > > nearest tech" is the way to go, too...
> ^^^ Should be YELLING at the nearest tech
Sadly, there are no techs left in broadcasting, outside the OEM sites.
-- Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is enough left over to pay them.
>> At least it'll scroll the name of the talking head across the radio's display? >> :-)
> Maybe. If you can keep your eyes open long enough. That's why I >bought a Sanyo Internet radio. Nothing left to listen to around here.
I love my Roku Soundbridge. 50's rock-n-roll, commercial free ;-)
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I can see Election Results and Dismembered Democrats :-)
