Newt G.'s stand on NPR
Mark Bauer
>
> <Question about NPR funding deleted>
> >
> > Other Mike's sarcastic remark about dumping NPR deleted
>
> I understand your's and other's points of view questioning the
> justification of what the Constitution had in mind for our individual needs.
> Things have changed just a tiny bit since 1789. I feel that NPR provides
> many other services to small communities besides playing Classical music.
> Why can't you and other address these issues without being such a smart-ass?
>
And things have changed a tiny bit since the rise of NPR/CPB etc.
I can get classical music through my cable TV hookup - with no
commercials. Do you REALLY think there is a big groundswell of
NPR support in small town America? The real listener is the average
urban/suburban type who can and should pay for the service. Payment
can be direct (or donation a la PBS), or tolerance of commercials.
John G. Otto
>> In article 8...@nntp.Stanford.EDU,
>> wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU (William B. Vogt) writes:
>>> In article <borsomD0...@netcom.com>,
>>> Douglas Borsom <bor...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>>> laj...@eskimo.com (Stephen Lajoie) writes:
>>>> Slight? SLIGHT!? They make an art of being unobjective.
>>>> Do you call Daniel Shore objective?
No, I call him Daniel "whiney mush-mouth" Shore.
>>> Bad example.
Yep, I agree with you there. He's a bad example for every one.
>>> Shore's commentray is always labeled as such. It's the radio
>>> equivalent of the Op-Ed section of your newspaper, and NPR tries
>>> hard to make sure that listeners understand that. (Personally,
>>> I find Shore boring, long winded, and largely irrelevant.)
>> This is false. Shore is described as an analyst.
> Also, how many conservative counterparts to Shore do they have on
> as regularly as he? I can't think of any.
There's more to it than just to whom they provide a forum.
There's the way they have their little bits scheduled so that one
bolsters the next's flaming radical leftist propaganda punch.
They wait for that one extreme incident of illegitimate use of a
firearm (ignore all of the legitimate uses in the mean time) and
then scream bloody murder. They interview 2 researchers who have
come to differing conclusions regarding the merits of firearms
ownership (so they can claim to be balanced), then are obsequious
to the gun banner and belligerent to the one who discovered &
reported that, contrary to his own preconceptions, firearms are
much, MUCH, more likely to be used in legitimate defense (fired,
drawn, or neither), than to harm an innocent.
When an infamous radical leftist thug dies (e.g. Clod "the Red"
Pepper), they sing long eulogies in praise.
They rail against effective measures to reduce air pollution,
because they're not statist enough to please them.
Speaking of rail, they sing the praises of collectivist travel,
collectivist entertainment, collectivist & mystic writings &
emotionalism (i.e. the preeminence of feelings), and denigrate
individuality, independence, and reason.
They don't want children to learn; they want them to BE socialized.
They don't want to see justice; only (false) compassion.
So, of course they want the gov't to use force (taxation)
& fraud (paper funny money) to fund them.
But my real question is: How do they cultivate and maximize that
irritating combination whine & sneer in all of their voices?
Do they all get sent to E,N&T specialists to surgically alter
them? Is it something in the wine & croissants? Is it just
a trick of the electronics? And where DOES Very Gross get her
supply of pre-show ludes?
--
jgo ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us
John G. Otto
> bdec...@sunm4048as.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) wrote:
>> In article <1994Dec16.1...@chemabs.uucp>,
>> rb...@cas.org (Brad Andrews) writes:
>>> In article i...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu,
>>> bdec...@sunm4048as.sph.umich.edu (Barry DeCicco) writes:
>>>> "Liberal" media?
>>> They are very market-driven. They want those ratings.
>>> Except for NPR, the least of those reporters/producers/etc.
>>> have spent more time in a hyper-competitive market than
>>> Newt Gingrich/Bob Dole/Bill Bennett/just about any big-time
>>> Republican politician/pundit, except for Rush Limbaugh.
>>> "Liberal" media? The same people who have been giving Rush
>>> as much airtime as the market will justify.
>> Then why aren't there more shows with "conservative spins" on the
>> three major networks? Why is Rush's show only shown after midnight
>> most places?
>> Certainly they want money, but many, especially those in the news
>> area, see themselves as on a mission, which includes forming public
>> opinion.
>> They are also far more liberal than the general public when you
>> compare their core values with those of the country. Even if they
>> try not to, their core beliefs will effect their work.
>> Conservatives admit this, most liberals won't
>> The other problem is that many of those who claim an unbiased media
>> are so far left that they [think every]thing is to the right of them,
>> and inherently must be balanced even if quite liberal.
All of the above assertions are supported by the surveys of media
people. (See Lichter, Lichter & Rothman _Watching America_ & _The
Media Elite_; Ben Bagdikian presents a slightly more leftist case in
_The Media Monopoly_; just for the heck of it Douglas Davis _The 5
Myths of Television Power_ which merely states that, despite all of
the effort, their manipulations aren't all completely successful;
and Mark Gitenstein shows some of the conscious radical leftist
political & media manipulations in _Matters of Principle_)
> Since the market allocates resources with near-perfect efficiency
> (to quote another frequent contributor to this group), it must be
> because the market does not demand it.
Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the gov't
controlling who could get the broadcasting licenses for the last 60
odd years. (Did you catch that little bit of political sleight of
hand covered with a thin veneer of self-righteousness Teddy used to
get Murdoch off his case?)
--
jgo ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us
Weed Eater (munch munch)
: In <1994Dec15...@wkuvx2.wku.edu> camp...@wkuvx1.wku.edu writes:
: >
: >In article <3cht60$s...@hobbes.cc.uga.edu>, mh...@moe.coe.uga.edu (Mike
: Hall) writes:
: >> In article <3cb6gj$7...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, Mike Powell
: <mi...@sr.hp.com> wrote:
: >>
: >> <Question about NPR funding deleted>
: >>>
: >>> Ohhhhhh... what an important national task! Making sure
: >>> classical music can be herd withoug commericals! Call
: >>> the President! We have another crisis folks... call Hillary!
: >>> Put together a team! People have a right to commercial free
: >>> classical music! It's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (and don't you
: >>> forget it) ("BHR" for short).
: >>>
: >>> Yea... that's what government should be doing!
: >>>
: >>> -Mike-
: >>
: >> Gee, now I see it all so clearly. Thanks, Mike, for your biting
: >> wit and emmense understanding of all things in the smart-assed sense.
: >>
: >> Why don't you consider for a second that news and information in some
: >> communities of this country will not be served in a mostly unbiased
: way by
: >> any other form than NPR? Network news from Macon, Ga. or CNN is all
: that
: >> some folks in Georgia can get. You'd think that Newt himself would
: have
: >> understood that coming from his own background.
: >>
: >> I for one, would rather have a choice of many different mediums to
: obtain
: >> my news and information from. Not just commercial sources. And, I'd
: >> be willing to pay for these services, but that's not the real issue
: here.
: >> They're already funded, and without their Fed. funding, they would
: not
: >> be the useful information sources that they are today. (notice I
: didn't
: >> say they were perfect news sources)
: >>
: >> I understand your's and other's points of view questioning the
: >> justification of what the Constitution had in mind for our individual
: needs.
: >> Things have changed just a tiny bit since 1789. I feel that NPR
: provides
: >> many other services to small communities besides playing Classical
: music.
: >> Why can't you and other address these issues without being such a
: smart-ass?
: >
: >Well, then change the Constitution if it's that important to you.
: >Until that time, though, it is still unconstitutional.
: >
: >And as for services to rural areas, you still need to explain to me
: >why in the world you have ANY right to come and steal money from me to
: >provide a non-protective service for anyone. Nobody NEEDS NPR at all.
: >I mean, people DO need food, but the government should not be
: >providing everyone with food either.
: >
: >Troy Camplin
: >
: Troy,
: Ok, let's get rid of NPR, while we are at it, let's cut rural farm
: subsidies, tabbaco subsidies, and last but not least Sesseme Street
Deal! Let's do it. As a resident of NC< I would be glad to see
everything you list cut.
Andrew MacFarlane
sbi...@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) wrote:
> > Ohhhhhh... what an important national task! Making sure
> > classical music can be herd withoug commericals! Call
> > the President! We have another crisis folks... call Hillary!
> > Put together a team! People have a right to commercial free
> > classical music! It's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (and don't you
> > forget it) ("BHR" for short).
It is no less important than nonstop rap and metal on dozens of other
bands across the airwaves. Trouble is, there are rarely any commercial
alternatives (none in the metro area where I now live), so I couldn't hear
it with interruptions either.
> Actually, if all that's desired is interruption-free classical music,
> there's Cable Radio. You can get it most places where Cable TV is
> available, piggy-backed onto the CTV service.
That's dandy, except that incredibly enough not everyone gets Cable TV.
According to a pundit on C-Span this morning, 38% of US households don't
get cable. That't the beauty of radio, for Pete's sake, anyone with $5.00
for a transistor radio can listen.
Andrew MacFarlane
> NPR may only cost me a nickel a year, true. But if you look through the
> Federal Budget you will find thousands of items like NPR which only cost
> each of us a nickel (more or less) a year. Add them up and they become
> several hundreds of dollars (at least) I have to pay for all kinds of
> things I don't care about.
We call it citizenship.
ja...@austin.ibm.com
In article <sbieser-1112...@psbieser.deltanet.com>, sbi...@deltanet.com (Scott Bieser) writes:
> In article <3cb6gj$7...@canyon.sr.hp.com>, mi...@sr.hp.com (Mike Powell) wrote:
>
> > Andrew MacFarlane (macf...@servax.fiu.edu) wrote:
> > : In article <Karni06-0912941242210001@mac_rbk_3.chem.ucla.edu>,
> > : Kar...@aol.com (Karni06) wrote:
> >
> > : > > Somone want to explain to me what the hell is wrong with National
> > : > > Public Radio that makes Newt want to cancel its Federal Funding.
> > : >
> > : > Why does it need to be publically funded?
> >
> > : So there can be one station on the air that plays classical music, for one
> > : thing, and without commercial interruptions. It's a little variety in the
> > : airwaves, as horrible as that may sound, that might cost you, the
> > : non-contributing listener, maybe a nickel a year.
> >
> >
> > Ohhhhhh... what an important national task! Making sure
> > classical music can be herd withoug commericals! Call
> > the President! We have another crisis folks... call Hillary!
> > Put together a team! People have a right to commercial free
> > classical music! It's a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (and don't you
> > forget it) ("BHR" for short).
> >
> >
> > -Mike-
>
> there's Cable Radio. You can get it most places where Cable TV is
> available, piggy-backed onto the CTV service.
>
Or still another Another private-enterprise solution might be a station
funded entirely via donations. As in Austin, 26 years and doing quite well.
And unlike all the NPR station I've heard, not affilited with a university.
Makes them very responsive to what their listeners want, and not what they
might be inclined to give their listeners. Course all of the above requires
folks to make a deliberate decision on how to spend their money. What a
radical concept.
Jack
Alan Bomberger
>Karni06 (Kar...@aol.com) wrote:
>: In article <3cia5j$d...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>,
>: de...@wrjva2.dhmc.dartmouth.edu (Derek Bruzewicz) wrote:
>: > Karni06 (Kar...@aol.com) wrote:
>: > I don't care whether
>: > you listen or not -- I just want my right to.
>: Oh, sure you can... just not on *my* dime.
>I can pay for myself. By removing government aid, however,
>you deny this service to many others.
Are you crazy? In no way is Newt proposing to stop left wing
fascists from continuing to support NPR so that all those
disadvantages little leftists can listen to it. If you want
to make sure NPR is available for the poor, then send in you
subscription money to your local public station. They set no
upper limit so you can pay the subscription for as many of the
poor as you like.
Just because something is a good idea does not mean that it
should be funded with tax dollars and thus controlled by the
congressional staff via "rules" and "regulations". I like
some public radio and send them money. Do you?
--
Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
John Birge
> Heard on NPR this morning that Newt is pulling for a withdrawl of
>Federal funding for Public Radio.
> Somone want to explain to me what the hell is wrong with National
>not talking about welfare here, we're talking about one of the last non-
>commercial arenas left in the media. I almost have stopped watching PBS
>because of all the damn pledge requests. They used to do it once and
>a while, now it seems like every weekend or something.
>
> I have to admit a slight leaning towards the left on this one, but
>why in the world would an educated person want to do away with the badly
>needed Federal funding for NPR?
>
>Newt needs to pick on something else.
>
>Opinions?
Well I've got one.....
I listen to around 20 hours a week of NPR. I enjoy it but frankly
it is far out of the Federal Gov'ments purvue. Gut it, cut it, and
move on to the NEA.....
John
James G. Weston
: In article 787425438@access4, lhe...@access4.digex.net (Larry Hewitt) writes:
: ]
: ]Well, actually the biggest line item in the budget is debt repayment -
: ]28% of federal expenditures. And most of this debt was incurred under
: ]Reagan and Bush as taxes were cut and the defense budget ballooned. So,
: ]it seems to me that it would be fairer and wiser to make the recipents of
: ]all of this borrowed money pay off the debt, then we can cut taxes 28%
: ]_with no change in current programs_!
: LIBERAL LIE ALERT! LIBERAL LIE ALERT!
: The deficit didn't come about because of cutting taxes. Cutting tax rates
: actually raised more revenue. The deficit came about because we drastically
: increased SOCIAL spending during that period. Though a few minor programs
: were cut, most blossomed and sucked up more and more funds.
: You can blame Reagan and Bush for going along with the Democrat's increased
: spending if you want, but the tax cuts were not the reason, and defense spending
: was only a small portion.
Brad, you're at it again. Stop your ideological posturing long enough to
check things out once in a while. During the 80s defense spending
increased by over 1.7 TRILLION Dollars. You may think that 1.7 TRILLION
is only a small portion of the 3 trillion that the debt increased, but my
archaic arithmetic puts it at over half.
And your assertion that the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit is
based on the theory built on the infamous Laffer Curve. It is a theory
that only some people still take seriously. You are not stating anything
factual, you are stating an opinion based on an unproven economic theory.
Will you ever discover that sometimes cause and effect is not on your side?
Gary
--
Gary Weston vi...@crl.com |Nunca entra en disputas.
Petaluma, CA
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> aha...@clark.net (Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew) wrote:
> > In my market, NPR provides a combination of jazz/news/talk/country/etc,
> > all easily available from other radio stations. Their quality (as I
> > pointed out in another post) is not much better than that of other
> > comparable sources.
> Well, in the UK, the BBC1 radio (not funded by advertising) is
> miles better than anything I hear when I go to the US;
Again, we need to define what "better" means in this context. When I say
that NPR is not better than its commercial competitors, I am talking about
*comparable* programs of such nature that objective criteria are useful.
E.g., when they missed the boat on Czechoslovakia, they were clearly not
doing a good job, or even a "better" job than their competitors.
But if the BBC1 guys decide to cover Rwanda and some American station
decides to spend 3 hours covering O.J. Simpson, then you can hardly say
that one is "better" than the other. They have different audiences and
they have to comply with their audiences' wishes. Are you sure that your
perception of American broadcasting was not influenced by your
expectations?
> and the
> commercial stations feel they have to keep their levels high
> to compete with it. So if we got rid of Radio 1 (and 3 and 4,
> for other kinds of markets), then everything would fall to the
> US standard; and I think the country would be the poorer for it. [snip]
You seem to be saying that commercial stations *are* keeping up, right?
Your only concern seems to be that were public radio to be eliminated,
commercial stations would start doing a bad job, right? Why? After all,
there would still be competition between commercial stations and lowering
your standards would still be liable to affect your ratings and revenue.
Am I a missing something?
> > We seem to be back to the underlying politico-philosophical issues of this
> > debate: who is to decide what is "significant". *If* there were an
> > "objective" way of determining what is "significant" and what is not, and
> > *if* a panel of experts could be appointed that could make such decisions,
> > then you would be right. Few people would have argued about it 30 years
> > ago. I would have even (sort of) agreed with you in the late 70's. These
> > days, however, many of us have come to believe that this proposition is
> > inherently untenable and that it is best to leave such matters to the
> > market.
> Do you mean that because the implementation recently has been so
> bad, you don't believe that a good implementation can exist?
Not quite. Our experience with public broadcasting is only one of the
relevant data points. My approach is a bit more general in nature. Many
people in the US - granted, not all, maybe even not most - believe that
giving the federal government control over pretty much anything that is
not patently a federal matter (armed forces, immigration, foreign affairs,
etc) is an inherently Bad Thing and should be eliminated wherever
possible.
Budget deficits of the past 20 years attracted more attention to this
debate, but it has been going on for (at least) the last 25 years.
> If you want to look at evidence, see what has happened in every
> country that has left the media purely up to the market, and tell
> us if you like the results...
What countries are you referring to and what were the results? I am quite
happy with the state of the US market as far as other media are concerned,
e.g. magazines, movies, videos, even newspapers. Whenever the federal
government interfered with these areas in the past, the results were less
than satisfactory. For example, they are wasting huge amounts of money at
the American Film Institute, my very own pork barrel project :)
--
Ahasuerus
Version 0.0.1 of the Heinlein FAQ is now available:
ftp.clark.net:/pub/ahasuer/heinlein.faq
http://www.interport.net/~regulus/heinlein/hei-int.html
William B. Vogt
>William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>: On guns, they (& the popular media generally)
>: are even worse than you describe. When a child gets
>: shot accidently, for example, they do just as you describe.
>: But when a child is killed in an auto accident or poisoned
>: in his home, there is no comment at all (presumably and
>: frighteningly because these events are _more_ common).
>Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
>own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
>auto accident or poisoned at home can happen to anyone in the course of
>their daily lives. But letting a child have access to a loaded gun is
>criminal, and should be brought to the public's attention until those who
>are supposed tto be "responsible" get the message.
Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
treatment in the media?
-- Bill
William B. Vogt
John G. Otto <ott...@freenet.tlh.fl.us> wrote:
>There's more to it than just to whom they provide a forum.
>There's the way they have their little bits scheduled so that one
>bolsters the next's flaming radical leftist propaganda punch.
>
>They wait for that one extreme incident of illegitimate use of a
>firearm (ignore all of the legitimate uses in the mean time) and
>then scream bloody murder.
On guns, they (& the popular media generally)
are even worse than you describe. When a child gets
shot accidently, for example, they do just as you describe.
But when a child is killed in an auto accident or poisoned
in his home, there is no comment at all (presumably and
frighteningly because these events are _more_ common).
-- Bill
Derek Bruzewicz
: We seem to be back to the underlying politico-philosophical issues of this
: debate: who is to decide what is "significant". *If* there were an
: "objective" way of determining what is "significant" and what is not, and
: *if* a panel of experts could be appointed that could make such decisions,
: then you would be right. Few people would have argued about it 30 years
: ago. I would have even (sort of) agreed with you in the late 70's. These
: days, however, many of us have come to believe that this proposition is
: inherently untenable and that it is best to leave such matters to the
: market.
Auuugh! No! Look at what "leaving such matters to the market" has
gotten us: more rap and ez-listening stations than anyone can stomach,
gross over-coverage of O.J. Simpson, updates on the Royal Family;
WHO CARES? No-one will claim that this is real news, or satisfactory
entertainment, but it is virtually the only way to make money in the
media: pandering. NPR's need to do that is either lessened, or falls
on a different group (so different that one may scarcely call it
pandering), which is why it is "necessary" -- majority rule, minority
rights.
-derek, on-line with his new modem
glindahl
: >There's more to it than just to whom they provide a forum.
: >There's the way they have their little bits scheduled so that one
: >bolsters the next's flaming radical leftist propaganda punch.
: >
: >They wait for that one extreme incident of illegitimate use of a
: >firearm (ignore all of the legitimate uses in the mean time) and
: >then scream bloody murder.
: On guns, they (& the popular media generally)
: are even worse than you describe. When a child gets
: shot accidently, for example, they do just as you describe.
: But when a child is killed in an auto accident or poisoned
: in his home, there is no comment at all (presumably and
: frighteningly because these events are _more_ common).
Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
Alan Bomberger
>And your assertion that the tax cuts did not contribute to the deficit is
>based on the theory built on the infamous Laffer Curve. It is a theory
>that only some people still take seriously. You are not stating anything
>factual, you are stating an opinion based on an unproven economic theory.
>Will you ever discover that sometimes cause and effect is not on your side?
People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM. That is there is an optimum
tax rate that is LESS THAN 100%. IF the current rate is HIGHER THAN
the rate which yields the maximum income lowering the rate will
increase the income.
It baffles me how anyone can possibly argue with this very simple
mostly mathematical principle.
The only possible (and stupid) arguments I can think of are
A: at 100% tax rate people will work just as hard and
quietly give the entire GDP over to the government.
B: Income only falls off between 99.99999% and 100% otherwise
income is a direct relationship with tax rate.
You may argue whether the maximum rate comes at 20% or 80% and
if you make these arguments, people will listen to you and maybe
there is some value to come from such arguments. To say that
the Laffer Curve is discredited because we ran deficits is plainly
stupid and completely discredits your ideas about taxes to any
rational thoughtful individual.
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew (aha...@clark.net) wrote:
> : We seem to be back to the underlying politico-philosophical issues of this
> : debate: who is to decide what is "significant". *If* there were an
> : "objective" way of determining what is "significant" and what is not, and
> : *if* a panel of experts could be appointed that could make such decisions,
> : then you would be right. Few people would have argued about it 30 years
> : ago. I would have even (sort of) agreed with you in the late 70's. These
> : days, however, many of us have come to believe that this proposition is
> : inherently untenable and that it is best to leave such matters to the
> : market.
> Auuugh! No! Look at what "leaving such matters to the market" has
> gotten us: more rap and ez-listening stations than anyone can stomach,
> gross over-coverage of O.J. Simpson, updates on the Royal Family;
> WHO CARES? No-one will claim that this is real news, or satisfactory
> entertainment
I am afraid I can only point out that we are back to the original problem:
who is to decide what counts as "satisfactory entertainment" (I already
mentioned that NPR is as bad at reporting "real news" as commercial
stations). For example, I collect pulp magazines and watch lots of silent
movies. And *nobody* ever talks about these topics on the radio! When was
the last time you heard a comprehensive discussion of "Super Science
Stories" or Arbuckle on NPR? :)
The reason is fairly simple: very few people actually care about most
things that I care about. Analogously, *you* don't like listening to their
coverage of O.J. Simpson, but other people just can't get enough of it.
Consider yourself economically outvoted :)
Thankfully, in a big market (and the US is a very big market), there is
enough money to be made addressing niche audiences. Hence, there are
magazines for pulp/video collectors, there are places where you can
buy/rent pulps/silent movies and there are radio stations that broadcast
"alternative" music. Don't worry, if there is a market, somebody is going
to take care of it. If not - why, then it's all yours to make a fortune!:)
> but it is virtually the only way to make money in the
> media: pandering. NPR's need to do that is either lessened, or falls
> on a different group (so different that one may scarcely call it
> pandering)
Hmm, so it's only pandering when one doesn't like it, right? :)
> which is why it is "necessary" -- majority rule, minority rights.
Minority "rights" are best protected by the market which is best suited to
establish a reasonable equilibrium between those who need a particular
product and those who can provide it. Governments are also capable of
performing this function, but they are usually much less efficient and
substitute public choice for private choice with predictable consequences.
Oh well, just my $0.02...
Peter Nelson
: People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
: Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
: 0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
: inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM.
^^^^^^^^^
Wrongo!
There could be multiple maxima. There could be variable
or dependent (on various other factors) maxima, or otherwise
unpredictable maxima.
: It baffles me how anyone can possibly argue with this very simple
: mostly mathematical principle.
Probably because we've studied some economics or some mathematics
and realize that the world is not as idiotically simplistic as you
imply.
---peter
Alan Bomberger
>In article <alan.78...@amdahl.com>, al...@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) writes:
>|> jld...@cs.rit.edu (James L D'Angelo) writes:
>|>
>|> >In article <RLM.94De...@netcom3.netcom.com> r...@netcom.com (Robert McMillin) writes:
>|> >>On 11 Dec 1994 06:16:38 PDT, evrw...@powergrid.electriciti.com (Ed Redondo) said:
>|> >>
>|> >>> Newt can pick on NPR because it's *not* big business. It doesn't
>|> >>> make big contributions to Republican coffers. So he can safely say
>|> >>> that he's saving tax dollars. This is typical Republican Right
>|> >>> thinking.
>|> >>
>|> >>And damned good thinking it is, too. Pray, how are we to cut the
>|> >>budget unless by cutting government programs?
>|> > CUT DEFENSE SPENDING!
>|> > If you want to cut programs, start at the biggest one!
>|>
>|> Of course you have just suggested cutting funding for the only
>|> function properly belonging to the Federal Government. Look
>|> carefully at the described role of the Federal Government in the
>|> Constitution and then cut everything but the Judicial branch
>|> and the Defence Department. Ought to balance up real quick like.
>|> --
>|>
>|> Alan Bomberger | (408)-992-2748 | al...@oes.amdahl.com
>|> Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
>|> It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume
>It was not the original intent of the Founders that we should maintain
>the "foreign entanglements" which we do.
Huh? Defense (I can spell it correctly now) is not Foreign Entanglements.
Stupid foreign policy of the State Department isn't funded by DOD. Protect
the borders and be prepared to fend of the most agressive invasion.
Peter Nelson
: : inherently untenable and that it is best to leave such matters to the
: : market.
: Auuugh! No! Look at what "leaving such matters to the market" has
: gotten us: more rap and ez-listening stations than anyone can stomach,
: gross over-coverage of O.J. Simpson, updates on the Royal Family;
: WHO CARES? No-one will claim that this is real news, or satisfactory
: entertainment, but it is virtually the only way to make money in the
: media: pandering. NPR's need to do that is either lessened, or falls
: on a different group (so different that one may scarcely call it
: pandering), which is why it is "necessary" -- majority rule, minority
: rights.
I can't stand commercial broadcasting; I think it sucks mightily.
I don't watch TV at all and 90+% of my radio-listening is on the
public broadcasting end of the dial, where i think things are
generally more intelligent and civilized.
But so what? Why should I expect the taxpayers to indulge
me in such matters? I don't expect to have my taxes pay for
Rush Limbaugh or QVC, why should they have to pay for Thistle
and Shamrock or Morning Edition?
---peter
Vernon R Imrich
|> Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
|> chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
|> children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
|> storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
|> ready in case it's needed. Anyone who has a child knows how resourceful
|> they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
|> supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
|> should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
ON the other hand, we could adopt the sex education approach. Teach
them early and often how to be responsible around guns. If the liberal
argument that sex education doesn't encourage sexual activity holds,
then it should hold that gun education won't encourage shootings.
For all but the smallest children (who probably can be kept out of
the gun area as easily as from the kitchen cabnets) education on
basic saftey is possible.
One method to store a loaded handgun more safely is to keep the
chamber empty. A quick click and you'd be ready for intruders, but
much less chance of accident. There are, I am sure many more methods.
I hear palm ID technology may be coming out soon. Perhaps even
simpler would be a small electric codepad with a two or three
number code to push before the gun could be fired and the same code
to lock it out again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT OE, Rm 5-329b | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (the Exchange) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| MIT LP: http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/libertarians/home.html |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
glindahl
: In article <3d7g97$e...@panix.com>, glindahl <glin...@panix.com> wrote:
: >Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
: >chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
: >children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
: >storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
: >ready in case it's needed.
: Actually there are several metal cases with simplex-style locks that can allow
: you to get fairly rapid access to a handgun while still being child
: proof. One of these boxes has a slot for your hand which
: auto-positions your fingers over the buttons so it can be opened even
: in the dark.
And it costs ... ?
: By the time your child is at the simplex lock picking age, it is time
: to take him or her to the range and teach them about firearm safety.
Right.
Doug MacIntyre
> Alan Bomberger (al...@oes.amdahl.com) wrote:
>
> : People who dispute the Laffer Curve are being deliberately stupid. The
> : Laffer Curve quite clearly states that at 0% tax rate the income is
> : 0 and at 100% tax rate the income is zero. Therefore somewhere
> : inbetween 0% and 100% IS A MAXIMUM.
^^^^^^^^^
> Wrongo!
> There could be multiple maxima. There could be variable
> or dependent (on various other factors) maxima, or otherwise
> unpredictable maxima.
You're picking nits. The real point is that even if there are
multiple maxima, the theory still holds that there must exist some
tax rates which, when lowered, result in an increase in revenues.
These are found to the "right" (on the tax rate axis) of a local
maximum.
Doug
James Jones
>Auuugh! No! Look at what "leaving such matters to the market" has
>gotten us: more rap and ez-listening stations than anyone can stomach,
>gross over-coverage of O.J. Simpson, updates on the Royal Family;
>WHO CARES? No-one will claim that this is real news, or satisfactory
>entertainment, but it is virtually the only way to make money in the
>media: pandering.
*Somebody* must think it's satisfactory entertainment--if nobody listened,
then advertisers wouldn't foot the bill.
James Jones
Opinions herein are those of their respective authors, and not necessarily
those of any organization.
glindahl
: >Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
: >own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
: >auto accident or poisoned at home can happen to anyone in the course of
: >their daily lives. But letting a child have access to a loaded gun is
: >criminal, and should be brought to the public's attention until those who
: >are supposed tto be "responsible" get the message.
: Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
: treatment in the media?
Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
Thomas Grant Edwards
>Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
>chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
>storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
>ready in case it's needed.
Actually there are several metal cases with simplex-style locks that can allow
you to get fairly rapid access to a handgun while still being child
proof. One of these boxes has a slot for your hand which
auto-positions your fingers over the buttons so it can be opened even
in the dark.
By the time your child is at the simplex lock picking age, it is time
to take him or her to the range and teach them about firearm safety.
-Thomas
glindahl
: |> Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
: |> chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
: |> children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
: |> storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
: |> ready in case it's needed. Anyone who has a child knows how resourceful
: |> they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
: |> supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
: |> should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
: ON the other hand, we could adopt the sex education approach. Teach
: them early and often how to be responsible around guns. If the liberal
: argument that sex education doesn't encourage sexual activity holds,
: then it should hold that gun education won't encourage shootings.
Early gun education supposes that, like sex, we will use our guns early
and often. It also supposes that it is the accepted norm to have a gun
around the house. Along with most Americans, I don't accept that
practice as "normal" , and don't want my children to have any contact
with guns at all!
Finally, because this is so off topic here in alt.radio.npr, I just want
to express my sadness that you (and many others) dismiss this as a
"liberal" attitude, as though the death of children could take on any
crass political meaning! Is that it then? Being against guns in the
hands of children makes me one of those "liberals?" Could it be that
simple?
Michael Edward Chastain
> Early gun education supposes that, like sex, we will use our guns early
> and often. It also supposes that it is the accepted norm to have a gun
> around the house.
Sure is in my house, along with the houses of tens of millions of other
gun owners. If you want to make a majoritarian case, think about the
100,000,000 guns in America, and that lots and lots of people own them.
Are you willing to suppress every 25% minority in this country, hmmm?
> ... and don't want my children to have any contact with guns at all!
Fine -- if you don't want a gun, don't have one.
Michael Chastain
m...@shell.portal.com
William B. Vogt
>: >Too many children are killed with handguns each year, and I mean in their
>: >own homes. The reason it's news is that it's so avoidable! Killed in an
>: >auto accident or poisoned at home can happen to anyone in the course of
>: >their daily lives.
>: Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
>: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
>: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
>: treatment in the media?
>Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant.
This clearly has nothing to do with it. The instantness of
death doesn't have any appreciable impact on its coverage in
the media, as far as I can tell. Also, I doubt that the assertion
is even true.
>With
>chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases.
This is irrelevant. Kids die because chemicals are improperly
stored. It is covered far less often than are gun-related
accidental deaths. What does the ability to treat some cases
of poisoning have to do with it?
>"Proper
>storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
>ready in case it's needed.
Only if you assume that the only use of a household handgun is
defense against unexpected home invasion. There are lots of
other potential uses, the most obvious being target shooting.
Even if your statement is true, however, it undermines your position,
which is that gun-related accidental deaths of children are
somehow more preventable than poisoning deaths.
-- Bill
Keith Hamburger
: to express my sadness that you (and many others) dismiss this as a
: "liberal" attitude, as though the death of children could take on any
: crass political meaning! Is that it then? Being against guns in the
: hands of children makes me one of those "liberals?" Could it be that
: simple?
Are my posts getting out of here? Or am I just being ignored?
Keith
ssatchell on BIX
You know, every time I see one of those stories on TV, the implied
message I get is that the gun shouldn't be in the home, period. When I
read these stories in the newspaper, though, I don't get that message from
reading the entire article.
Sarah Brady harps on guns not being in citizen's hands. The thing is,
if you *really* want to save the lives of the kids, just require the
gun dealers to provide a proper trigger lock with every handgun sold as part
of the package. If the gun is locked, kids can't pull the trigger -- if you
can't pull the trigger, it takes a *lot* more work to make that gun fire.
(i It's too bad the trigger guards are so easy to remove; otherwise
Carey
Jeffrey Salzberg <salz...@menudo.uh.edu> wrote:
>William B. Vogt (wili...@leland.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
>
>: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
>: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
>: treatment in the media?
>
>*constructive* purpose.
>
There we go. Right to the heart of the matter. Defending yourself,
defending your home is *not* constructive.
Boy, it sure seems pretty constructive to me.
ssatchell on BIX
>Vernon R Imrich (vim...@athena.mit.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3d7g97$e...@panix.com>, glin...@panix.com (glindahl) writes:
>: |> Because with a gun, a child can kill or be killed in an instant. With
>: |> chemicals, which no one would argue must be stored out of reach of
>: |> children, death is less likely, and treatable in many cases. "Proper
>: |> storage" of a household handgun defeats its very purpose, i.e. to be
>: |> ready in case it's needed. Anyone who has a child knows how resourceful
>: |> they are at getting their little sweaty hands on things they're not
>: |> supposed to! Irresponsible storage of a loaded handgun around a child
>: |> should, in itself, be a crime. Is this an unreasonable concept?
>: ON the other hand, we could adopt the sex education approach. Teach
>: them early and often how to be responsible around guns. If the liberal
>: argument that sex education doesn't encourage sexual activity holds,
>: then it should hold that gun education won't encourage shootings.
>Early gun education supposes that, like sex, we will use our guns early
>and often. It also supposes that it is the accepted norm to have a gun
>around the house. Along with most Americans, I don't accept that
>practice as "normal" , and don't want my children to have any contact
>with guns at all!
I take exception to the statement that "[a]long with most Americans, I
don't accept that practice as 'normal'."
You are free to hold your own opinion, but until you hold a comprehensive
poll (which means that I get called, too) which show that the majority
of Americans (please state whether you are talking a majority of voters,
citizens, or residents) hold the view, *don't* make a claim you can't
prove.
My personal feeling: children should be taught by our schools how to
avoid harm. Harm from poison. Harm from automobiles. Harm from
strangers. And yes, harm from guns.
Without that, how can the kids keep themselves safe?
Jeffrey Salzberg
: Rubbish. Accidental deaths due to improper storage of firearms
: are no more preventable than similar deaths due to improper
: storage of household chemicals. Why the radically dissimilar
: treatment in the media?
...because household chemicals are designed for and usually serve a
*constructive* purpose.