The Elmo "Vendetta"

It's time to defund public broadcasting

Looks as if we're finally going to get those hipsters at National Public Radio. Elmo should probably start thinking twice before going outside, as well.

Yes, I realize that defunding NPR and PBS wouldn't even make a minor dent in Washington's colossal budgetary predicament. Yes, it's just a hobbyhorse of the far right. But none of that negates any of the convincing reasons to do it.

As it happens, I find longish radio spots exploring the lives of African tribesmen or Asian silk merchants—especially when delicately coupled with organic environmental clatter—some of the most enjoyable programming on the radio. Unlike many of my ideological allies, I believe NPR is underappreciated. But what practical argument is left in the defense of federal funding for entertainment or journalism in an era of nearly unlimited choices?

Though there is little to be offended by in most of NPR's programming, public radio and television cater almost exclusively to the sensibilities of the urban liberal. Not that there's anything wrong with being an urban liberal, of course. But this demographic also happens to be blessed with the financial means to ensure that NPR remains a vibrant source of news.

And it is nearly unimaginable that anyone on the left would support subsidizing programming imbued with even a subtle right-center bias. Let's be honest; if NPR weren't substantially left-leaning, Democrats wouldn't be such huge fans of federal funding. The rest of us can listen to, say, Nina Totenberg's slanted dispatches with the appropriate filter.

Something, though, seems awfully wrong with continuing to force taxpayers who disagree with the mission—even if their perceptions are false—to keep giving.

In one of those ACORN-style sting operations that conservatives have been conducting lately, two activists posing as unsavory Muslim moneymen caught NPR executive Ron Schiller (who has since left the company) rationalizing the firing of veteran African-American journalist Juan Williams because NPR, you see, embraces "non-racist, non-bigoted, straightforward telling of the news." Schiller also explained that the tea party movement is racist, xenophobic, and scary. If that doesn't say straightforward, unbiased institutional journalism, what does?

Schiller also was taped explaining that "it is clear that we would be better off in the long run without federal funding." Clearly. Government funding, now that it is once again an issue, will only induce NPR to dilute its otherwise magnificently elitist programming with weak attempts at mainstream appeal. It shouldn't. NPR would easily survive in its present listener-support model without welfare.

Good products find consumers.

Sen. Barbara Boxer recently claimed that House Republicans are intent on stripping funding for government-supported entertainment because they have a "vendetta against Elmo." (They may. After two years of living with a Tickle Me Elmo doll, I certainly do.) Does anyone believe that the marketplace wouldn't or couldn't provide sufficiently irritating Muppet programming for the millions of kids without the government's help? As anyone who purchases basic cable television knows, the demand for newscasts, kids shows, documentaries, nature programs, etc., is amply met.

The function and purpose of government has been rather expansive over the past few decades. Do we really believe that providing tax subsidies for entertainment and journalism is one of the charges of government? The argument may have held up in the past, but in today's world, it simply doesn't.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post. Follow him on Twitter at davidharsanyi.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scuffy Nerf Herder||

    Whether or not NPR can survive without government underwriting is beyond the point.

    Government funded (or controlled) media outlets are an anathema to a free society and have no place. Let the people decide what they want from their news sources.

  • Tony||

    What if they want objectivity, thoroughness, and insight?

  • ||

    Then they can read Reason.

  • Funny||

    Hahahahaha!

  • That has to be a Tony Spoofer||

    He has dry wit.

  • Zeke||

    Federal funding accounts for about ten percent of PBS' budget. I doubt it'd vanish if they took the hit.

    And there is a wealth of information online and in print that you can get for free or cheap. Or you can go to the library.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    So cut everyone's pay by 10%. "Problem" solved. But wait? The "socially"-mindful acolytes of NPR/PBS don't want a paycut? The very people who decry wealth and greed and scream about the plight of the poor ad nauseum are in fact, greedy? God Forbid...

    Next you'll tell me that our selfless teachers don't really care about our children and only want as much money as possible to babysit the brats while they nurse taxpayer-subsidized hangovers. Utterly ridiculous...

  • Realist||

    Wait a minute isn't the library a government entity???

  • sevo||

    "Wait a minute isn't the library a government entity???"

    Most of them are, and they shouldn't be.

  • ||

    Easy. They pay for what they want.

  • Scuffy Nerf Herder||

    Then I guess they'll have to pay for it with their own money.

  • ||

    Now THAT is comedy gold....

  • Mensan||

    Tony|3.9.11 @ 12:40PM|#
    What if they want objectivity, thoroughness, and insight?

    I thought this article was about NPR. When did we switch topics?

  • some guy||

    I find NPR to be both thorough and insightful. The objectivity is lacking, but you can't expect that from any news source. You have to handle the objectivity yourself by getting news from a wide variety of sources.

  • Devil Incohate||

    ^^This^^

  • cw||

    So, if you receive government funds you're likely to be more objective, thorough, and insightful?

    Please explain.

  • Tony||

    Seems to be the case. NPR, BBC, PBS. Id speculate that good journalism and appealing to the mass market don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

  • Clouds||

    Love that Tony is happy pointing a gun to our heads so that we can satisfy his needs for "good" journalism.

  • Tony||

    And you want to point this metaphorical gun at my head and say I have to accept lowest common denominator "news" and I have to like it, because the market is Jesus.

  • cw||

    I still don't see why government funding is necessary to produce quality journalism. Have you ever heard of not-for-profits? Besides, I could easily debate the so-called objectivity of those programs.

  • Tony||

    I don't see why either, but you can't deny the evidence.

  • cw||

    Besides, a sweeping generalization that government-funded news sources are better than private alternatives is debatable. I read The Economist quite often - a private source of news, and for-profit at that - that delivers solid journalism.

  • cw||

    Furthermore, is it because they rely on government funding that they produce high-quality journalism? Or could other variables count much, much more? Correlation is not causation.

  • Tony||

    Maybe. I gave my hypothesis above. Good news and appealing to the mass market don't go together. Despite what many here may think, government is actually less demanding of control of broadcasting content than the market is. The market tends to demand that we replace reporting with screaming partisan bobbleheads.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    If I refuse to pay the taxes that fund public broadcasting, it is just a matter of time before there is a very non-metaphorical gun pointed at me. Where's this gun in your scenario? Since what you want is to continue taking money from some and giving it PBS, the only way there could be a gun involved in your protest is if it's in your hand.

  • Tony||

    Fiscal not paying taxes is stealing. When you steal, men with guns come after you. That's how it works.

    I'm saying that you want your policies forced on me every bit as much. Just because they're laissez-faire policies doesn't make them any less forced and unwelcome.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Fiscal not paying taxes is stealing.


    Up is down.

    When you steal, men with guns come after you. That's how it works.


    But when the government steals, men with guns come after you. That's how it works.

  • crossofcrimson||

    Yeah! When someone demands the fruit of your labor and you don't give it to them you're stealing! Get it?

    Me either.

  • Realist||

    Once again Tony's superior intellect shines through.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Taking money from me and giving it to Big Bird so he'll entertain you is stealing. To stop doing that is to stop stealing. You're goofy.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    "Just because they're laissez-faire policies doesn't make them any less forced..."

    Yes it does.

  • Big Brother||

    War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength.
    Tax evasion is theft.
    Noninterference is force.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Wait, how does our way involve a metaphorical gun?

  • Tony||

    It would still be government imposing policy on me I don't want.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    You sound like a republican groping to find an argument why a lack of DOMA is an imposition of force on straight marriages.

  • Tony||

    Except they can't demonstrate where the imposition is. A laissez-faire economy would really chap my ass.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Both you and the repubs have chapped asses over a lack of force on other people.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Nope. You'd still be able to give as much money as you want to NPR.

  • ||

    Tony, you do realize you're still perfectly free to support whatever news organizations you choose to, right? While there's certainly a lot of money to be made in "mass market" there are still such things as niche markets. If the government were to stop funding NPR it would mean, at most, that you'd have to kick up your support for the organization by 11% to keep it exactly the same as it is now - with the exception that it would no longer have a strong potential conflict of interest, and would no longer be susceptible to potential instances of government officials pushing a narrative. You do donate right? Or do you just enjoy the service for "free", which seems likely as you appear to consider ceasing to rob others to pay for it to be stealing from you. Childish.

  • ||

    Like a health insurance policy I may not need or want?

  • Tony||

    Like a health insurance policy I may not need or want?

    Yup.

  • GMT II||

    Typical Toni and his ilk. Toni has no idea how to put his money and his mouth into gear and fill a niche that he thinks is missing, that being accepting lowest common denominatior news. Liberals are just plain lazy and Tonique shows it time after time. Man, what in the world did your mum do to you in your youth?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tony is mouthpiecing the old "you can't professionalize unless you federalize" argument.

    Which is utter bullshit, of course.

  • DLM||

    ... good journalism and appealing to the mass market don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.

    I'd have to agree with that. The two would coincide only if the mass audience seriously wanted it to. I don't think that's the case (whether left, right, up, or down).

  • ||

    that's why they have Fox News HEE-HEE

    btw elmo made over $90 mill last year...how'd you do?

  • Realist||

    Right!!!! That's why they elected a sack of shit with big ears.

  • CommentARRRR||

    This implies that NPR's only purpose is news programming. That's a bit of an oversimplification.

  • ||

    NPR/PBS are basically thinly disguised corporate welfare. PBS has a very, very long history of selling off the licensing rights of its properties at bargain basement prices. If the program is a flop, PBS takes the hit. If the program is a hit, cable can buy the rights and the toy companies can buy the licensing at prices well below market. Much the same can be said of NPR. How much of the NPR system is college radio? It esentially serves as a test market for all the acts you aren't sure are going to sell and serves to create a buzz with opinion-leaders for the kids you want to sell your product too anyway.

    We should stop subsidizing the entertainment industry.

  • ||

    This is super-wrong. The American taxpayer honestly deserved some royalties-benefit from Cookie Monster, Grover, Big Bird, Oscar the Grouch, and the rest of the gang.

    (I recognize that Ms. Piggy and Fozzie the Bear are in the private sector category.)

  • ||

    Was that the Katy Perry bit that got pulled because she was showing too much cleavage? If so, the prudes at the CPB need to get a look at some latin children's programming.

  • ||

    Yes it was. And my God is it nice cleavage.

  • prolefeed||

    It's OK cleavage. Really great cleavage tends to require voluptuousness elsewhere that Katy Perry is lacking.

    We will not talk about the anathema that is fake tits.

  • ||

    http://www.celebcosmeticsurger.....-implants/

    They are actually real. They are just that good. And she is plenty volutuous. I don't think she is super skinny. She just has an incredible body. She may have a five note signing range and the IQ of a golden retriever. But God gave her a few other assets.

  • rather ||

  • ||

    THat link is just a bunch of pictures of Perry in public. The pictures don't match the lable. I knew you were stupid rather, but I honestly thought you could read.

  • rather ||

    John, what part of I'm female do you not get? I'll let you decide on real dicks but I know tits

  • ||

    Just because you have a pair of droopy flat ones that everyone avoids looking at, doesn't mean you know them.

  • pancakes||

    Hey!

  • ||

    let's hear it for the objective mind of the worldly business-man. well done, mien patriarch, though it looks like the economist didn't teach you any civility.

  • rather||

    droopy flat

    John, I don't want to hear about your dick-yuk

  • rather retarded||

    Name's rather. Rather retarded.

  • ||

    She looks like a retarded Zoey Deschanel. Buddy of mind said she is the current societal definition of "hot." I have the internet so I respectfully disagree.

    He also thinks Katy Perry can sing and that Led Zeppelin is "noise" so I tend to disregard his cultural opinion anyway.

  • ||

    Deschanel is at best cute. And Perry isn't much better than cute herself. She just has an unbelievable body. Something the scrawny Deschanel doesn't have.

    I wouldn't kick either one of them out of bed. And I would probably rather talk to Deschenel, although she may be a tiresome Hollywood hipster lefty in which case Perry's squeeky voice and room temperature IQ would be infinitely superior. Either way, Perry has a fucking awesome body. Your friend is either gay or blind if he can't see that.

  • ||

    I must be the blind one (no homo) because I disagreed with him. I'd still take Salma any day and she's got almost 2 decades on Katy. Or hell, give me a pregnant Jessica Alba or the chick from Claims with the great rack and perfect ass. Or the redhead from Actuary. (I know you don't know who these women are but they're hotter than Katy Perry 8 days a week.

  • ||

    Just because there are hotter women, doesn't mean she wouldn't be worth fucking. I don't even think she is that pretty. But she does have a fantastic body. I don't see why that is such a controversial statement.

  • Booooo!!!||

    It's not. It's actually the best argument I have ever seen on this website.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    I shall repeat myself from yesterday:

    Two words:

    Sophia Vergara.

    I rest my case.

  • ||

    Dammit, why not get Salma Hayek on? Hell, she's bilingual!!

  • ||

    Then doesn't she belong on Dora?

  • Pip||

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'd pay twenty grand to ass fuck Dora the Explorer. Twenty grand.

  • ||

    The DHS has a website established for you to book that trip.

  • WTF||

    Katy Perry's tits are hypnotic. What was the article about, anyway?

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Seriously. I usually don't care about celebritits but those things make the world stop.

  • SIV||

    All these and more hot babes from throughout history can be found on my blog

  • Rock Action||

    Your blog is definitely worth a look. No snark.

    /endorsed, hopefully.

  • DNS ||

    If so, the prudes at the CPB need to get a look at some latin children's programming.

    Sabado Gigante is a program for kids? I always thought Don Francisco had a creep factor about him. Now Lente Loco OTH...

  • Old Mexican||

    As anyone who purchases basic cable television knows, the demand for newscasts, kids shows, documentaries, nature programs, etc., is amply met.


    But, David... for-profit programming is simply.... simply... icky.

    What kids need is pure and wholesome non-profit programming - you know, the kind that reminds us just how awful capitalism/the USA really are. That kind.

  • ||

    PBS Kids has its own cable channel even.

  • ||

    Well, some of their current sponsors sure look like they want to make a buck or two.

    I'd really like to see the lefties heads asplode when they come to the realization that some of these sponsors are rather conservative, like Chik=Fil-A, who closes on Sunday for religious reasons.

  • ||

    If PBS is defunded, how will my kid watch Sesame Street and Super Why!?

    :(

  • Spencer||

    My kid loves PBS programming- but I think they could take the 10% hit to their budget. I would be a paying member if it wasn't already forced upon me (albeit minutely... but that's not the point.)!

  • Ambrose P. Putnam||

    NPR is all about FACTS. The truth is that FACTS have a left-wing bias.

  • ||

    Sarcastic or not, you have a point.

    Also: the facts have a libertarian bias.

    Actually, I'd say the facts have a "liberaltarian bias."

  • KPres||

    The facts are oxymoronic?

  • Rock Action||

    Nice

  • ||

    Oxymoronic is speaking like your attitude is based in reason, yet speaking (to the largest common denominator of educated but spoiled dicks in the country)in the patronizing and condescending, completely socially unaware manner as in the "discussion" above about celebrities, or the one below about "titty bars".

    stop acting like frat boys and the libs will start respecting your opinion. you can't be against a politically gridlocked, money-wasting, lobby-intensive, quid-pro-quo government system if you act and speak the same way as the "assholes" you think are acting unethically.

    in other words, keep speaking the way most libertarians (who also make the most sense, ironically) do and NOTHING will happen. social-Darwinism and chauvinistic leanings are not attractive to any person with a humanistic (yet potentially also very rational) approach to life.

    it's like convincing a pet owner they shouldn't have pets or that your life is better BECAUSE of not having them.

    thankfully, we're not dealing w/ "believers" on this site, but still that should be a UNIFIER w/ progressives who are thinking in PURELY SOCIAL POLICY terms.

    Personally, I think we should cut funding for public broadcasting and also cut ALL religious endowments and tax breaks / subsidies. there are plenty of wealthy people to support both of these facets of approaching the world, right?

  • ||

    Oh good, another joyless scold.

    I'll offer couple of choices:

    1) Fuck off
    2) Join in the discussion in however manner you see fit. Both frat boys and non-frat boys are welcome here.

  • Jozef||

    I was thinking about the arguments for defunding NPR yesterday, as I was driving and listening to NPR's story about the Schiller scandal. Here's what I have a problem with:

    Complaining about people being forced to pay for something they disagree with, and using that to defund a certain program is patently misleading. This would be a valid argument only if the money saved from defunding such program was distributed back to the taxpayers, in the form of lower taxes. Instead, the same money will be spent on something else. As long as I have no choice on my taxes, I at least can show preferences on what my taxes are financing. I see public broadcasting as a lesser evil than, say, much of our military spending. If an author shows his preference to defund public broadcasting, I must thus assume that he sees other spending chapters in the federal budget as better (or at least less bad) than NPR or PBS. Is that so?

  • ||

    As soon as taxpayer funded titty bars open in my neighborhood, I'll agree with you. Until that long hoped for day, I'll point out that your argument can be used to justify current funding levels for every-fucking-thing in the budget.

  • ||

    You wouldn't want to see the girls that qualified to work at a government-subsidized titty bar. Think topless DMV, my friend, and then claw your eyes out.

  • prolefeed||

    Unionized girls who don't even try to pretend to be friendly because they get paid whether or not anyone tips them? Fat ugly girls hired by radical feminist GS-10 managers who believe that hetero sex is rape?

    Worst. Titty. Bar. Evah.

  • ||

    On the plus side... I got a tote bag!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    A Nina Tote-n-bag?

  • Truthy||

    I thought you said "plus size". That would describe the hotter gov't strippers.

  • ||

    Just drink your Victory Gin and enjoy the saggy boobs in silence, Citizen.

  • DNS||

    Be mindful of the hairy legs. The friction could be a fire hazard.

  • bgates||

    I was thinking

    Not if the next paragraph was the result, you weren't.

  • ||

    Except that's a flimsy excuse to never cut anything ("It'll only get spent somewhere else!"). Moreover, the proposal on the table is to cut NPR/CPB/PBS as part of an overall reduction in spending. So, the money isn't just being transferred somewhere else.

  • ||

    Instead, the same money will be spent on something else.

    Fucking increased deficit spending, how does it work?

  • ||

    This is essentially the same logic the Right uses against tax increases -- that any such change will automatically go to higher spending, not deficit reduction.

    It's not solid logic. A political bargain can always be struck to combine spending reductions with tax increases. It's called an austerity budget, and it appears that every government in Western Civilization is capable of it except the one in Washington DC.

    By the same token, a defunding of public broadcast could' by agreement' be combined with a shift or reduction in spending that is morally supportable. It's just a question of political willingness.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    A political bargain can always be struck to combine spending reductions with tax increases.

    I barely trust that word "bargain", and then you had to go and put "political" in front of it. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

  • ||

    Well, maybe not, Drax. But then, an agreement to defund public broadcasting and not apply the savings to the War On Drugs couldn't be counted on, either, so we might as well leave the money at public broadcasting, right?

  • ||

    No. Use the savings to not have to raise taxes. You don't have to raise taxes at all if you cut spending to the point where current revenues cover costs. See how this works?

  • ||

    good point. so if I stop buying a small black coffee in the mornings, i'll be able to double my monthly eating-out budget, right? note, i eat out 4-5 times a week.

    what sound logic you have, sir. thanks for the condescension as well, btw.

    i think requirement #1 for libertarianism is to believe in balancing the budget, which makes your charlie sheen -esque "duh" argument...well exactly that

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    This is essentially the same logic the Right uses against tax increases

    how bout we stick with "stealing is wrong" then?

  • ||

    I like your logic. And I think that "political willingness" should NOT be determined by the current politicians and their agendas. In this sense, I echo Drax's thoughts on the validity of the term "political bargain". I think the bargain will be ousting all these old, crooked frat boys from public office.

    It's simple. IF we cut funding for public broadcasting, we ALSO cut funding for other "interest minded" programs, including any and all religious subsidies.

    Let the shit stall if people can't BOTH give something up. Nobody is ever going to give in on just one side, even a little bit, except the middle class (because they don't know any better...or anything, almost, really) and I don't think we all want to support our extended families forever ;)

  • Devil Incohate||

    I see public broadcasting as a lesser evil than, say, much of our military spending.
    Except that Congress is specifically charged with funding the military, but not public broadcasting.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Let's be honest: state-subsidized and state-financed entities always favor a larger and more comprehensive state.

  • ||

    Dear CPB/NPR/PBS,

    You are fledglings no longer. Spread your wings and get the fuck out of the nest.

    Good luck in the future,
    The taxpayers.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Even according to Hilary Clinton, we no longer need PBS, now that we have Al-Jazeera.

  • Scuffy Nerf Herder||

    Al Jazeera strikes me as more objective.

  • ||

    Al Jazeera is actually a good news source except for the weather. I have no desire to learn Celsius.

  • Zeke||

    For once, David writes a coherent and well-argued article. Bravo!

  • ||

    Let's be honest. This was some pretty low-hanging fruit.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I first read title as "Defending" instead of Defunding. That right next to the name "Harsanyi" led to a very rapid build up internet libertarian nerd rage. Actualluy made the article much more pleasant to read though.

  • bgates||

    Not that there's anything wrong with being an urban liberal, of course.

    Besides the insufferable smugness, the prejudices, the ignorance of economics, and the enthusiasm for coercing money out of other people to finance ventures they could (but choose not to) pay for themselves, you mean? Because if that's what you mean, I think you're still missing some stuff.

  • ||

    Yes. It's those urban liberals who are so smug. You'll never find self-satisfied condescension here at Reason-dot-com. Perish the thought!

  • T||

    It's angry, bitter condescension around here, Danny. Do try to keep up.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    You confuse condescending snark with smug superiority. There is decided difference.

  • ||

    I really hope you are being sarcastic, too.

  • Tony||

    Republicans don't believe in journalism so I don't feel like caving to their ridiculous cultural bigotry and cutting broadcasting funding, when they'd be perfectly happy having a hooters waitress read party talking points all day on all channels. Fuck them.

  • prolefeed||

    I'm sure you'd be fine with cutting funding for the sort of crap that Republican stalwarts love and liberals like you hate.

    I mean, are you arguing that if the federal government really did fund "having a hooters waitress read party talking points all day" as well as NPR, you'd be arguing here for both?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Republicans don't believe in journalism so I don't feel like caving to their ridiculous cultural bigotry and cutting broadcasting funding[...]


    The mind of the statist fuck.

    "When in doubt, poison the well"
    Old Statist proverb.

  • KPres||

    Winning!

  • ||

    when they'd be perfectly happy having a hooters waitress read party talking points all day on all channels.

    Who is your cable provider and how can I get this service??

  • ||

  • Scruffy Nerd Herder||

    C- trolling

  • ||

    TONY'S GOT THE GOLD!! HE'S GOING FOR THE RECORD!!

    AAANNNDDD.....

    HE'S GOT IT!! TONY'S GOT THE RECORD!!!

  • Rock Action ||

    This has hit Tony hard. Very, very hard. The last veneer of objectivity has broken and revealed itself.

    Coddle him. Cuddle him. Be kind. It's a tough day.

    O'Keefe? Jesus, one provocateur and the left can't even deal with it. It's been there, waiting for the scratch, I guess.

  • Tony||

    I am not concerned about his crusade to receive justice for scrawny white college republicans who have been kept down by poor minorities and people who like sushi.

  • Rock Action||

    Yes you are. You made him the subject of a very concerned post.

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/03.....nt_2171766

  • Tony||

    Linking to another thread demonstrates a lot of concern about my concern.

  • Rock Action||

    Happened across it last night and thought about how ridiculous your comment was. But anyway, since you're doing this...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc57aG6tTZA

    27-32 seconds in for the visual with the comments, Tony. Love you!

  • Mike M.||

    Don't be ragging on Hooters waitresses just because none of them would ever voluntarily want to get within a hundred feet of you.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    NPR doesn't deserve out tax money. Period. "Cultural bigotry" doesn't play into it.

    But wait! You're engaging in cultural bigotry, Tony! Hypocrite mugh?

  • West Coaster||

    Completely OT, but...

    Google Ads is showing a support-the-California-High-Speed-Rail-authority ad/link on my instance of the main H&R page.

    Interesting how Google's ad algorithm works--or doesn't work.

  • Mensan||

    Mine is showing an ad for Elmo themes party supplies next to an ad for Atlas Shrugged.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Elmo Shrugged - the story of a puppet who stopped all the tickling in the world.

  • ||

    I love PBS. I don't have cable because I believe in saving money more than I believe in sitting on the couch.

    But The shows I watch on PBS would find homes on some cable channel. I know for a fact the narrator of the the Tank Battles show I was watching on PBS as also narrated Modern Marvels on the history channel.

    Ken Burn's shows would also find an audiance on cable.

    Before there was cable i can almost understand the need for non-commercial programming but with 500 channels one can not say they can't find a news or program outlet that leans toward their own sensibilities.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "I know for a fact the narrator of the the Tank Battles show I was watching on PBS as also narrated Modern Marvels on the history channel."

    There is already a greatest tank battles series running on the Military Channel.

    Up this week:

    The greatest tank battle of them all - the battle of Kursk.

  • prolefeed||

    Something, though, seems awfully wrong with continuing to force taxpayers who disagree with the mission—even if their perceptions are false—to keep giving.

    Thank you for making such a persuasive case for anarchism.

    I think everything the federal government does is wrongheaded, overpriced, or not customer-friendly enough. Are you going to advocate for my right to replace any or all of those services I do want with private providers, and quit paying taxes for other people's stuff?

  • Punk||

    Serious question (seriously)...

    Where in the U.S. Constitution does it enumerate the power to fund public broadcasting?

    How would it be different (or not) than the U.S government funding a newspaper?

    An argument can be made that the state of the union could be facilitated (necessary and proper?) this way but then we'd only need it once a year.

    Discuss.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    The constitution? Thats a good one man! All the statist have some very flexible line of 'reasoning' that basically allows them to ignore the constitution whenever they want to. I'll summarize

    The intellectual, "hey I read the constitution too" argument:

    necessary intertstate commerce welfare

    The utilitarian arugment:

    roads and somalia and externalities

    The emotive jezebel argument:

    it's for the children you racist homophobe

  • ||

    I don't mind defunding public broadcasting, but sweet Jebus, is it too much to ask to cut some shit that will actually have an impact on the deficit?

    Cutting the CPB is like canceling one fighter jet.

    I know it's shooting fish in a barrel for the right to pick on entitlements and mamby-pamby lefty stuff, but all this shit the GOP is looking to cut is a drop in the bucket. And since they decided it would be smart to cut taxes, the bucket got bigger.

    I'm not saying they should raise taxes, but whatever they cut is barely going to offset the loss of tax revenue. That's a fact. They need to be looking at--at least--10x more cuts than they are talking about now to have any impact on the deficit and national debt.

    But they can't, because once they start cutting that much, they will run up against the military-industrial complex and their own lobbies.

  • Bill||

    Yeah, it is a drop in the budget, and bucket. But would a democratically controlled congress (or a republican one) insist that an equivalent fighter jet amount go to the syndicators of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or someone that doesn't suck like Neal Boortz?

    Perish the thought. And I don't think so.

  • ||

    When did Neal Boortz not suck? Did I miss a memo?

  • DLM||

    ... is it too much to ask to cut some shit that will actually have an impact on the deficit?

    If they can't cut the little stuff, why do you think they'd have the balls to touch to big stuff?

  • ||

    Why would cutting the little stuff give them the balls to cut the big stuff?

    When you get into the really big stuff, like trimming military spending, or shuttering a federal agency or two, that's when the real howling would begin.

  • ||

    NPR's federal funding allows it to extend itself into rural markets that otherwise would not be able to support public radio. Period. Take federal funding away and none of us city dwellers would even notice.

  • ||

    Where in the U.S. Constitution does it enumerate the power to fund public broadcasting?

    General welfare, commerce clause, necessary and proper. . . .

    C'mon, you know the drill.

  • Punk||

    "Was I serious???"

  • TWylite||

    There's more going on than meets the eye with Elmo. It wouldn't surpise me at all if he was found dead in a hotel room with some of Charlie Sheen's "friends". Consider Mr. Noodle being replaced by his "brother". Sounds like he might have taking a short walk off a long pier along the Hudson River by way of a cement pourer.

  • ||

    In the photo who is the woman with the amply exposed cleavage?

    I have seen pictures/gifs of her on 4chan.

    Is she on sesame street? Some other kids program?

  • ||

    Katy Perry, autotune nightmare "musician" that looks like this without makeup.

  • WTF||

    Gah! Must you ruin everything?

  • ||

    Yes. I Am The Ruiner.

  • Pip||

    That ain't her.

  • ||

    Whatever, Pip. Am I really supposed to believe you over a gaggle of mean-spirited gossip blogs? I don't think so.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    YOUSONOFABITCH

  • Hanging Schad||

    Thank you.

  • ||

    That picture is irrelevant since any sane man would only fuck her with all of her makeup and one of those costumes on.

  • ||

    Wait, are we talking about the one on the left or the one on the right?

  • DLM||

    The lights would probably be off anyway.

  • ||

    NPR's federal funding allows it to extend itself into rural markets that otherwise would not be able to support public radio.

    Non-profits exist to provide services where available revenue can't support them. NPR is a national organization with a national budget. The fact that its fundraising base is urban is no impediment to NPR subsidizing rural radio.

  • The Gobbler||

    "Though there is little to be offended by in most of NPR's programming, public radio and television cater almost exclusively to the sensibilities of the urban liberal. Not that there's anything wrong with being an urban liberal, of course. But this demographic also happens to be blessed with the financial means to ensure that NPR remains a vibrant source of news."

    While certainly not a lberal, I am urban and I watch at least an hour of PBS each evening (PBS News Hour).

    When they have pledge drives, I say to the TV, "I already donated to your station via taxes, so you don't need anymore from me."

    However, if PBS is defunded, I'll start making donations.

  • mofo||

    "Not that there's anything wrong with being an urban liberal, of course. But this demographic also happens to be blessed with the financial means to ensure that NPR remains a vibrant source of news."

    Yea, its called other people's money.

  • A Serious Man||

    It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. Seriously, screw PBS since they pulled Mister Rogers from syndication.

  • rather ||

  • Old Mexican||

    Well, he did die...

  • A Serious Man ||

    Sadly yes, but there are over 800 episodes in their vault that they could have aired indefinitely. You certainly won't find any other kid's show with the same quality.

  • CommentARRRR||

    "Let's be honest; if NPR weren't substantially left-leaning, Democrats wouldn't be such huge fans of federal funding."

    But see, whether or not they'd be fans isn't a comparable issue. Whether or not they'd use it as a soapbox to argue for cuts to spending is an accurate comparison...and let's be honest, they'd fight for it as hard as they fight for fighter jet cuts.

    Which is to say they'd mention it in passing and never really have the balls to actually try and cut it in a real budget.

    So NPR's leaning is really meaningless since the Democrats wouldn't act against the spending anyway.

  • ||

    Drops in the bucket eventually fill the bucket. If we can't cut the 10% of the CPB budget that comes from the Fed, and stupid things like Cowboy Poetry festivals, how pray tell, are we ever going to get the testicular (or ovarian) fortitude to go after Soc. Security and Medicaid?

    Time to take the herd of Sacred Cows to the slaughterhouse. Time to come hard on cuts, and every thing that can be cut without threatening the Fed's constitutional jobs, should be fair game.

    We have the GAO (widely known as a hot bed of wild eyed reactionary conservatives...) finding 80 programs for the homeless, 56 programs to help people with their budgets, and the list goes on and on. We may have started on the CPB, but we have a lot of reform and cuts to go.

  • MNG||

    Of course people who think markets everywhere and in all situations being about the best possible outcomes want all institutions to be market based, so they abhor NPR and want to see it 'make its way in the market.'

    For those of us not similarly enthralled by market fundamentalism, we can see a source of information that is 1. not beholden to the market and 2. (somewhat connected to one btw) readily available to all citizens as a public good. As our Founders realized an informed citizenry is critical to a free and democratic society.

    I want NPR to stay government funded because without that tie they would become hopelessly biased to the left, and who needs that? This way they will always have to keep in mind that they must answer to the GOP in some way, and that keeps them more honest than most news sources.

  • ||

    I want NPR to stay government funded because without that tie they would become hopelessly biased to the left, and who needs that? This way they will always have to keep in mind that they must answer to the GOP in some way, and that keeps them more honest than most news sources.

    Please don't spoof MNG. Making it out that he's even stupider than he normally plays serves no one.

  • MNG||

    This is me. I meant what I said. It's good to have some institutions that are not beholden to the market. NPR doesn't become MSNBC in part because they know they have to answer to Congress periodically. I think that is a good thing. The market provides plenty of MSNBC's and Fox's, we need to preserve what it doesn't provide.

  • pmains||

    In what way do they have to "answer to" Congress? Do they have their funding cut when they don't do the bidding of Congress? Does Congress directly make programming decisions? If you can't name a single mechanism by which Congress can keep PBS in line, it's because they're an unaccountable organization run amok with taxpayer dollars.

  • MNG||

    They've seen their budget cut by statehouses and at least come quite close to it with Congress in reaction to shenanigans.

  • pmains||

    The whole fight in Congress right now is about whether or not PBS should ever be held accountable. Every time this debate has been held in Congress before, Democrats have trotted out literal puppets to make their emotional case. The implication is that PBS should be above accountability because Elmo. It's a wonderfully sophisticated appeal to reason.

    Now, we are ostensibly a democracy, yes? Why should we expect the public's representatives to be any more fair-minded than the public, which demands the venal Fox News and MSNBC? On what principle are we to determine that this is better than the market? Is this to be assumed a priori?

  • MNG||

    Actually a great thing about markets is that in a market you don't have to get majority support to thrive, just a niche.

    What makes PBS different is that it is somewhat accountable to the democratic process, a more broad based constintuency. That usually produces institutions different than what the market does. Libertarians agree with this they just think it is nearly always a bad thing. I happen to think information sources that must police themselves in this fashion are a good thing.

  • pmains||

    I disagree, but I respect the fact that you have a coherent, moral basis for your argument.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    What makes PBS different is that it is somewhat accountable to the democratic process, a more broad based constintuency.


    Translation: It's really not.

  • ||

    MNG, your thoughts are fair, but short sighted. Congress doesn't oversee much of anything. Thus 80 different programs for the homeless. If team NPR goes too far to the left, the Dems will give them cover to stay there. The Repubs won't be able to fight them and the rest of the media who give them cover.

    When they screw up and report terrorism plots in Tucson, or fire a guy over the phone, they get some memo that tells them to stop, but nothing really changes.

    The compelling reason to cut this funding is that we are broke, not going broke, broke. We just don't have the money. These kinds of luxury items, like the CPB, the NEA, and the NEH have to go before we start cutting food or medical programs. As much as you like NPR, you would have to admit that it is more important to provide food to needy children than left wing biased news to radio listeners.

  • TRTB||

    I've been asking myself all day whether anyone making under about $80k/year listens to NPR.

    The first google hit, pulished by "NPR Audience Insight and Research" says:

    "NPR’s audience is extraordinarily well-educated. Nearly 65% of all listeners have a bachelor’s
    degree"

    "The majority of the NPR audience (86%) identifies itself as white"

    "NPR households tend to be more affluent than other households, primarily as a result of their
    educational attainment. The median household income of an NPR News listener is about $86,000"

    source

    These people need their preferred news outlet subsidized?

  • Tony||

    NPR is swimming in cash. To me it's just about principle. As in the principle of not letting republican cretins decide what type of news broadcasting our society should support, since apart from believing Jesus rode on a dinosaur, they feel that issuing party talking points to stepford anchor bimbos counts as journalism.

  • TRTB||

    I'm trying to ferret out what the actual principle is there other than just "show of force". We're going to force you to pay for this because we can, whether or not it's necessary?

  • Tony||

    I'll entertain the notion of changing the way public broadcasting is funded when those in charge of the venture aren't idiots who hate public broadcasting because they have an allergy to facts.

  • ||

    Revenge subsidy! Wheeeeeeee!!!!

  • ||

    Revenge subsidy

    Deep down a large portion of subsidies come down to simple revenge.

    Socialism does not work and socialists are very pissed about the fact. Someone must take the blame.

  • NotSure||

    You truly are an idiot, if the people in charge of funding are no longer in charge of funding, then they no they will have no say over it !!! Think about the cash inflow that people like you can invest in your favourite broadcaster when the cretins are gone.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    the principle of not letting republican cretins decide what type of news broadcasting our society should support

    I reject the proposition upon which this statement is founded. Your statement presumes that "our society", as a whole and via government mandated redistribution of wealth MUST "support" some type of news broadcasting.

    Evidently, however, you'd be perfectly fine with Democrat cretins deciding "what type of news broadcasting our society should support."

    Do you even have a clue as to the reasoning behind the creation of public broadcasting with government funding? If so, you'd know that that reasoning is so woefully out of date that it no longer is valid in today's world. There is no need for federal funding of public broadcasting - and you heard it right from the mouth of the head honcho in charge of - wait for it - raising money for public broadcasting! He stated they would be better off without the public financing. So let's let them have that and they will be better off.

    For the record, I watch and listen to lots of NPR and PBS shows. And I have actually given a little money to my local NPR stations over the years.

    But I don't think the gummint should take taxpayer money to fund it. There is no longer any legitimate, principled argument in favor of public funding for PBS/NPR.

  • Tony||

    Democrats are on the whole somewhat acquainted with reason and the necessity for facts in a policy discussion. Republicans believe Jesus rode around on a dinosaur. That's pretty much the bottom line for why I trust one more than the other.

    I don't really care all that much if they receive federal funding, I just don't want to give Republican cretins their victory over us cheese eating liberal elites.

  • TRTB||

    Pissing off republicans by throwing my money away is a strategy I'm having a hard time getting behind.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not that I actually defend right-wing Christians, but I have yet to hear one say Jesus rode a dinosaur.

  • ||

    It's a parody of the Christian right, that has become so entrenched in the left, they have become to believe it.

  • ||

    Kind of like the people who don't know the difference between Sarah Palin and Tina Fey.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    I'll bite. Who should decide what type of news broadcasting our society should support now that we've ruled out republicans?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If it's swimming in cash, it can do without mine and yours.

  • Clouds||

    Yeah would hate to have information providers be beholden to those they provide information too. Much better to be beholden to the group they are providing information about (i.e. gubmint).

  • ||

    If the market made up of the public does not support it, how can anyone argue it is a public good worthy of subsidy? If it can't live off 10% less than it lives off now it's because not enough people are using this good so it isn't actually performing the task of informing the citizenry you say justifies it. I'd argue that it can survive but that's not relevant to the point you're making.

    The reason we support market response to problems is because the market only supports things people need or want. Without that you have taxation for the purposes of contributing to waste. How is that a public good?

  • MNG||

    People can want things markets don't provide, like police protection for all. That's how I see an information source that answers to such a broad constituency and is offered to all without regard of payment.

    People support it in different ways than they do in a market, they vote for it knowing they will be paying for it ultimately via taxes.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    People can want things markets don't provide, like police protection for all.


    Well, markets can't provide police protection for all because that's impossible, unless you mean police robots.

    By the way, governments can't provide police protection for all either, so I don't get your point.

    http://www.firearmsandliberty......ction.html

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    People support it in different ways than they do in a market, they vote for it knowing they will be paying for it ultimately via taxes.


    The problem is when people vote to have SOMEONE ELSE pay for it. That's called thievery.

  • TRTB||

    A radio station for white college grads with 6-figure salaries seems like a pretty questionable example of a public good.

  • DLM||

    That's how I see an information source that answers to such a broad constituency and is offered to all without regard of payment.

    The put it up on a web site and stop spending money on all these cameras and studios and such. Cheaper and more incentive for the public to learn how to read. Win/win.

  • ||

    Fuck the markets. The government has no business in funding ANY fucking media outlet what-so-ever. The fact that they get so little of their budget from the government is even MORE reason to cut the funding.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: MNG,

    Of course people who think markets everywhere and in all situations[...]


    People who think that are usually those that hate markets.

    "Markets" are the best solution to solve scarcity problems. Don't be an ignorant fool today, MNG - Neu Mejican and Tony here are already ahead to obtain the title.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    I'm just waiting for, "This broadcast of Democracy Now! has been brought to you by Exxon-Mobil."

    ... Hobbit

  • ||

    "This broadcast of Democracy Now! has been brought to you by Exxon-Mobil."

    It has already happened.

    What? Do you gloss over the ads already on PBS?

  • Tony||

    Alex Pareene has an entertaining take on the NPR thing.

    So Juan Williams, who was fired for expressing perfectly common views that upset a bunch of uptight liberal p.c. police ninnies, is thrilled that a man was fired for expressing perfectly common views that upset a bunch of upstanding brave conservative American heroes.
  • Rock Action ||

    Yes, most Americans love advocates of sharia law funding public broadcasting.

  • ||

    If you think the view that the Tea Party is racist is common then you live in lollipop land.

    Hell the left don't even hold that view.

    They just repeat the lie in the hopes that it catches on.

    I suppose there is a small group of of the already small left wing that believe it.

    So what maybe 10% of the 20%.

    A view held by 2% is not a common view.

    I can find more poeple who believe in Angels.

  • Tony||

    I know, it's totally absurd to think that a group of nearly 100% white older conservative Republicans could possibly harbor any racism.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Ascribing a way of thinking to a group based on their skin color? Nope, nothing racist about that...

  • BakedPenguin||

    In liberal land, non-white hatred of other races isn't racism, because white people deserve it!

  • Tony||

    No, it's just that we'll get around to the poor persecuted white heterosexual males as soon as everyone else has achieved a measure of social equality and justice to account for all the centuries white heterosexual males have been oppressing them.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Oh for chrissakes, fuck you, idiot.

    I am a white hetero male and I have never "oppressed" a single person of any race, ethnicity, gender or religion.

    Show me a person alive right now who currently is being "oppressed" by all the white hetero males out there.

    Fuck that worn-out old "it's all the white males' fault" line.

    As Bill Cosby rightly pointed out a few years back - and was soundly criticized for having the honesty to say it out loud - I don't see any white people coming into the minority neighborhoods and spray-painting on the walls, holding up bodegas or selling crack on the corner.

    The systematic racial oppression you refer to is over - didn't you hear? Obama is a post-racial president!

    Shit, you're living proof of just how racist the left is - that's all everything ever comes down to - race, race, race.

    Where is it written that everyone gets equal outcome? A measure of social equality and justice?

    Fucking A, I'm going to puke. I can't even write anymore.

  • ||

    The white male victim speaks truth to power. We are so impressed.

  • DLM||

    The white male victim speaks truth to power.

    I don't believe anyone here is really all that powerful.

  • Tony||

    The oppression may or may not be over, but that doesn't mean its effects don't linger. If that's not so, then how do you account for double unemployment among racial minorities, and various other metrics that show them worse off? I challenge you to come up with an explanation that's not itself racist.

    But I'm happy to not talk about race as if it's completely irrelevant. As long as you don't whine about perceived racism against whites, because that would be both hypocritical and ridiculous.

  • ||

    The oppression may or may not be over, but that doesn't mean its effects don't linger. If that's not so, then how do you account for double unemployment among racial minorities, and various other metrics that show them worse off?

    State and Local Democrat controlled governments and the regulations, economic policies and tax schemes they enact and enforce keep minorities down.

    It was not to long ago that reason had an article showing how Dallas has far less economic inequality then progressive enlightened New England.

    I could also go off on how left wing growth management policies hurt the poor and minorities.

    Then of course you have the drug war which is no fucking help....this one you can put the blame on conservatives.

    Also if you are bitching about the lingering effects of Jim crow and segregation then i would like to point out again those were progressive policies. Not Conservative ones.

  • Tony||

    i would like to point out again those were progressive policies. Not Conservative ones.

    Please do not pollute my eyes with this Glenn Beck revisionism. Conservatism and racism have always gone together. The current Republican party (which a long time ago absorbed Southern Democrats), owes a huge portion of its demographic makeup and policy stances on historical white racism, and it's not like it's even gone away. Or are they not having McCarthyist hearings on the threat Muslims pose to America?

  • ||

    Double the unemployment due to half the education. Teach your kids how to be welfare dependent and that is what you get.

    Let your 13 year olds have two kids before they are 15 and that is what you get.

    Let your 13 year old go to school and take her future seriously, and you get employment.

    Sorry, no racism involved there. Just the naturally occurring consequences of bad choices.

    Just like the ones NPR made. Be dictatorial in programming so that local stations can't serve the needs of their own communities. Lose local support and depend on the Fed. Be decidedly liberal (even extremist liberal) and lose support amongst the 75% of the population that is to your right. When budgets get tight, they naturally see you as a luxury that can be cut first. No racism there either.

  • Tony||

    Sorry, no racism involved there. Just the naturally occurring consequences of bad choices.

    So what makes black people twice as likely to make bad choices?

  • Tony||

    I recently read about a study that claimed to show a link between opposition to the health care law and racial attitudes.

    Interestingly, the correlation is not between racism against Barack Obama and opposition to the healthcare bill, but between opposition and an attitude of racial resentment, that is, the feeling that blacks are lazy and the bill would be a handout to them.

  • ||

    I recently read about a study that claimed to show a link between opposition to the health care law and racial attitudes.

    The study is from the Greenlining Institute. A lobby group that pushes for federal grants to Democrat strong holds.

    If the study was anything more then reading the chicken bones of survey data and done by a less partisan group then your "study" might have merit. As it stands all you have is leftist interests repeating the left wing mantra.

  • pmains||

    There is an interesting tie-in here. One of the common complaints of the anti-Zionists is that the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israeli government amounts to collective punishment. The NPR exec here sympathizes with complaints about Jewish control of the media. In defense of the NPR exec, Tony suggests that collective punishment is not only acceptable but that there is some sort of moral imperative to collectively punish all white, heterosexual males.

    Tony, this is why your world view doesn't work. Your principles are so protean as to be meaningless. Any appeals to principle can only be interpreted as cynical and pragmatic rationalizations rather than good-faith arguments.

  • Rock Action ||

    Race, class, gender, sexual preference? Tony, you're a square. Maybe a rhombus? Tony is the squombus! Everybody hop on the squombus! There's a disco ball and we go from bar to bar to bar...

  • ||

    "everyone else has achieved a measure of social equality and justice to account for all the centuries white heterosexual males have been oppressing them."

    So, by "everyone" do you mean the estimated 400 Supercentenarians who are 110 or older? Or are you just counting the 20th and 21st centuries? How much white male oppression has taken place in the 21st century?

  • DLM||

    How much white male oppression has taken place in the 21st century?

    I think the statute of limitations on white oppression runs out in 2437.

  • ||

    Nope, the statute of limitations ran out in 1995.

  • NotSure||

    Tony masturbates over Sweden. Little does that buffoon know that Swedes can be incredible racists, sharing their social democracy with Muslim immigrants is not very high on their list of things to do. In fact if one checks out most of the anti-immigrant parties in Europe they are also biggest supporters of the socialist model (there are some exceptions).

  • pmains||

    That doesn't matter, NotSure. As Tony has explained before, he does not believe in rights. They are, in his view, human constructs. As a dedicated pragmatist, he does not believe in any absolute right or wrong, justice or injustice. His morality is completely untethered from absolute principles, so he can (and does) make up the rules as he goes along. Any attempt to make a moral argument with somebody who denies the epistemological basis of moral reasoning is logically absurd.

    So, when he criticizes racism, it does not matter if the targets of his criticism are actually racists. It does not matter if the people he defends are racists. The only point is to "win" the argument.

  • Tony||

    You're right pmains, I am not a Christian.

  • pmains||

    You may have noticed, Tony, that OM is not a Christian, either. Neither is FaithKills. Yet, having a debate with them is not a game of "Calvin Ball," as it is with you.

  • Tony||

    I should have been more general. I am not religious in any way, so I am constitutionally incapable of believing in magic in any form, be it santa claus or "absolute principles."

  • Believing In Magic||

    Not even in a young girl's heart?

  • NotSure||

    So you believe that sometimes society should punish people for being homosexuals, not being absolute against it in principle obviously.

  • Tony||

    So you believe that sometimes society should punish people for being homosexuals, not being absolute against it in principle obviously.

    I don't have the luxury of appealing to absolute principles regardless of how I feel on an issue, since I don't believe in magic. Indeed it's those who claim to have the most direct line to the source of absolute principles that often do the punishing of homosexuals, and the like.

    I choose the much less arbitrary system, believing in things that maximize human well-being and equality.

  • NotSure||

    Your absolute principle is to "maximize human well-being and equality", you are simply trying pretend you have no absolutes to make others with principles look like fundamentalists. What it really shows that your are a bigoted buffoon.

  • pmains||

    I wouldn't give him credit for believing in human well-being and equality. After all, he believes that unequal treatment of white, heterosexual males is somehow desirable. Again, his principles are protean. Any individual argument he makes implies that there is some absolute standard by which we are to judge -- equality, human well-being, revenge, reverence for science, and so on -- and in isolation these principles may be admirable. But then the debate changes, and he makes the emotional choice to abandon his old principles and adopt new ones. This is, of course, ad-hoc argumentation dressed up as sophistication.

  • pmains||

    Without absolute principles, all argument is sophistry. For example, you accuse the Tea Partiers of being racists. Now, one of the hidden assumptions (which I agree with) is that being a racist is wrong. Without a belief in some absolute principle, though, it does not matter. As I said above, you have rejected the epistemological basis for all moral reasoning.

  • Tony||

    It could be argued that if you dig deep enough, even the most pragmatic basis for morality has axiomatic principles at its core. For example, I believe in maximizing human well-being. That begs a couple questions. What is well-being, and why should I care about it? The first is easily answerable on practical grounds, since it's fairly thoroughly known what constitutes human well-being. The second is more problematic. Even if I could make an argument that appeals to total selfishness, still the question would remain, why is selfishness good?

    Still, it's not the case that the principles that inform these normative judgments are absolute, as in objectively true. It's just that they are handy and make sense to a person living among other people. That they are able to be altered is not a bug but a feature. As I said, absolutists tend to be the one who ignore human well-being in favor of obeying their absolute principles. Another feature of principles that are in place for practical reasons is that there is a basis for convincing others to share them that is not "convert or die." Your absolute principles are no more substantial than those of a scientologist. They're just assertions.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    "...it's fairly thoroughly known what constitutes human well-being..."

    I disagree.

  • ||

    You two used way to many words to simply have the this conversation:

    "Tony you moved the goal post"

    "No I didn't"

  • NotSure||

    Name me a single philosophy/ideal that does state it is about maximizing human well-being ? Even the most genocidal ideals believe they are maximizing human well-being. It is as meaningless as stating I believe in happiness over unhappiness.

  • Tony||

    Name me a single philosophy/ideal that does state it is about maximizing human well-being ? Even the most genocidal ideals believe they are maximizing human well-being. It is as meaningless as stating I believe in happiness over unhappiness.

    Almost any religion. They're about maximizing the well-being of the true believers, but only after they're dead. Oh and the rest can burn for eternity.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "why is selfishness good?"

    A little bait. I'll tell you why if you can tell me why it is good that man lives with the interests of others as his primary goal.

  • NotSure||

    pmains, This is a bit off topic, but people who follow the post-modernist philosophy/thinking, then also then need reject post-modernist philosophy/thinking itself. It is almost paradoxical.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    The straw men, they are legion.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    By which I mean, libertarians don't believe in magic. Which is obvious. It would be way easy to win an argument against a libertarian if he did believe in magic. But we don't. So you can't.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "I am not religious in any way, so I am constitutionally incapable of believing in magic in any form, be it santa claus or 'absolute principles.'"

    You do realize this little speech is just filled with absolute principles. Go ahead read it.

  • DLM||

    I am not religious in any way, so I am constitutionally incapable of believing in magic in any form, be it santa claus or "absolute principles."

    That's the funniest line today.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Except that the TEA party is not 100% white, nor is it 100% older, nor is it 100% conservative Republicans.

    Nor is it the case that 100% of white, older conservative Republicans are racist.

    Geez, you must be so much fun at parties. You really come across as a miserable human being.

  • ||

    Quick, somebody give this guy a "your-not-a-racist" pat on the head before he pops his other eyeball.

  • You're||

    basic grammar.

    Love,

    G-Nazi

  • ||

    I am always messing that one up. I'll try harder, but I can't make any promises.

  • G-Naz||

    It's okay. It's a dick move to point it out, but I did. Here is an olive branch. I take no responsibility for the grammar. Cool shit.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFQfQD2c47g

    G-Nazi

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck off, Danny. Take your "white people are all racists" shit to DU.

  • Tony||

    Who said anything about 100%. I'm talking about patterns. And to say that there are negligible amounts of racism in the tea party is to say that there are negligible amounts of racism in the US as a whole (since where else would they be?), and I don't buy that.

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.9.11 @ 5:29PM|#
    "Who said anything about 100%. I'm talking about patterns."

    IOWs, you're lying, you were busted, and now you're trying to find a way to weasel out of it.

  • Tony||

    You people need to stop projecting your absolutism and black/white view of the universe onto me. The straw man made about my claim is ludicrous.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    No, your claim was just 'There are probably some racists in the tea party.' Just like 'There are probably some child molesters who vote democrat.' Both perfectly fair observations.

  • Tony||

    I have a poll for you.

    "People who approve of the Tea Party, more than those who don't approve, have more racist attitudes," says Christopher Parker, a University of Washington professor who directed the survey. "And not only that, but more homophobic and xenophobic attitudes." For instance, respondents were asked whether they agreed with various characterizations of different racial groups. Only 35 percent of those who strongly approve of the tea party agreed that blacks are hardworking, compared with 55 percent of those who strongly disapprove of the tea party. On whether blacks were intelligent, 45 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 59 percent of the tea-party opponents. And on the issue of whether blacks were trustworthy, 41 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 57 percent of the tea-party opponents.

    The quote is from a Newsweek article about the poll.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Well... okay. Fair enough. I'm kind of surprised by that. I mean, there's the obvious reservations that just because there are a lot of racists in the tea party doesn't mean that race is a big part of their platform, I certainly don't want to see non-racist tea partiers tagged with racism as well, and it's not relevant that the tea party is mostly white, but still, damn.

  • GMT II||

    Toni, you are SOTR today.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I know, it's totally absurd to think that a group of nearly 100% white older conservative Republicans could possibly harbor any racism.


    You mean like these?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

  • ||

    ohhh good one Old Mex.

    To say Tea Pirates are motivated by racism because they have a bunch of white poeple is as stupid as saying hockey fans are motivated by racism....or The Seattle Grunge scene was motivated by racism....or environmentalism is motivated by racism.

    According to Tony the Wisconsin union protests must be motivated by racism because they are predominately white.

  • ||

    I know, it's totally absurd to think that a group of nearly 100% white older conservative Republicans could possibly harbor any racism.

    All races/political groups harbor racists. White conservatives are no different then black progressives or Asian libertarians.

    I would argue that there is any greater proportion among any main steam political/racial group in the US today.

    To say Tea Pirates are motivated by racism because they have a bunch of white poeple is as stupid as saying hockey fans are motivated by racism....or The Seattle Grunge scene was motivated by racism....or environmentalism is motivated by racism.

    Also it should be noted that nearly all racist policy ever enacted and enforced in the US came from the progressive wing not the conservative wing in US politics.

    In fact i am having a hard time thinking of a racist policy or law that was enacted and enforced by conservatives.

    Not that there isn't any...people are fucked and conservatives are no exeption....still with the left alwasy complaining about conservatives being racist you would think it would be easy for them to name them.

    Hell progressive instances are easy to name: Jim Crow, Slavery, Segregation of work programs under FDR, kicking all the black workers out of the white house by Wilson. Those are easy to name. What are the conservative ones Tony? Can YOU even name one?

  • Old Mexican||

    The union protesters in Wisconsin are also as white as one could be. I, as a white Mexican, would feel really uncomfortable if I were to walk among THAT bunch!

    But, hey, I am pretty sure Tony (the resident hypocrite) does not mean THOSE white people, he means the OTHER white people.

  • Tony||

    I did qualify "white" with "older conservative Republican."

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I did qualify "white" with "older conservative Republican."


    you simply assume they are.

  • ||

    You mean like McCain and Reagen and Bush Sr?

    You really do live in a fantasy world.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, it must be conceded that Dems led the charge in the War on Crack in the '80s.

  • ||

    To be fair i can now name conservative racist policies. Immigration.

    I went out for a smoke i thought of it.

    Still immigration is a mixed bag. The left are not particularity good and it was Reagan who gave amnesty and Bush Jr and pre-2008 election McCain were both good on this issue.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, it must be conceded that Dems led the charge in the War on Crack in the '80s.

    If you are being sarcastic then I should remind you in the 80s the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate.

  • ||

    the dems were/are just as bad on prosecuting the moronic WOD as the repubs are/were. Clinton, fwiw, was a major drug warrior.

  • ||

    I am not being sarcastic. My recollection is that Tip O'Neill was leading the charge.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    Everyone will be equal when those with a work ethic give up said work ethic.

  • Tony||

    Keep your Protestant bullshit off my body!

  • Old Mexican||

    The mind of a statist fuck, No. 1,342,112:

    Re: Tony,

    Fiscal [Meth,] not paying taxes is stealing.


    Up is down.

    When you steal, men with guns come after you. That's how it works.


    But when the government steals, men with guns come after you. That's how it works.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    "Fiscal [Meth,] not paying taxes is stealing."

    My lawyer has instructed me to point out that the above is not a qoute from Fiscal Meth but a quote directed at Fiscal Meth by a statist fuck.

  • sevo||

    Let's parse this sack of crap:
    Tony|3.9.11 @ 4:48PM|#
    "No, it's just that we'll get around to the poor persecuted white heterosexual males..."
    Throw-away bullshit line, intended to show the asshole is on the side of angels; standard Tony shit.

    "...as soon as everyone else has achieved a measure of social equality and justice..."
    Notice there is no metric at all to this bullshit claim; more appeals to emotion from the asshole known as Tony.

    "...to account for all the centuries white heterosexual males have been oppressing them."
    Typical mau-mauing bullshit, requiring that the current population feel shame and somehow correct for history. One more transparent, sleazy attempt at grabbing a moral high-ground by the asshole known as Tony.
    In short, there is neither rhyme nor reason to a single sentence in the lot. Merely the claim that the assholes known as the Tonys of the world are the arbiters of all that's right.
    Hey, asshole, stuff it up your butt.

  • Tony||

    Typical mau-mauing bullshit

    Mike Huckabee, is that you?

    Look, here's the point. And it's not even my point. I was just explaining the rationale of why all racism is not equal to those who care about racism. Even if a white man is the victim of racism, the victimhood begins and ends with the insult itself. His ability to succeed in the world will not be hindered because of a black person's racist attitude toward him. Arguably the same is not the case in the reverse.

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.9.11 @ 8:08PM|#
    "Look, here's the point. And it's not even my point. I was just explaining the rationale of why all racism is not equal to those who care about racism."

    If you'd have started there instead of banging on tin to make your halo, you'd have been better off.
    ----------------------------

    "Even if a white man is the victim of racism, the victimhood begins and ends with the insult itself. His ability to succeed in the world will not be hindered because of a black person's racist attitude toward him. Arguably the same is not the case in the reverse."

    OK, now we have something to deal with. Let's start with a case where that's not true:
    "The Supreme Court Decides the New Haven Firefighter Case"
    http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20090701.html

    Then let's deal with Jim Crow laws:
    "Jim Crow laws, in U.S. history, statutes enacted by Southern states and municipalities, beginning in the 1880s, that legalized segregation between blacks and whites."
    http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/.....26301.html

    And, finally, with union ("liberal") racism:
    "[Davis-Bacon] was passed in order to prevent non-unionized black and immigrant laborers from competing with unionized white workers."
    (ran out of links)

    Notice that in *all* cases, the racism was codified and enforced by the coercive power of the state. As was slavery.
    I don't argue that racism doesn't exist; it's universal in that humans haven't had time to evolve beyond 'tribalism'. But the solution is *not* the state; it's to allow those who wish to profit by their activities, either as employees or employers, to do so.

  • Tony||

    New Haven Firefighter Case

    Ehh I don't feel like explaining why that decision was wrong, so I'll give it to you. So as soon as affirmative action overreach begins to affect white people to the extent that anti-black racism has affected black people, they will be equivalent.

    And woah, where did this rhetorical stuff about the state come from. The state giveth and it taketh away. Our job is to make sure it does the right thing, and that involves solving race problems in society, which obviously are what lead to policy and not the other way around.

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.9.11 @ 9:30PM|#
    "New Haven Firefighter Case
    Ehh I don't feel like explaining why that decision was wrong, so I'll give it to you. So as soon as affirmative action overreach begins to affect white people to the extent that anti-black racism has affected black people, they will be equivalent."

    Sorry, 'don't feel like it' is sleazebag excuse for 'I don't have a clue', asshole. No takers on that crap.
    And you're more than happy when the government screws everybody? What a wonderful concept!
    -----------------------------

    "And woah, where did this rhetorical stuff about the state come from."

    What "rhetorical stuff"? You mean facts? That sort of "rhetorical"?
    ------------------------------

    "The state giveth and it taketh away. Our job is to make sure it does the right thing,"

    So I give you evidence that the state was the enforcer of slavery, racism and discrimination, and your response is 'well, we haven't gotten right yet, but we'll try'?

    ------------------------

    "and that involves solving race problems in society, which obviously are what lead to policy and not the other way around."

    "Obvious" to whom? Brain-dead ignoramuses? Did you read what I posted? Are you capable of rudimentary understanding?
    THAT'S your response?!
    Sorry I wasted time on such an ignoramus.
    Stuff it up your butt.

  • Tony||

    It would be dumb to deny that the state can enforce bad policies like slavery and racial segregation. But the state didn't invent these things or cause people to be racist. So what's your point? Get rid of the state and we'll get rid of racism?

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • ||

    how did you do that?

  • Tncm||

    This is probably the greatest Tony thread ever. First, he spends about half a dozen posts saying that he is the ultimate pragmatist who has absolutely no first principles, and that the people who do are on the intellectual level of religious fundamentalists. He then in the same breath goes on to state a first principle, that is, to "maximize social welfare and equality" (paraphrased). The irony, oh dear God the irony.

    Then, he goes on to make a hasty generalization fallacy by accusing everyone in the Tea Party of being white, neoconservative, and old, and even going on to defend that assertion when people post evidence that not everyone in the Tea Part is white, neoconservative, and old. Throw in the fact that he denies the roots of racism and eugenics in the Progressive movement, and you get one big thread dedicated to Tony's idiocy.

    For the record, the two biggest progressive presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were both rabid social Darwinists and eugenicists who believed that the government needed to prevent certain ethnic groups from procreating so as to purify the human gene pool. Not to mention the fact that progressivism also is incredibly militaristic. Theodore Roosevelt and his Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine gave birth the military state and interventionism, while Woodrow Wilson got us involved in one of the bloodiest wars in history (World War I) when it had absolutely nothing to do with the United States to begin with. He also outlawed criticisms of the war and of his presidency.

    So basically Tony adheres himself to an ideology that is rooted in social Darwinism, race conflict, militarism, and interventionism. What a guy.

  • Tony||

    Look, reading comprehension was never my best skill either, so I forgive you.

    He then in the same breath goes on to state a first principle, that is, to "maximize social welfare and equality" (paraphrased). The irony, oh dear God the irony.

    I copped to this being a first principle and noted the seeming paradox. The difference is this axiom (improving human well-being and equality is a good thing) is not based on received wisdom. It's not the edict of a god or the proclamation of Ludwig von Mises. It's put in place because, well, it makes sense. It's not holy writ, it's just a useful starting place for anyone who's not a nihilist.

    Then, he goes on to make a hasty generalization fallacy by accusing everyone in the Tea Party of being white, neoconservative, and old, and even going on to defend that assertion when people post evidence that not everyone in the Tea Part is white, neoconservative, and old.

    Why would I make the obviously falsifiable claim that ALL of them are white, old, and conservative? If that was the impression you got, I'm sorry. I mean that they tend to be these things more than the general population.

    Throw in the fact that he denies the roots of racism and eugenics in the Progressive movement...[blah blah blah Woodrow Wilson blah

    Stop offending my delicate sensibilities by channeling Glenn Beck. (Typical reply: but I never watch Beck!) Ok, so where else does this bullshit come from? Everyone was racist in the 19th and early 20th century. Progressives are not responsible for it. Any progressive movement I'd call myself a member of is the one that has been in front on all the equality and justice issues, even if they haven't had a 21st century outlook the entire time.

  • sevo||

    "Stop offending my delicate sensibilities by channeling Glenn Beck."

    Stop offending every one by channeling your favorite boogie man, asshole.

  • sevo||

    "Any progressive movement I'd call myself a member of is the one that has been in front on all the equality and justice issues,"

    You know, any philosophical movement I'd call myself a member of has been in the front of truth and beauty.
    Are you familiar with the term poisoning the well?

  • Tony||

    I think there should be more truth and beauty too.

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.9.11 @ 10:00PM|#
    "I think there should be more truth and beauty too."

    Unfortunately, you're incapable of thinking.

  • ||

    Everyone was racist in the 19th and early 20th century.

    You need to look up a guy named William McKinley he was a US president and he was not a racist.

    Funny how he got elected with a clear majority and funny how a left wing nut job killed him.

    It is as if you are totally fucking wrong.

    Ohhh wait....

    You are totally fucking wrong.

  • John Calhoun||

    The difference is this axiom (improving human well-being and equality is a good thing) is not based on received wisdom. It's not the edict of a god or the proclamation of Ludwig von Mises. It's put in place because, well, it makes sense. It's not holy writ, it's just a useful starting place for anyone who's not a nihilist.


    I don't know why you continue to feign ignorance and yet keep coming back here.

    This has been explained to you again and again that it is not "received wisdom" from God or Mises. It's rational and logical construct from the fact we are individuals with free will.

    I mean, unless you're making the argument that we are not individuals, and thus inherently required to be slaves.

    Stop offending my delicate sensibilities by channeling Glenn Beck. (Typical reply: but I never watch Beck!) Ok, so where else does this bullshit come from?


    You do realize that Glenn Beck got to this "new" history last right? Plenty of things were written about these ideas before Beck was even born.

    It's not "bullshit" that a very key component of the Social Gospel, which itself was a key component of many of the Progressive Era movements, was that through the use of government people could be perfected for God. Other groups saw government "experts" as the necessary correcting force for all of society either to improve labor conditions, hold down the black people, correct the poor/disabled/alcoholic/etc. and so on.

    The key notion is not the tarring of progressives with a racist brush, but instead showing that when you accrue power to these government "experts" you grant them authority to pursue things like racism with the only check being "faith" on those in power.

    You above say that most Americans are still racist, and elsewhere say the people have the right to choose their government, so then you agree that the majority of Americans should be allowed to choose a government that acts in a racist manner?

    You'll hand wave it away by saying that instead of allowing people to choose their government we must do what will improve human well-being as decided by a select elite. You say time and time again that rights are what those in power say they are. Then why is government, acting in the name of the people to oppress blacks, women and homosexuals wrong? It improves human well-being after all. None of those things are people. Because those in power say so.

    See how this works logically?

    On the other hand the principle: All people are individuals and thus own themselves.

    See how that avoids the above problem in the logic?

  • Tony||

    the fact we are individuals with free will.

    It's also a fact that we are social animals, and don't really have free will. (Not that I want to trudge through that debate. How about you just trust me when I say that free will is a useful fiction?)

    You above say that most Americans are still racist, and elsewhere say the people have the right to choose their government, so then you agree that the majority of Americans should be allowed to choose a government that acts in a racist manner?

    I didn't say most Americans are racist. I said tea partiers are more racist than the general population, and provided a poll to substantiate the claim.

    My point would be that policy tends to follow public will. If government is acting in a racist manner, it's not because government invented racism, it's because people are racist and want their government to be too.

    Then why is government, acting in the name of the people to oppress blacks, women and homosexuals wrong? It improves human well-being after all. None of those things are people. Because those in power say so.

    Wrong as in it makes baby Jesus cry? Or bad policy that decreases human well-being? It's kind of hard to deny that blacks, women, and homosexuals are people in this day and age.

    On the other hand the principle: All people are individuals and thus own themselves.

    Sounds lovely, so then what? People are social creatures too and have to interact with each other on a finite planet. What's the difference between the eventual result of that situation and what I'm saying is the reality of the world?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    "How about you just trust me when I say that free will is a useful fiction?"

    You arrogant dick. How about you substantiate that claim with an argument? Why would anyone just trust you when, even if they didn't want to think for themselves, they might as well just trust someone who does believe in free will?

  • Tony||

    That was kind of a joke. I'm right, though. It's a deterministic world.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Heard of compatibilism?

  • sevo||

    Tony|3.9.11 @ 3:39PM|#
    "And you want to point this metaphorical gun at my head and say I have to accept lowest common denominator "news" and I have to like it, because the market is Jesus."

    Hey, asshole! Want to try again in English instead of Brain-dead?
    Who's holding a gun to your head?

  • Tony||

    Who's holding one to yours?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    The government. You knew that, surely.

  • Tony||

    That must be inconvenient.

  • Tony's Boyfriend||

    Sorry guys, Tony always gets this irritable when he hasn't had my dick up his butt for awhile!

    Come to bed, Tony! It's late. I want to top you!

  • ||

    You need to look up a guy named William McKinley he was a US president and he was not a racist.
    http://businesstojerseys.blog.co.uk
    http://berniemorar.dtiblog.com/

  • ||

    Guys, quit picking on Tony. It's mean to make him write stupid shit. Let's not embarrass him any further.

  • John Calhoun||

    I apologize.

  • ||

    Your first line "Public radio and public television cater almost exclusively to the sensibilities of the urban liberal. " demonstrates that you do not know the territory. The stats for the audience nationwide tell a different story in that the audience matches the demographics of the country. Over 40 years, having visited and met with the folks who support over 80% of the public radio and TV stations in the country, I know you to be wrong. I've met the strong conservative republicans in congress and their constituents back home in Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Alaskan villages, small southern towns, Iowa cities of 1000 people. I've met the lady in South Dakota whose with autistic child was substantially helped by PBS children's programming. The teachers in poor schools who depended on the instructional programs to bring the world to their classrooms, the emergency workers in South Carolina who received training to better do their job. The examples are countless. The more I read unreasoned opinions about funding public media, the more I understand how little some pretenders think they know about it and the people who actually use it everyday.

  • ||

    We don't have government-funded motion pictures, it is entirely a private sector, free market thing. Almost everything Hollywood produces I have found to be garbage not worth my time and money to see. That is my personal taste, yours may vary, and that is your right. The point is, though, that I'm not demanding that the government spend other people's money (which is what taxes are) to provide me with films that are more to my taste. Instead, I have simply arranged my life to get by quite adequately without the regular and routine viewing of motion pictures. Some of you might consider me to be somehow deprived, but last I checked I was still breathing.

    I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply to broadcasting, both radio and TV. I do like some of the things on NPR and PBS, so I do send in some money every now and then. Maybe that will be enough to enable them to survive without government funding, maybe not. If not, then that might mean that I end up with very little radio and TV in my life. Sad, perhaps, but I'll still live. Especially in this day and age, there are other options, and new ones becoming available all the time.

    When someone is deep over their head in debt, the advice is to cut back non-essentials, and the cable TV bill is usually at the top of that list. The FedGov is in even worse financial condition. They need to cut back, and public broadcasting is going to have to be near the top of the list of things that have to go.

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • منتدى العرب||

    Thank you

  • DVDSoft||

    Cool.

  • DVDSoft||

    If not, then that might mean that I end up with very little radio and TV in my life. Sad, perhaps, but I'll still live. Especially in this day and age, there are other options, and new ones becoming available all the time.
    http://www.dvd-creator-convert.....o-dvd.html
    http://www.dvd-creator-convert.....o-dvd.html

  • sophie||

    Film is a different medium than print. Rather than characters making speeches, Rand's philosophy ought to be shown via the characters doing something interesting.

  • nike running shoes||

    so helpful

  • beiduibei||

    thank u

  • xiingguan||

    This movie has some lebron 9 for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it lebron 9 china for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

  • xiingguan||

    asdvgasvcasv

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement