Low-Cost Showdown: Clifford the Big Red Dog vs. His Royal Tampon Wannabe

Nick Gillespie | June 23, 2005

Yesterday, I appeared on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation to discuss tax funding for PBS and NPR. Among the other guests were Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the idjit who gave the "V-Chip" its name and who recently outed himself as a possible furry by appearing with PBS shill Clifford the Big Red Dog.

Let's leave aside the fact the CTBRD existed years before he showed up on PBS and that books featuring him have sold something like 110 million copies worldwide, suggesting that Clifford and other similar characters would flourish absent taxpayer funding of public broadcasting. One of Markey's main arguments for maintaining the status quo was that public broadcasting only costs each U.S. citizen $2 a year.

My question is this: Given that we've recently learned that British public coughs up roughly $1.10US to support Prince Charles, whose most memorable utterance involved a desire to be reincarnated as a tampon, and his ragtag band of Col. Klink impersonators, don't you feel cheated--if not ashamed of your country? In terms of sheer entertainment value, the British Royal family is clearly delivering superior entertainment value--and at a substantially lower cost. Did we win the revoulution only to lose the peace?

Comments

|6.23.05 @ 9:40AM|#

No we didn't - you forgot the BBC television tax.

|6.23.05 @ 9:49AM|#

Cute comparison Nick, but I do think that PBS provides more bang for the buck--better programs, more journalistic accuracy and integrity. Your "free market" solution is not compelling at all. Take a gander at the stations and programs that it buys us and tell me how we are better served than the Brits.

|6.23.05 @ 10:03AM|#

Nonsense... Desirable programming is truly in the eye of the beholder, and I'd rather watch the stupidest hour-long American reality show than 22 minutes of "AbFab".

As for journalistic integrity, the BBC seems to have had some issues with that lately itself, and does anyone for a minute believe that the Washington pols won't exert increasing pressure on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to trim its sails to the prevailing ideology?

|6.23.05 @ 10:09AM|#

How about if we fund NPR with a Faith-Based Initiative? The Feds give money to the Unitarians and they decide how it will be allocated.

This would work because Unitarians listen and donate to public radio already. Fundies don't. They have commercial-based hate radio.

|6.23.05 @ 10:15AM|#

I'd rather watch the stupidest hour-long American reality show than 22 minutes of "AbFab"

Speak for yourself. AbFab makes its American counterparts look like PC-diluted crap. The brilliance of Brit-coms is that they are not afraid of offending anyone.

|6.23.05 @ 10:20AM|#

This would work because Unitarians listen and donate to public radio already. Fundies don't. They have commercial-based hate radio.

Actually, there are no shortage of not-for-profit, listener-supported religious stations that cater to wacko fundies. How about just cutting out the middle man in your scheme and have the Unitarians support NPR directly?

|6.23.05 @ 10:37AM|#

I listen to NPR for two hours every day while in my automobile.I would continue to listen if it were advertiser funded,which it should be.NPR has an upscale audience that should be responsible for its funding.

|6.23.05 @ 10:45AM|#

"Possible furry": first time I have ever actually Ell Oh Elled reading Hit and Reason. Gillespie gets 1,000 points. These are the kinds of rumors that need to get spread more often about our elected representatives.

|6.23.05 @ 10:53AM|#

Totally offtopic, but it look like the SCoUS just ruled its permissable for local jurisdictions to take private property for other private economic gain.

Geoff Nathan|6.23.05 @ 11:01AM|#

The problem with NPR is that it really is the best source for news on the radio. And it really does exhibit a pronounced liberal bias. While 'all news' AM radio stations do fifteen second bits, and CNN (and Fox) headline news are available on satellite, the in-depth analyses we get from NPR are of much higher quality than anything available commercially on-air. It would be interesting to see if anything comparable sprang up if NPR were to be eliminated. I'm a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, but somehow I still doubt it.

|6.23.05 @ 11:06AM|#

Nick, that site misquotes Prince Charles. Contrary to popular belief, he never said he *wanted* to be reincaranted as Camilla's tampon. Here is what he actually said in the "Tampon Tapes":

Camilla: Mmm. So do I. I need you all the week. All the time.
Charles: Oh, god. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It
would be much easier!
Camilla: (laughs) What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?
(both laugh). Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers.
Charles: Or, God forbid, a Tampax. Just my luck! (laughs).
Camilla: You are a complete idiot! (laughs). Oh what a wonderful idea!
Charles: My luck to be chucked down a lavatory and go on and on forever
swirling round on the top, never going down!
Camilla: (laughing) Oh darling!
Charles: Until the next one comes through.
http://aca-vnt.mcc.ac.uk/Scrap?Book/camillagate.htm

"God forbid" and "Just my luck!" don't exactly seem to me to be expressing
a *desire* to be her tampon.

|6.23.05 @ 11:08AM|#

>

Kelo vs. New London didn't go well. Link to the New London daily paper below.

http://theday.com/eng/web/news/re.aspx?re=4B74B786-EFE6-476E-8094-1A1418014478

drf|6.23.05 @ 11:37AM|#

"Did we win the revoulution only to lose the peace?"

guess that was the first time that established the pattern. "Mouse that roared" was a silly movie, however.

there was a shitload of krappy brit shows, complete with bad teeth and terrible production values. there's a lot of misses for the few hits.

and, people here watch the stuff that many ManU who have posted above lament. Just look at Tony Little!

Theo p.|6.23.05 @ 12:20PM|#

I watch PBS and listen to NPR and feel no compunction about not giving because MY tax dillars are at work

|6.23.05 @ 12:49PM|#

Forcing everyone with a television to pay ~$200 a year (for a normal colour license - it's less if your television is black & white or if you're legally blind) to support the BBC is pretty bad, true - but at least there are programs worth watching on the BBC sometimes. Here you have to pay $2 to support PBS and NPR (even if you don't have a TV) and if you do have a TV you basically have to spend $50+ a month for cable or satellite just to get anything worth watching.

V the K|6.23.05 @ 12:52PM|#

the in-depth analyses we get from NPR are of much higher quality than anything available commercially on-air.



Indeed, if it weren't for NPR, how would we ever know how gender-confused vegan performance artists feel about social security reform?

|6.23.05 @ 1:46PM|#

At least on NPR's programs, people with differing viewpoints actually get to talk to each other, rather than playing "Who Can Scream Their Opinion The Loudest And Make The Biased Host Happy"? Talk radio is a sad joke by comparison. Nothing constructive, nothing affirmed, save for the Limbaughian or Frankenite views of the world.

V the K|6.23.05 @ 2:20PM|#

Actually, NPR programs like 'All Things Considered' and 'Morning Edition' are very closely edited, with reporters, editors and producers carefully hand-picking the soundbites that they allow to air. Most of the popular talk-hosts of the right, in contrast, welcome dissenting opinions and enjoy engaging them because their audiences prefer a lively debate rather than the soporific drone of left-wing conformity that typifies NPR.

|6.23.05 @ 2:22PM|#

It's nice when libertarian blogs perpetuate the rumors that were the result of an invasion of someone's privacy.

But I guess if Prince Charles is a leech of public money, then the public has a right to audio tapes of him romancing the ladies for their own entertainment.

|6.23.05 @ 2:30PM|#

V the K

You're comparing apples and oranges. Please explain how live call-in shows on NPR, such as "The Connection" and "On Point" are "carefully hand-picked" for "soundbites".

Also, explain the "left-wing conformity" of an NPR that provides a platform for people like Grover Norquist and Roy Moore to speak uninterrupted and state their case (very badly, in Moore's case) while the host politely listens.

Have you ever actually listened to it?

|6.23.05 @ 2:43PM|#

I wouldn't care if public tv featured nothing but shots of Salma Hayek walking around naked, it still shouldn't be funded with public dollars. And yes, I'd watch it all day if they'd do that--hell, I'd quit my job and eat nothing but delivery pizza... :)

|6.23.05 @ 2:57PM|#

"Rep. Ed Markey...who recently outed himself as a possible furry"

Oof. As weird as furries are, I think that's a nasty brush to tar them with...

V the K|6.23.05 @ 2:58PM|#

I was merely correcting another commenter's assertion that NPR was all about the free exchange of ideas and that Talk Radio never presented dissenting opinions.

I have listened to NPR enough to note a curiosity. Their employees always refer to a ban on "so-called Partial Birth Abortion," but never to a ban on "so-called Assault Rifles." Interesting, that.

|6.23.05 @ 3:23PM|#

One of Markey's main arguments for maintaining the status quo was that public broadcasting only costs each U.S. citizen $2 a year.

Interesting that there's apparently absolutely no government program both more important than public broadcasting and insufficiently funded, at least in this guy's eye.

|6.23.05 @ 4:37PM|#

I want my $2 back!

|6.23.05 @ 4:55PM|#

Most of the popular talk-hosts of the right, in contrast, welcome dissenting opinions and enjoy engaging them because their audiences prefer a lively debate rather than the soporific drone of left-wing conformity that typifies NPR.

I didn't realize yelling "SHUT UP" and turning off microphones was engaging dissenting opinions. You learn something new every day.

|6.23.05 @ 4:58PM|#

I wouldn't care if public tv featured nothing but shots of Salma Hayek walking around naked, it still shouldn't be funded with public dollars.

I'm sure they'd get a lot more money during pledge drives from viewers like YOU (and me). Tim, we have a new Reason fundraiser idea!

|6.23.05 @ 5:20PM|#

>Speak for yourself. AbFab makes its American >counterparts look like PC-diluted crap. The >brilliance of Brit-coms is that they are not >afraid of offending anyone.

Offensive? Hardly. Boring/predictable? Definitely.

|6.23.05 @ 6:00PM|#

Put a Salma Hayek nude centerfold in REASON and I'll resubscribe.

|6.23.05 @ 6:45PM|#

Yes Salma Hayek is the most beautiful woman in the world, with Angelina Jolie coming in second.

But since I'll never meet either of them, I'm quite content that in AZ, there are beautiful women everywhere!

|6.23.05 @ 9:28PM|#

V the K,

"Assault Rifle" is a term coined and used by the people who manufacture and use them.

"Partial Birth Abortion" is a term invented by poltical activists to spin the public's perception of a procedure that actually has a term that is used by the people who utilize it.

The equivalent of "Partial Birth Abortion" is not "Assulat Rifle." It's "Crazy Murderer's Killer Gun" or some such thing.

|6.23.05 @ 10:34PM|#

NPR will live, the Obey Amendment today made sure of that. And just for you guys who never listen to talk radio but love to criticize it: Tune in once in a while. I am a hard-core libertarian, and I occasionally listen to Limbaugh just for fun. He is entertaining, and not inclined to turn off peoples' mics (unlike that fucking bufoon Hannity). I actually called in when he was talking about drugs one time and he was very reasonable and open to the libertarian perspective. As he should be...

|6.24.05 @ 12:52AM|#

Nick, when you put a single thread together including NPR, Prince Charles, his love for Camilla, Ed Markey, CTBRD, and entertainment value economics, you risk comparison with the crazy hermit guy who lives at the end of my dirt road. After all, he talks the same way you post.

Moneyrunner|6.24.05 @ 7:13AM|#

I am always rather amazed how so many Liberals do not consider themselves Liberal, but middle of the road. For example, those like krofsuperstar who defends the ?better programs, more journalistic accuracy and integrity? of PBS.

Those who deny the political slant of PBS are now making themselves ridiculous. That ship has sailed. But if you are Liberal and agree with the opinions and selection of the news you find on PBS, you can delude yourself into thinking that PBS is accurate and has journalistic integrity. After all, they agree with you.

And Mark Borok defends PBS by citing two (2) examples of conservatives being given a forum. I'll even add another one: Bill Buckley's "Firing Line" was on public TV.

So what? Limbaugh is polite to Liberals who call in and gives them a chance to speak. He debates them. Does that make Limbaugh fair and balanced?

Liberals have had control of the MSM for so long they truly did not realize they were a fringe part of the political spectrum rather than occupying the center. The last few years and the vast increase of the influence of the internet must be a rude shock.

Peace.

V the K|6.24.05 @ 8:31AM|#

Joe, anyone with more than a passing knowledge of firearms will tell you, the weapons covered under the "assault weapons ban," were not actually assault rifles. That terminology was selected by leftists specifically to provoke hysteria.

On the other hand, "partial birth abortion" is a completely accurate term for what happens when a viable baby is pulled bodily from the womb (except for the head, hence "partial birth") then has its brains sucked out so the skull can be collapsed and it can be extracted, hence "abortion."

Arguably, "partial birth abortion" is more accurate than "assault rifle," but the most you could reasonably assert is that both phrases should be treated the same way, i.e. "what opponents call 'assault weapons,'" or "what opponents call 'partial birth abortion.'"

|6.24.05 @ 1:05PM|#

joe is probably not the only person in the world who has confused "assault rifle," which has a real meaning, with "assault weapon," which actually was originally a marketing term for weapons that have superficial features that essentially add up to "military-looking styling." "Assault weapon" means nothing in terms of the weapon's power. "Assault weapons" are very, very rarely used illegally (less than 2% of gun crimes).

joe: "Assault Rifle" is a term coined and used by the people who manufacture and use them.

joe meant "assault weapon," and substituting the proper term, that statement is almost correct. As I recall, "assault weapon" was originally a marketing term, and it was used in Gun Digest in the 1980s, I believe. But it has no consistent meaning in terms of a weapon's functioning. It's a "style" term.

V the K: the weapons covered under the "assault weapons ban," were not actually assault rifles. That terminology was selected by leftists specifically to provoke hysteria.

This is also correct. Although people knowledgeable about firearms don't use the term "assault weapon" because they know it doesn't really mean anything, advocates of gun control have seized upon the marketing term to market their own propaganda.

It's as if sporty-looking cars were dubbed "speed cars" regardless of their actual horsepower or top speed. The "assault weapons" ban would be comparable to calling for a "speed car ban" to "stop the senseless deaths caused by speeding on our nation's highways" -- disregarding that many "speed cars" actually had a top speed of 45 mph and were involved in fewer than 2% of all accidents.