4
Jan
Recently was sent this link:
That’s my image, here’s Townhall’s link. Since I was a young boy, I hated NPR. They’ve had a lifelong history of dumbing down content. If they were reporting a war, you heard incessant gun fire in the background. The noises alone drove me away. It just struck me that they thought the average listener was too stupid to know what war was, so they tossed in sound effects to help. The content never enticed me to stay. Once CNN, Fox, MSNBC, XM, Cable, radio, the internet, and a host of other outlets arose to fill their void, I forgot they even existed. They served no function in my life. And, from what I can gather, the same was true for most of the US.
Originally, President Johnson asserted the charter for CPB, that’s the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as:
Now, the problem you had in 1967 was a very limited media. Not so much politically, morally, or ethically, but physically. You had radio, and you had broadcast television. That was it. There were basically three channels on television, and depending on your radio, a whole bunch. Probably 20 or so. In 1980, things changed rather dramatically when CNN went on the air. No longer was it safe to assume that only a federally funded quasi-governmental agency would be the only one capable of delivering “good music”, “exciting plays”, or “reporting on the whole fascinating range of human activity”. They definitely got the “reporting on the whole fascinating range of human activity” part down real good. They’re a news company, that’s all they do.
At about the same time, satellite television was in its infancy. For those with S-band dishes, you remember those:
You could get programming from anywhere in the world. Literally. You weren’t tied to the big three any more. I had one of those buggers, I watched NASA real-time. That was cool. Suddenly I was watching R and X rated movies, my whole experience exploded. At that time it became evident to me that there really was no need for NPR, CPB. How did they justify their existence? Folks, that was around 1980 or so.
S-Band begat the Dishnets we know today. Now you’ve got hundreds of channels. Want Education, go to educationtv. Want classical music? Go to one of the several classical channels. Symphony? Broadway? Opera? It’s all there. Concerned what you’re government’s doing? Go to C-Span. The content absolutely overwhelms what CPB was chartered to do. The purpose for CPB obviously no longer exists.
So, given the obvious eliminated need for CPB, what would you expect happened to its funding?
Funny you should ask:
| Year | Allocation | Change |
| 1969 | $5,000,000.00 | |
| 1970 | $15,000,000.00 | 200% |
| 1971 | $23,000,000.00 | 53% |
| 1972 | $35,000,000.00 | 52% |
| 1973 | $35,000,000.00 | 0% |
| 1974 | $50,000,000.00 | 43% |
| 1975 | $62,000,000.00 | 24% |
| 1976 | $78,500,000.00 | 27% |
| 1977 | $103,000,000.00 | 31% |
| 1978 | $119,200,000.00 | 16% |
| 1979 | $120,200,000.00 | 1% |
| 1980 | $152,000,000.00 | 26% |
| 1981 | $162,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1982 | $172,000,000.00 | 6% |
| 1983 | $137,000,000.00 | -20% |
| 1984 | $137,500,000.00 | 0% |
| 1985 | $150,500,000.00 | 9% |
| 1986 | $159,500,000.00 | 6% |
| 1987 | $200,000,000.00 | 25% |
| 1988 | $214,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1989 | $228,000,000.00 | 7% |
| 1990 | $229,400,000.00 | 1% |
| 1991 | $298,900,000.00 | 30% |
| 1992 | $327,300,000.00 | 10% |
| 1993 | $318,600,000.00 | -3% |
| 1994 | $275,000,000.00 | -14% |
| 1995 | $285,600,000.00 | 4% |
| 1996 | $275,000,000.00 | -4% |
| 1997 | $260,000,000.00 | -5% |
| 1998 | $250,000,000.00 | -4% |
| 1999 | $250,000,000.00 | 0% |
| 2000 | $300,000,000.00 | 20% |
| 2001 | $340,000,000.00 | 13% |
| 2002 | $350,000,000.00 | 3% |
| 2003 | $362,800,000.00 | 4% |
| 2004 | $377,800,000.00 | 4% |
| 2005 | $386,800,000.00 | 2% |
| 2006 | $396,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2007 | $400,000,000.00 | 1% |
| 2008 | $393,000,000.00 | -2% |
| 2009 | $400,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2010 | $420,000,000.00 | 5% |
| 2011 | $430,000,000.00 | 2% |
| 2012 | $445,000,000.00 | 3% |
| $10,129,600,000.00 | 8800% |
Yup, it just keeps growing and growing. Then came the news that George Soros donated a LOT of money to NPR. They then promptly fired Juan Williams. He was the only remotely conservative spokesperson at NPR. They reason they fired Williams? For expressing an opinion. That used to be considered an exciting human activity. What it did now was assure the planet that CPB no longer cared about their charter. They only cared about appeasing their base. And, that base neither represents the public interest, nor even the US citizens’ interest. It only represents the internal philosophy of the people running NPR. That’s it. That makes it no different than MSNBC, CNN, or any of the other hard left propaganda tools George Soros employs. Someone tell me what the point of NPR existing at this point is. I really see absolutely none whatsoever. The history you’ll find on the History channel. The music’s all over Sirius/XM.
Then came the internet.
They really no longer need to exist.
They certainly do not need to be contributing to the national debt.
John Boehner wants ideas, listen to Darrell Issa. Defund NPR, no one will notice.
I have to admit, I had never heard the term “birther” before. I don’t watch tv much, so I guess that’s why. Dictionary.com doesn’t have a clue what “birther” is either. So, whenever a word is used I don’t know and dictionary.com doesn’t either, I go to urbandictionary.com. They of course have it. According to them, birther has several definitions:
- A conspiracy theorist who believes that Barack Obama is ineligible for the Presidency of the United States, based on any number of claims related to his place of birth, birth certificate, favorite birthday, or whether or not he has heard the song Africa by Toto. “Did you know that Barack Obama’s parents concealed the location of his birth because they knew he would grow up to be President? What? Of course it makes sense, I’m a birther!” barack obama president birth conspiracy Brent Elliott, Dec 8, 2008
- A racist sore loser who can’t deal with having a black president so they make up absurd conspiracy theories about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. These nutjobs actually believe that there has been a conspiracy going back 48 years to fake Barack Obama’s birth certificate. Apparently they had a crystal ball and knew that this black child (born in the days of segregation) would someday run for President. “Just ignore that racist nutjob foaming at the mouth. He’s a right wing birther conspiracy nut. gop racist bedwetter nazi klansman self-hating-gay, scoobydubious, Jul 16, 2009
- A person who believes that Barack Obama has controversy and/or fraud surrounding his birth, though all theories have been either rejected or proved false. The birthers gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court – all 20 of them. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/09/birthers-get-another-lifeline/
- A redneck born on American soil in a barn delivered by a drunken veterinarian who also performs abortions. Parents are both American citizens who are usually first cousins if not brother and sister. Birthers fought for their right to marry their cousins. hillbilly redneck birth conspiracy obama
by billthecat, Jul 28, 2009 - A knuckle dragging gutter culture warrior related to tea bagging citizens who don’t want to pay taxes because they don’t support our troops. “Obama’s parents were so smart they planned 50 years ago to have a baby on foreign land and get him elected into the White House so he can raise taxes to pay for our troops. It’s true I am a tea bagging birther” What were those tea bagging protesters complaining about again? Ohh yay they refuse to accept a black man as president and now have resorted to saying Obama can not be president cause he is an illegal alien. Sounds crazy? No I am just a tea bagging “birther.” teabagging obama birther conspiracy nutjob troop hater knuckle dragging
- A term for the frothy liquid mixture formed in the vagina when a baby is born. It is a foul smelling combination of maternal blood, vernix, and meconium (baby poop) that drips down over the mother’s anus during the third stage of labor. It is thought to be a contraction of the words “birth” and “lather.”, “Nurse, would you please wipe that birther off the crack of my patient’s ass? asshole dumbfuck idiot racistfool
by drsteevo, Jul 28, 2009 - Jargon term, or buzz word used by mainstream media to discredit, and marginalize the legal battle of Philip Berg, a registered democrat operating out of PA. The term was most recently pegged in an attempt to divide, a bi-partisan investigation into the legitimacy of Barack H Obama’s Presidency. If you don’t like mafia leaders, and respect the rule of law, then you are a birther.
So, after seeing that list of definitions submitted by what has to be respected observers of the United States version of the English language, it’s no wonder Eugene Robinson at RealClearPolitics thinks so lowly of birthers as well. He’s a little more kindly, simply calling them “nutjobs” in his opinion piece entitled “The Berserk Birthers”.
Now, this is where it gets kind of crazy for me:
Also beyond the Outer Limits of sanity is CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, who has been giving prime-time exposure to the “birther” lunacy — even while denying that he believes in it. Dobbs’ obsession with the “story” has become an embarrassment to the network, which has tried to position itself as untainted by political bias. CNN/U.S. President Jon Klein has pronounced the story “dead,” but insists that it’s legitimate for Dobbs to examine the alleged controversy, though in fact no controversy exists.
CNN untainted by political bias? Wow! Now THAT’S out there! That’s berserk! That’s something only a nutjob could believe. It gets even better:
Is this an orchestrated campaign to somehow delegitimize Obama’s presidency? Is the fact that he is the first African-American president a factor? Is it that some people can’t or won’t accept that he won the election and serves as commander in chief?
Maybe, maybe not. Trying to analyze the “birther” phenomenon would mean taking it seriously, and taking it seriously would be like arguing about the color of unicorns. About all that can be said is that a bunch of lost, confused and frightened people have decided to seek refuge in conspiratorial make-believe. I hope they’re harmless. And I hope they seek help.
Now, it’s impossible for me to buy for one second CNN ever concerned itself about being unbiased in this last election. I’ve got an entire thread on this blog dedicated to news media political bias, and CNN is all over it. It goes back almost five years of documented cases of bias most usually with documentation proving that bias.
So, here’s the rub I have with this article by Eugene Robinson, if the argument against something neither cites evidence disproving the original argument and uses obviously flawed logic to discredit the original argument, it means the person making the argument really never set out to make any real effort to counter that argument. Monty Python illustrated best in their “taunting Frenchmen” bit on The Holy Grail. Don’t concern yourself with logic, just hurl insults.
And, for Eugene’s enlightenment, the whole birther thing has been kept alive because The White House will not provide a legitimate birth certificate. Now, I carry one in my pocket. It’s not that hard a thing to do. If Obama was the least bit interested in putting this whole birther thing to rest, he would have presented it. As it is, he apparently doesn’t care one way or the other. That’s the boat I’m in. I could care less. But, what I don’t believe in at all is running around hurling insults at people who believe otherwise, either way. Sure, it sounds kinda crazy that some people are making the argument Obama wasn’t born in the United States. But, it sounds even crazier to me that some people think CNN is not politically biased. And, in the big scope of things, which is more realistically dangerous, people of no influence thinking their president was born outside of the United States, or, media people ignoring media bias?
I just did a little piece about how media was going the way of National Enquirer. Now, I was somewhat limited in my disdain since I was relying on the internet for my news. Apparently, the sexual innuendo wasn’t limited to the internet. Anderson Cooper had this to say about yesterday’s demonstrations:
“It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging,”
David Shuster wasn’t about to be outdone:
- “Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it.”
- He described the parties as simultaneously “full-throated” and “toothless,”
- “They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.”
Now, I gotta admit, I had never heard of teabagging in the mode they were using it. Now I do thanks to a live news broadcast aired into the homes of children. I wonder how many kids across the land were asking their mommies why they didn’t go teabagging.
Class act David and Anderson. If there was ever a need for the FCC, now seems to be it. But, they won’t do anything. CNN and MSNBC won’t do anything. I guess the only real option is to block CNN and MSNBC so my child won’t be exposed to stuff I’d rather my six year old not be discussing at this time.
That’s nuts, guys. ( Heh,get it? Nuts? )
Is it a coincidence that both pieces I wrote today on media’s dissolving ethics involved MSNBC?
Now, this is juicy stuff that makes for a made-for-tc movie and endless headlines on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc….
Wrong.
If you didn’t see it here:
You probably would never have known. That’s a local Buffalo station report.
Now, as others have suggested, let’s replay this incident and substitute a Catholic or any other demonination as the source of the story. You know, like that chick who killed her preacher husband a few years ago. Hers wasn’t quite as gruesome. She just shot him. Mundane stuff that got played in the media for months. This guy beheads his wife in a public arena and no one says a word.
What is going on in this country?
I sure wish I had an inside to CNN. I’d love to know why this is not front-page stuff when the beer tax in Oregon is? Is CNN that afraid of Islam?
Well, apparently Fox isn’t. However, the silence of others is almost preferable to Fox’s headline.
22
Dec
A lot has been made of Barack Obama inviting Rick Warren to give an invocation at his inauguration. A lot of people are upset. I’m not. This really isn’t much of an issue that affects my day to day life. What I have enjoyed is watching people who advocate various political policies squirm. The left is pissy about it. The right, for the most part, seems to be chuckling. Then I stumbled upon the oddest defense of Barack yet:
That was written by B. Daniel Blatt, a gay REPUBLICAN. He doesn’t think Warren’s anti-gay rants and opposing Prop 8 in California is something people should be concerned with. After all, Warren says he has a hundred gay friends. ( I sorta doubt that. )
On the Democrat side, I guess my favorite gay Democrat would have to be Barney Frank. He gives me all kinds of stuff to write about. Here’s his opinion:
That is coming from a gay DEMOCRAT.
So, we got Republicans endorsing Obama and Democrats openly opposing Obama. Granted, it can be argued Frank is a little more of a spokesperson for the Democrats than Blatt is for the Republicans. However, the problem I have with making this any more equitable is any time a Republican is associated with being gay, the media treats it as a scandal and they either resign, retire, or get voted out. If not, they are just “disgraced” forever. If a Democrat does it, no one cares and they are treated as an icon on the issue.
So, the “scandal” to me is not so much that Obama picked Rick Warren, it’s how the media is dealing with the entire issue.
But if you want my own opinion, I think Rick Warren was a bad choice simply because he’s been divisive in his ministry and we just don’t any more polarization. I would have picked someone who displays unrelenting humbleness, which is what I look for in my preachers.
That’s the argument being made today after the collapse of the Big Three bailout. For the record, it came because UAW refused to bargain.
Now, this argument is so bogus it’s amazing. People are actually debating this issue as if it’s fact. One of the states being singled out is Kentucky because of Mitch McConnell. Now, I know Kentucky kinda well. What people are not wanting everyone to know is Toyota isn’t the only car manufacturer here.
Ever seen one of these?
That folks, is a Kentucky car. GM only makes Corvettes in Kentucky.
Ever seen one of these?
![2007-ford-explorer-front-view[1]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3061/3102743672_8eeac54fe8.jpg)
That folks, is another Kentucky only car.
So, don’t feed me the bull that Kentucky Republicans don’t have to worry about GM or Ford because we have one Toyota plant. The facts are totally against that and the media’s not too concerned about making sure people making that argument are corrected.
The real reason GM is in the shape it’s in is not because Kentucky Republican Senators are against making sure union dues are made by people making on average triple what I do to put a nut on a screw, it’s because people in California will not buy American made cars. Mitch McConnell writing the UAW a check for $15 billion will not fix that.
Earleir this year, Ford announced the KENTUCKY plant that makes the massive Explorer SUV’s will be re-tooled to manufacture alternative fuel cars. GM has already done that to some degree at the KENTUCKY plant that manufacters the $80,000, 8 mpg sportscar. A big part of the domestic auto manufacturing future is in Kentucky. So, the argument that Kentucky Republicans have nothing to lose by opposing this bill is completely bogus. We have a lot of jobs invested here. Some people, me included, know that for those jobs to be there in the future, “Detroit” is going to have to adjust their business model to be more competitve, and people in California will have to adjust their attitude that anything made in the US sucks.
When that happens, then I expect my Republican Senators will have a much different outlook. And, when that happens, the Big Three won’t be begging for handouts.
I read an article by Marie Cocco of the Washington Post in RealClearPolitics. it just confounds me. Per Marie:
She goes on and on about how important the middle class is.
This is the sort of socialist stuff I just flat out don’t see how people can truly believe makes a society function.
I’ll start from the bottom line and work up just a little. Fact is, no business has ever been created to assure there is a middle class. Never. Never will be either. A business is created so that a person can acheive one or two objectives, sometimes both:
- Freedom to operate their business in the manner they see fit.
- Economic initiative. They want to make more money.
That’s it. Name one company in the history of the United States that was created with the intent of creating a middle class.
Working up from the bottom line, the problems with GM is not that they have successfully created a middle class the last fifty years, contrary to what Marie Cocco thinks, it’s that they allowed the focus on non-business issues to overwhelm the ability of the business itself to remain viable. It’s fine and dandy to create a middle class, and some upper class, when business is good. However, when times go bad for a company, that middle class is expected to suffer as well. What Marie Cocco is expecting is for GM to go bankrupt and STILL support the middle class? That folks is beyond clueless, it’s asinine. Whether she wants to believe it or not, GM is in the shape it’s in because it’s paying it’s people too much. Maybe not in cash, but between these golden retirement plans, health insurance the average people don’t get, and getting paid many times what the average worker makes, GM is just spending too much. Toss in some lousy management at the top, and GM is doomed.
Now, once GM does go completely bankrupt, how will that contribute to the middle class, Marie?
It amazes me how stupid and unconcerned people who write for national media can be. Marie is just typical of how left and unconcerned with reality print media has become. Which I’m sure is major contributing factor in another of today’s headlines:
This is precious.
Immediately after the election, a few networks ran with the story that McCain campaign workers were claiming that Sarah Palin did not know Africa was a continent, among other ludicrous claims. Turns out, MSMBC’s source for the claim was one Martin Eisenstadt.
Turns out, Martin Eisenstadt isn’t real. He’s a fictional character.
Some people were quick to blame the creators of Martin Eisenstadt for the faux pas. However, the creators were quick to blame the shoddy reporting of MSNBC.
I agree with the creators of Martin Eisenstadt. There was nothing outside of the fictional blog to suggest Martin Eisenstadt had anything to do with John McCain or Sarah Palin. With no verification from anyone, MSNBC, and others, ran with the story as if it were fact. Now, faced with the fact that their source was a fictional character, rather than very publicly recanting the story, and apologizing to Sarah Palin, they’re attacking a fictional character. That’s the very sorry state of major media today.
30
Oct
Some media are having a difficult time reacting to the charges by McCain that they are completely and unashamedly pushing their candidate. They have discussed it, they have debated, and some to a small degree, have admitted it. If one has any doubts at all, all they need to is go to CNN’s front page this morning and look at the headlines:
Obama is featured in no less than SIX headline articles. Joe Biden’s mentioend in one. The only mention of John McCain is CNN finding members of his own party criticizing him.
I don’t want to ever hear CNN make the claim they are an unbaised, fair, reporting media again. Ever. They’ve gone beyond biased to the point of poisoned.
Been out of action for a few days. Decided to take a mini-vacation. Came back to this side-splitting “headline”:
Her “character attacks” are mentioning people Obama has hung out with that just don’t look so good now that he’s running for president.
In my world, a “character attack” is attacking one’s character. You know, something like Bernhard calling her a “turncoat b***h”. That’s a character attack. Criticizing Obama’s choice of associates is most definitely not.
However, I’m sure, MSNBC, reeling from the obvious criticism of their non-stop character attacks on Palin, felt like leveling the playing field in a way only the media can. By distorting the truth.
Think I’m stretching it a little bit?
I’m not.
