No Support for NPR

The House of Representatives has voted to end all funding for NPR, or National Public Radio. It is precisely the kind of move which, even if only symbolic, the GOP must make in order to show that there are real differences between the them and the Democrats.

Defenders of NPR will assert that this is nothing more than a partisan vote. It almost surely is; but notice the partisanship of the defenders. Why should we automatically take Republican partisanship as evil while Democratic partisanship is not? The Democrats want NPR funded because their supporters want it. Period.

Who is the more nonpartisan, though, if such can be ascertained? Well, seeing as government support of radio, any given radio, it should be emphasized, is at best an argument of dubious import, it is fair to question whether any government anywhere ought to pay to help keep certain stations on the air. In short, funding NPR is a luxury by any rational measure, even when the coffers are full to overflowing. Paying for radio when we face the deficits we do is simply absurd.

Why can't the left pay for their own radio? Right wing radio certainly is able to support itself. If left wing radio can only survive with government help, then that in itself tells us all we need to know about NPR and its supporters. They don't mind making us pay for their listening enjoyment through our taxes, but they won't pay for it themselves. They don't legally stealing our tax dollars to fund their programs, yet aren't about to put out more of their own cash to support what they say they like.

If there's a practical definition of hypocrisy, that's it. Hopefully the voters are taking notice, and throw the rest of the bums out in 2012.

I Was Born a Rambling Blog

A couple of NPR executives, one now a former NPR executive, have been stung on tape criticizing the GOP and the Tea Party types. They are scary and racist, it seems. If that isn't an argument to completely defund NPR, then there isn't one at all. When the left has fell to simple hate mongering, and the label racist is a sure liberal move in that regard, then they have absolutely no credibility as a journalistic organization.

We are using less gas recently due to higher prices. That's kind of a good/bad thing, isn't it? It saves, or at least holds on reserve, a bit of petrol while keeping pollutants down. Then, too, traveling less means spending less, which is also a good/bad question: it keeps us from spending money on tripe, but surely can't help the general economy. Is there a real middle ground on questions such as these? Or does it all just devolve into trusting individual decisions?

We'll go with the individual choices.

China now has the world's largest mall, with a whopping 1% occupancy. Now Beijing intends to build 45 more airports, in response to the travel boom and the presumption that airports bring prosperity to the locals. They seem to working on the "If you build it, they will come" principle. Yet the one things you cannot easily do is command people to go somewhere or spend their money. That is the entire reason why command economies cannot work. You may well build the largest shopping center anywhere (which itself is a bit odd, considering that China is supposedly still communist) but that can't ensure success. All that does is mislead the people into thinking that their government actually does provide for them.

That's all, until the morrow, friends.