Posts Tagged ‘NPR’

Goodlinks

January 1, 2014

Mises Institute will broadcast this educational event live, presentations from a number of Austrian economists:

http://mises.org/events/179/Austrian-Economics-Research-Conference-2014

 

Some readers may be interested in this hit piece about the Honduras initiative to establish special economic zones, with a reply from Michael Strong:

http://www.ilmoralista.it/2013/02/09/american-weirdness-seeks-to-intervene-in-honduras/

–Michael Strong includes a few great links himself in his reply! I checked some of them and there’s a lot of interesting information.

Strong says there is an NPR program on Honduras about the special economic zone initiative that he says is fair. (See the article and video here) Wonders never cease, since they covered events in 2009 with shows that attempted to justify the attack by most of the rest of the world’s media and governments and social injustice blogs everywhere on Honduras sovereignty, constitution, and freedom:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/11/09/164813887/episode-415-can-a-poor-country-start-over

 

Check it out, check “mailpile”, have your own mail server…

https://www.mailpile.is/

 

Good news for liberty, says the Lew Rockwell blog:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/lew-rockwell/13-good-things-for-liberty-in-2013/

Russian saying they should follow American total surveillance example. Uh oh..
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/no_author/whos-behind-the-terrorist-attacks-in-russia/

 

Cold weather trapped a ship and stopped an icebreaker’s attempt to rescue it:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/russia-today/algoreans-on-ice/
..And that’s in the Antarctica summer.. Algoreans are in deep freeze…

 

Obama the Merciless:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/obama-the-merciless/

 

See this 8-page pdf document on the future of higher education. They think it looks good:

http://www.mises.org/emails/FreeMarket/Dec2013Full.pdf

 

There’s going to be trouble, because the dollar is going to crash, and other events are being set up as we speak. But the long term prospects are good for those who love the truth.

 

Advertisement

CNS: About James Taylor: Exactly how did he “suffer” with Bush that he does not “suffer” with Obama?

December 9, 2012

Did CNS even ask? IF they were not there, and got their information from somebody else, did their source answer that question or the ones below?

 

Rock singer/songwriter James Taylor tells the National Press Club he “suffered” during the Bush administration:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pop-star-james-taylor-i-really-suffered-under-8-years-cheneybush

What I don’t get is what this article is doing on the “Conservative” News Service web site, without any mitigating perspective by the writer, like,

(1) Was there a Q&A session after this guy’s talk?

(2) Did this guy give ANY specifics as to HOW he “suffered” under Bush and has not “suffered” under Obama, or WHAT it is he suffered?

(3) How did Obama’s policies 2009-2010 “fix” anything?

The reason I ask these questions is that almost everything the usual famous suspects were complaining about with Bush, Obama has done it all and done more of them.  I would have asked him one more thing:

(4) Did you understand Ron Paul‘s message? Do you understand why people on polar opposite ends of social behavior and philosophy came together to support him? Polar opposites on theology, family, different ethnic backgrounds?

Of course the 4th question would be an exercise in spreading the message of liberty.

 

There was a reference to the topic being Campaign Finance Reform (groan, again!) but no quotes or paraphrases from that topic either. Does he think legislators need to make it harder for people to run against them? Does he think legislators should be able to make the rules that make it harder for opponents to raise the funds they need to run against them?

 

Or did he even wonder whether the gang that made McCain-Feingold into law, whether the law was really meant to be fair to both incuments and opponents?

 

If limiting corporate influence in elections was the problem, then why does he think it no problem that big corporations own the broadcast networks and cable networks and the (declining) newsprint industry, or that NPR is the government reporting on itself and on opponents of the ones that fund them?

 

If you think government funding for campaigns is the answer, why do you think government making rules for who gets the money is fair to anybody, or how it takes considerations of money out of the picture? How is fair to favor people who already have all the name recognition, for example?

 

Tax and Spend % GDP 1993-2008

Tax and Spend % GDP 1993-2008 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

Citizens United decision helps the little guy have a voice

October 28, 2012
Citizens United

Citizens United (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Citizens United was where the little guy got a bit of a voice. I’ve listed four or five reasons below.

In the real world, incumbents re reelected something like 90 percent of the time to Congress, and the majority of times to the presidency. The reason?

The incumbent has a built-in billionaire advantage that comes automagically from (1) using the taxed and borrowed money, collected by taxation extorted from people of opposite sides of their positions and supporters all, for “official” communications, interviews, press releases, and (2) the payback from being a good “patron” for his sponsors’ causes, and (3) name recognition.

In today’s world, item (3) has a dollar value in the millions.

As relates to Citizens United, it is absolutely true that corporations are NOT people.

BUT free speech ensues from natural INDIVIDUAL rights, and one’s contributions to the efforts of an initiative to publicize the views shared by the contributors, provides the individual a way to compete for attention with the big money. Ironic that the excuse they use to protect special interests is that they want to stop the influence of special interests.

Now there are some people that want to throw a mud cover on that, to obscure the fact that people contributing to a corporate initiative with the purpose of supporting their own personal ideas, is a right that ensues from the free speech rights of the INDIVIDUAL doing that contribution. The corporation inherits the rights of the individual owners of that corporation, who have agreed to the terms thereof, and it is the collective voice of those individuals that bestows the right to express opinions.

It is preposterous to argue otherwise. If you do, for consistency you have to ban the corporate free speech of all the newspapers, broadcast studios, and Internet sites that belong to corporations! That means you have to muzzle NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FOX, huffingtonpost, and God forbid, oh my, NPR!

That is a major, blatant, self-contradiction in laws that restrict corporate speech, obvious when uttered explicitly. The corporate news industry is always “exempt” one group of corporations. This group gives voice to Sony, General Electric, and other such giants. Sometimes I suspect “it goes without saying”.

Another self-contradiction is that the subtler forms of support for a candidate are left untouched by these hypocritical initiatives. Hypocritical because exempted or regular newscasts, news stories, and so on.

Hypocritical also when you consider that a recent survey (1990s I believe) showed that as many as 97 percent of the editors in a recent survey were registered to vote with Democratic Party affiliation, and about 80 percent of the journalists. That may have gone down one or two percent since Fox seems like at least to have about an even mix between the two parties.

Those numbers probably help explain why it’s the Democratic Party that pushes for shutting the mouths of others. Us poor people and middle class cannot pay for a full-page ad to explain our views or influence opinions.

But then there are gobs of independents, and a big part of those independents are people like me who hold to ideas vehemently and brutally opposed by the two-party cartel that holds power right now.

The special-interest group with generally the most influence anyway is the collection of companies that own broadcast and cable networks and print newspapers, and don’t forget corporations with massive Internet presence. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, FOX, HN. And remember that NPR is no obscure news source, as shown by the fact that one of its own moderated the first presidential debate of the 2012 campaign.

And remember that those news sources subsist from advertising almost exclusively. NPR has subscribers, and many of the Citizen United contributors may have heard about it from alternate media. Little-guy media.

NPR is a corporate entity, yes it is, and the fact that much of its funding comes from the current incumbent that has the elected office, along with the strings that come along with it. It also outlasts each Congress and presidency with their change in personnel. The effect is that their perspective influences them to favor the idea that government is a benevolent animal, simply because they view themselves as benevolent.

In other words, NPR’s government funding goes hand in hand with the philosophy that government should influence favorably the public’s view of government.

See here a diagram showing much of the interconnections between media corporations and their “cousins” in other industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Media_corporation_interlocks_-_2004.jpg

Network diagram showing interlocks between var...