January 8, 2011
The NPR Debacle: Rep. Lamborn and Cantor Promote Their Own Agenda Through H.R. 68 & 69


            In Washington, a slimy Republican representative named Doug Lamborn from Colorado is using legislation to push his own partisan agenda. United States House of Representatives bill H.R.68 “To amend the communications Act of 1934 to Prohibit Federal Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting after fiscal year 2013” is a dishonest attempt to cripple one of the country’s most sane news organizations, National Public Radio. To understand the severity of this, it is important to note that NPR is partially funded from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as from the U.S. Government indirectly. Yet another piece of legislation— as if H.R.68. were not bad enough—is being proposed by the same Doug Lamborn. A complimentary bill, H.R. 69 aims to “prohibit Federal funding to certain public radio programming…” In other words, this second bill targets NPR directly.

            Perhaps the worst element of all of this is the hidden agenda behind these two crippling pieces of legislation. Let me explain: A few months back, Juan Williams, a long time NPR news analyst, was abruptly fired from NPR after saying some rather insensitive comments about Muslims. One could debate ad nauseam whether NPR’s chief executive Ellen Weiss should have given Williams the boot (the author of this piece thinks termination was a bad choice), but that is a moot point. I must make it clear that the linking of this controversial firing and Representative Lamborn’s anti-NPR legislation is a conjecture, but very likely. My chief bone of contention with these two pieces of legislation is that they are justified with the tired and somewhat disingenuous Republican claim to reduce the deficit. This is clear through a report in 5280, a Denver-based magazine:

Lamborn claims the proposal is not political, but rather about reining in the nation’s $14 trillion debt: “We simply cannot afford to subsidize NPR, or any other organization that is not doing an essential government service. The government must learn to live within its means”

(http://www.5280.com/blogs/2011/01/07/doug-lamborns-effort-de-fund-public-radio-and-tv-resurfaces)

            To further support my argument that Lamborn’s legislation is nothing more than a vehicle to promote his own personal agenda—to kill the last remaining bastion of sane news analysis and commentary—I will present extracts from a transcript of a U.S. House of Representatives session that took place on November 18, 2010, which was broadcast on C-SPAN. The two pieces of legislation, in a House with a Republican majority, fall under an idiotic program called “YouCut”. Representative Eric Cantor (R) of Virginia took the House floor and launched into speech about how Americans have spoken “decisively and sent an undeniable message to Washington to end wasteful spending.” To truly appreciate the stupidity of this dunce, one needs to look at the screen shot below. In the House session, Representative Cantor insisted on carrying around a terribly idiotic poster, as if he was presenting at a 6th grade science fair. The poster is decorated in a highly patriotic style with Uncle Sam’s iconic face serving as the logo. This alone should be enough to make any intelligent viewer realize how silly this Republican YouCut program has become.


            Unlike Lamborn, who claims that that the two pieces of legislation (H.R. 68 & 69) are not being proposed to promote any personal agenda or in spite of NPR’s firing of Juan Williams, Cantor seems to be much more direct. As the transcript below shows, he does in fact link this legislation directly to NPR’s supposed bias, apparently revealed after the termination of Williams from the organization:

This week’s winning item, Madam Speaker, is a proposal developed by the gentleman from Colorado, Representative Doug Lamborn. This proposal would eliminate taxpayer funding for National Public Radio. When executives at NPR decided to unfairly terminate Juan Williams for expressing his opinion and to then disparage him afterwards, the bias of the organization was exposed.

                                                               (Rep. Eric Cantor, Nov. 18, 2010)


So it seems that Cantor has now changed the argument. * Initially, he claimed that citizens had “mandated” Washington to end the reckless spending, but it seems he is more concerned with the firing of Williams than anything else. Maybe it would help to examine the YouCut website, which is where you can find Cantor’s mug in a very satisfying video explaining the program. The program is described in a VERY exciting manner: “YouCut – a first-of-its-kind project - is designed to defeat the permissive culture of runaway spending in Congress. It allows you to vote, both online and on your cell phone, on spending cuts that you want to see the House enact.” That all sounds fantastic, but let us now examine YouCut’s logic (or lack thereof) for the anti-NPR legislation. In a very poor effort to show that NPR is highly biased, YouCut says the following:

NPR receives a significant amount of funding from private individuals and organizations through donations and sponsorships. For example in 2008, NPR listed over 32 separate private donors and sponsors who provided financial support in excess of half-a-million dollars that year. NPR officials have indicated that taxpayer funding makes up only a small portion of their overall budget. Therefore eliminating taxpayer support should not materially affect NPR’s ability to operate while at the same time saving taxpayers millions of dollars annually.

The supposed claim that these private donors are somehow controlling NPR in some grand William Randolph Hearst-esque scheme is shaky. But I will use YouCut’s logic in order to disprove its own assertion. If the issue is NPR relying on private funding and organizations that may or may not be threatening the overall objectivity of the content, then wouldn’t it make sense to increase the amount of funding NPR receives from the Federal Government? With the loss of this government money, NPR will need to reach out to even more private corporations that may not be the most politically neutral. An increase in funding, perhaps in a more BBC-like style, would ultimately allow NPR to be almost completely free of any possible bias. Another important fact to realize is that the organization is very dependent on its listeners who donate. In other words, if NPR were biased to the extent that Representative Cantor claims, wouldn’t the listeners who donate to hear objective content be up in arms?  A good portion of NPR’s budget, upwards of 30 percent, comes from donations, albeit many of them from very wealthy individuals; however, one cannot discount the power of the everyday NPR listener, who may only donate a few dollars a year. The listeners of the public radio station are the true bosses. Listeners are very vocal, and will speak up if NPR was heading in a biased direction.

            I suppose the bottom line is that this NPR debacle is just one example of politicians in Washington using our country’s legislative facilities to push their own personal agenda. It is not hard to imagine that there are many more instances of this kind of trickery that many of us will probably never hear about. As Roger Ebert so aptly characterized NPR on his blog, it is truly a “clear-thinking oasis”.  I’ll leave you with a short extract from his post on NPR, which I encourage you to read:

NPR brings fresh air into my mind, and not just with Terry Gross’s show. The hosts seem calm and civilized. Their questions are good ones. You never catch them being clever for the sake of being clever. It’s not happy talk. It’s in good taste. NPR obviously makes a lot of effort to bring in guests that are appropriate to the subject; a lot of pre-production goes on. There’s no catering to prejudice. No agenda.

                 (Roger Ebert, “Midnight at the oasis”, Roger Ebert’s Journal, Nov. 19,2010) 

           

* Since the resignation of former chief executive Ellen Weiss, NPR has publicly acknowledged that their decision to fire Juan Williams was wrong. The organization has since responded with a major overview of their ethics policies.  

4:22pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHD6ay2UMq8H
(Notes: 6)
  
Filed under: house of representatives politics npr public radio budget 
December 23, 2010
The Devolution of Privacy

The idea that all humans are entitled to privacy (defined in a variety of ways) seems to be an axiomatic truth accepted by nearly all institutions and societies. The definition, seemingly simple, is actually quite complex. Each person seems to have his or her own definition as to what constitutes privacy. We have seen the definition itself evolve over the years. In the United States, privacy was first pithily defined as “the right to be left alone” by Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis in 1890. Most nations around the world now recognize privacy as a human right, which is apparent in article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

            No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

(Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12)

  Given the history and complexity of privacy, I think it would be very interesting to see a scholarly analysis tracing the various generational movements in privacy. It seems fair to say that that over the years—since the wide-spread use of digital information systems—privacy has become less and less of a reality. During the early 20th century, as well as earlier points in history, privacy was something with substance. People would have physical documents, letters, or some sort of hard copy of data that could be literally protected. The same went for their personal privacy—their right to solitude. These were all things that were much harder to intrude upon chiefly because they would require some sort of physical exertion. If the government wanted to read through your mail they would need to either intercept it through the postal system, or literally come to your mailbox and steal it. And if they wanted to spy on you, they would need an FBI agent. Modern times have made the violation of privacy a trivial act. The U.S. Government does not need to spy on you by following you around as you get your coffee at the local Starbucks; they simply snoop on your internet activity, phone activity, or any other sort of digital communication. It is a much more subtle and affective way of violating a basic human right. The U.S. PATRIOT Act is the clearest example of this new way of undermining the right to privacy. We must live in an awfully perverse world when the violation of a basic human right is considered an act of patriotism.

All of this leads to the main point I wanted to make; that is, the children of this generation (myself included), do not value privacy on the same level as previous generations. Let me simplify: Privacy is dead. Modern technology ultimately led to this destruction of privacy. Facebook would be the finest example of people simply giving up privacy for instant social stimulation. Indeed, this may prove to be a wonderful thing for the next 5 years, but privacy will eventually be missed. I can present innumerable examples of how Facebook could potentially be used against people of the United States, or any country for that matter, but I think I will save that for a future essay. What’s even more frightening is the increasing trend towards the complete documentation of one’s life. Social services such as Foursquare and Facebook make the violation of a person’s right to privacy an absolute breeze for the United States Government. Instead of having to spend months researching and tracking a person, agents can simply track a given person’s activity on Foursquare, and study their communication on Facebook. That being said, I do not want to come off as a hater of social networking. In fact, I maintain a presence on both Facebook and Twitter, but I do often wish that I were not on these two sites. It all boils down to the notion that we must be aware. Simply be aware that privacy is delicate and can be taken away rather quickly in this age. I am partly afraid that my generation will not ever truly understand what privacy is, and how valuable a right it is. That is why I urge all people to guard their privacy as best they can. 

8:43pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHD6ay2HNOLc
Filed under: privacy politics internet patriot act computers modern times 
December 20, 2010
Al Franken’s Views on Net Neutrality

Al Franken, the former comedian and now U.S senator, wrote a piece for the Huffington Post about the issue of Net Neutrality, calling it “…the most important free speech issue of our time..” Reading through the article, I started to realize just how correct Mr. Franken is. He is clearly not part of the “Good Old Boys” club in Washington, which gives me much more respect for his opinions. Franken is one of the few minds in the senate that is actually speaking out against the draft Order, which is set to be revealed tomorrow. The senator from Minnesota claims that the draft Order would effectively allow large corporations and media conglomerates to control many aspects of the internet. One of the most clear examples Franken cites is Comcast’s recent decision to impose monthly fees on the company that provides netflix with content delivery services for their hugely popular  instant queue service. If these new regulations go into effect, Franken worries—quite strongly—that the internet as we know it may change. Comcast—and other monolith corporations—may start to force customers to use their On Demand service; it would be legal for them to block netflix. All of this is extremely troubling. If you are not concerned, you surely ought to be. The basic freedoms that the internet has granted us, more than any other method of publication, as well as the way it has revolutionized content consumption, may be at risk. The internet is the last bastion of true and genuine free speech. We cannot rely on the presses for that basic rights granted to us by our U.S. Constitution. The internet is the world’s finest example of giving everyone a voice—that’s the beauty of it. It is as grassroots as can be, and we must protect this wonderful tool that allows logical thought to promulgate. Please, join the fight to keep the internet neutral. 

Link to Al Franken’s article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-franken/the-most-important-free-s_b_798984.html

5:15pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHD6ay2Eekiy
Filed under: net neutrality al franken politics congress 
October 28, 2010
Thoughts on the Tea Party

Just a few days ago, the local chapter of JSA at my high school decided to run a semi-informal debate about the Tea Party. Out of the 5 or so students present, only one(quite grudgingly) volunteered to defend this “grassroots” movement.  Opposition to the party—somewhere close to what one might call “bashing”—seemed to arouse much more of a response from the other students. It seemed that there was no shortage of arguments that could highlight the overall illogicality of this political movement.  More than anything, each of us—myself included—got quite a chuckle out of some of the core beliefs of the Tea party. These beliefs are painfully general, and seem to be somewhat incoherent. They include: fiscal responsibility, a constitutionally limited government, and free markets.

The chief reason these “core values” puzzle me is because they are obvious ; that is to say, nearly every American already agrees with these notions. Is there any politician currently in office who openly advocates for  ”Fiscal irresponsibility”, or who disagrees with a government limited by our most sacred text, the United States Constitution? Most would agree that the Tea party is more or less a distraction.  As a fellow who has personally attended one of these meetings, I can say a few things ; that is, most Tea party members are good Americans, but are sorely misinformed and unaware of basic facts. I do not agree with the policy of simply bashing the Tea Party. We must respect members for making the effort to improve America, even though their solutions for the troubles our nation faces are potentially more damaging than the issues themselves.

One of the most disingenuous claims the Tea Party makes is the notion that they are a “grassroots” organization. This term “grassroots”, is a favorite of many scheming organizations that aim  to appeal to those Americans who view big corporations as evil. The solution is to make the public perceive the organization in such a way that they never feel as if it is large and monolithic. Trouble is, the Tea Party is far from grassroots, as there has been well-publicized evidence linking millions of dollars in donations from the Koch Brothers to the Tea Party(See: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer). Granted, multi-million dollar donations are a common feature of any political organization, i.e. George Soros’ contributions to the far-left.

In the end, the Tea Party mostly serves mere distraction. Candidates who run on the Tea Party ballot typically go on to betray the party, simply grabbing votes and giving nothing in return to supporters. All of this goes along with the increasing trend of loud, annoying, and utterly distracting organizations in America. Modern times have created a near-perfect formula for media attention which simply involves shouting loudly and having Fox News talk about you. This is the new order of things.

9:22pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHD6ay1L6bYf
(Notes: 1)
  
Filed under: tea party politics 
May 13, 2010
Scenes from UNA-USA (Day 1)


         I don’t intend on being vile, but the start of my UNA-USA experience was in the men’s bathroom at school. Small puddles of what very well may have been urine served as a carpet to the plaque covered tile floor. I sort of felt like a cocaine-addicted businessman trying to get dressed for that big important meeting with the big whigs who carried around those expensive pens.

            Our departure was swift and smooth, and the ride aroused in me a childlike amazement over the city. Lots of “ooo-ing” and “ahh-ing” going on in the back seat as I took in every bump so graciously given to me by the NY DOT. Thoughts of Barack Obama’s appearance in New York bounced around in my head in tune with the bumpy ride. Coincidentally, I had also been given intel that said that Lady GaGa, Elton John, and The Police would be performing at The Garden. A cornucopia of some of the world’s most respected (and perhaps not so respected) people on this side of the equator. Traffic would be especially expletive arousing on this day..joy!

            The things that kept our motley crew happy on the bus included hipster-spotting, jests about the NYPD, and the occasional taking in of the bohemian scenes of the city. Notable memories include a hipster, aged somewhere around 28 to 30, wearing the signature American Apparel purple salt and pepper hoody. He had those horn-rimmed, thick glasses, and probably smelled like green tea or marijuana, but I can’t confirm that last part. Nonetheless, this concept of “hipster spotting” has almost become a pastime in my circle of friends. Who needs baseball, when you’ve got the modern-day bohemians lurking the streets of New York!

            Next was the real meat of the trip when we touched base at the United Nations in New York City. It’s one of those iconic places that every camera-owning fiend must visit sometime in their pathetic life. Now was my time when I arrived, with the rest of the group, to be put through the routine security check. In such a place, you will find some of the most miserable people in the world who bark orders at you, and make you feel like some terrible fool. This part was not enjoyable, and this is why we shall gloss over it.

            Eventually, we managed to have a short briefing from some lowly, but very hard-working, United Nations employees. The jist I got was that they did all the arduous, important work, while the rest of the general workforce chewed on their $60 dollar stakes and stroked their silk ties. But they were affable folks, and I listened intently, granting just as much respect as Ban Ki-moon.

            When we really got into it, our UN contact told us something that seemed to make things more clear. He first made it clear that what he was about to say was indeed not “politically correct” ,or something that the UN big whigs would every acknowledge, but it was the truth. That truth essentially boiled down to developed nations versus developing, or to put it simply, rich versus poor. All things seem to boil down to that.

10:34pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZHD6ayZao4n
(Notes: 3)
  
Filed under: model un politics 
Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »