UPDATE:  Maybe the topic isn't as stale as I had thought:
Hot Air explains time for defunding NPR/CPB ripe as ever.
 
Thoughts on the state of political bigotry later...

Wow a guy takes a couple of months off from blogging and the whole world turns to crap.  Anything happen since the election? 
 
I know the following is stale.  I've been distracted by Facebook, some health issues, the holidays, and what not but one of my resolutions is to reinvigorate this joint.  A fellow Heartlander has agreed to join in and keep the blog pace more steady.  We haven't discussed his moniker so I won't be introducing him just yet but you'll like the addition, if you like red meat that is.  Tim is a corporate MBA who can offer more technical insight on economic matters.  He hails from Michigan these days, where if I got it right, the only state besides Wisconsin to pull off a GOP hat trick in taking both houses and the Governorship on November 2nd.

There will also be some cosmetic changes as we will be moving to wordpress before the end of the month.  This should make the mechanical end of things easier, and also help facilitate some low scale monetization.  So if you like what you read, buy shit here to help keep the joint up.  My goal is to bump up against the magical 250K mark, just enough to stay not rich and confound the IRS.

I have also decided to launch a new series called Of Animal Farm and Stuck Pigs, riffing off my Liar Liar Poopyhead essay a while back.   Also thinking about taking nominations for Squealer of the week, that politician or public figure who best displays dramatic discomfort due to the paradigm shifts in the vastly expanded public square.  (That idiot Sheriff in Arizona, who with absolutely no evidence cited heated political dialogue as a motivator behind the massacre there, would be in the running this week for example) 

Anyway, about that botched lynching.... 

Don't think I miss the irony and appreciate the humor in the notion that government radio handed the right a clean, articulate, sincere, black guy, who, as harry Reid might put it, doesn't speak with a negro dialect, as the twenty first century icon to left wing "tolerance".  That's nothing short of hilarious.  Even so, just because Juan Williams landed on his feet in a better paying job is no reason to give NPR a pass on the state sanctioned violence visited on his right to free speech.  Apparently Mr Williams right had some type of stay left way left clause from which he inadvertently deviated. 

This is the highest profile example of government political correctness since affirmative action.  It's even more egregious when you look at the all-white talent roster he left behind at NPR. 

Here are some thoughts about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at it's inception; 

” At its best, public television would help make our Nation a replica of the old Greek marketplace, where public affairs took place in view of all the citizens. But in weak or even in irresponsible hands, it could generate controversy without understanding; it could mislead as well as teach; it could appeal to passions rather than to reason.
If public television is to fulfill our hopes, then the Corporation must be representative, it must be responsible--and it must be long on enlightened leadership.”
- President Lyndon B. Johnson in remarks signing bill establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio”

Well then.

While everyone seems to be in agreement about the need for the separation between church and state, apparently no one gave a second thought to the idea that separation between the press and state might be a good idea too.  

NPR’s firing of not-left-enough Williams, is as clear of an example of strong-arm censorship as you are likely to find in a supposedly open society.  It certainly provides pause to reconsider the original charter of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and it’s stepchild National Progressive Radio.

... from the by-laws:
"Except as provided in the second sentence of subsection (c)(1) of this section, no political test or qualification shall be used in selecting, appointing, promoting, or taking other personnel actions with respect to officers, agents, and employees of the Corporation."

Emphasis mine. 
Ahem. Just sayin, obviously this must be one of those "living" documents, you know, the kind that changes depending on who reads it and when. 

Apparently it never occurred to leadership in 1967 that the establishment of a state sponsored press would be any less tyrannical than a state sponsored church. But then again, at CPB's birth, the stepchild NPR was free of deformity, I mean who could foresee anything wrong with broadcasting classical music into the hinterlands?  Based on Johnson’s remarks the assumption of good faith prevailed. The idea that CPB/NPR might be used to forward an agenda rather than deliver education and arts programming to places previously unreachable must not have even crossed anyones mind. 

Times have changed.   

In reading some of the background, and the bill itself, it is made plain the primary intent behind the law was to further education, sighting television and radio broadcasting, then state of the art technology, as the best means of doing so most efficiently. All well and good, but,
 
Times have changed.

So has technology, to the point it has left television and radio in the dust, yes, we’re talking interwebs.  As an example of government programs that thrive in spite of outliving their original intent and usefulness CPB/NPR ranks right up there with the Departments of Agriculture, Education, and Energy.  You’d also be very hard pressed to cite a more exemplary comparison showing the vast superiority of a marginally regulated product, in the hands of innovative profit driven users, compared to a government created, heavily regulated non-profit entity driven by good intentions. 

All this notwithstanding, I have been a steady non-donating listener of NPR for years mainly because, in my opinion, the format and delivery makes up for the editorial slant.  That corresponds with my strong distaste for overly caffeinated talk jocks and screaming commercials, which to my mind is as far away from an ideal way to wake up as you can get.  My inner BS filter is adequate enough to listen through propagandized content abuse.  You get used to it after awhile, plus it saves me the trouble and embarrassment of subscribing to the New York Times.

“The Corporation may not contribute to or otherwise support any political party or candidate for elective public office.”
Section F, item 3 Subpart D — Corporation for Public Broadcasting
Sec. 396. [47 U.S.C. 396] Corporation for Public Broadcasting
 
That? I just threw that in for laughs.  Hey I know, let's suggest an amendment to this item stipulating excessive criticism of any political party, specific politician, or candidate is defacto support of the other. (I just kill myself sometimes)

Point is, they make me crazy, but I still believe NPR has the goods to be a viable private brand.  Every time the subsidy question arises they are exceptionally quick to point out that only 2 to 6 per cent of their funding actually comes from taxes.  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/how_public_is_nprs_funding.html

If that’s the case then, wouldn't’t the leap from public to private be virtually risk free?  I know a lot of people who would pony up for a commercial free radio station for that reason alone.  Isn't that the Sirius XM model?

So herein lies the rub, it’s not the tax funding that gives CPB/NPR it’s clout, it’s the prestige of the government brand. A name that includes “public” and "national" carries an air of authority not available to a private company, at any price.  Even if they could afford it, why should CPB/NPR compete when they can have a tax-funded monopoly?

If the GOP congress is serious abut cutting wasteful spending the CPB and NPR would be a great place to start.    

Not directly related but very interesting story about how LBJ and Mrs. Johnson made their millions.  http://www.slate.com/id/2170481/nav/tap3/