|
Post by omaha on Oct 22, 2010 9:28:07 GMT -5
I read the article and the linked article and it seems that depending on how you view public funding it comes to 3-10%. Nope. No direct funding. Period. We might as well say that Doug is a govt agency since he gets govt funding. Hey, our agency buys stuff at Staples. So Staples gets govt funding too. Can't believe anyone could possibly object to the article regardless of source. I could have just told you myself that NPR isn't govt funded, but used a reference I saw on FB today. My understanding is that NPR is funded by local stations, who in turn receive an annual stipend from CPB, which is (don't know the percentage) the recipient of federal money. So, yes, as far as anyone can tell in this Byzantine arrangement, there is no Federal budget line-item that says "NPR". But that's different from saying that NPR doesn't receive federal funds through this political shell game.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 22, 2010 9:37:15 GMT -5
"The politically correct have begun to eat their own."
The politically correct should. It gives them something to do when they aren't getting their panties in a wad.
Beside that, all groups go through phases that include eating their own. I refer you to the phrase RINO for example. The tribes get purified and the herd is thinned if people stray too far from the accepted norms.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 22, 2010 10:16:42 GMT -5
I wonder if the families and loved ones of the 9/11 victims wish their family members would have had some "mindless fear" or "irrational fear".... maybe enough fear to avoid getting on the plane? Because they saw somebody who looked like one of these? Some people have short memories. I'd like to know why we aren't still scared of the Japanese.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Oct 22, 2010 10:26:50 GMT -5
The non-politically-correct answer is because we kicked their asses, taught them a lesson, and they decided fucking with us was a loser-move.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 22, 2010 10:30:05 GMT -5
Actually they decided to take over our domestic electronics and automobile industries instead.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 22, 2010 10:35:05 GMT -5
The non-politically-correct answer is because we kicked their asses, taught them a lesson, and they decided fucking with us was a loser-move. I would have thought the answer was that we had moved on to other groups, but let's go with your answer. So why are we still afraid of Muslims? We haven't kicked their butts? Or maybe we haven't kicked them enough? What's the solution, using the Japanese analogy?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Oct 22, 2010 10:35:14 GMT -5
Some people have short memories. I'd like to know why we aren't still scared of the Japanese. Maybe because we haven't been threatened by them since before you and I were born. I bet if Pearl Harbor had happened in 2001, we might still harbor some fears.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 22, 2010 10:36:06 GMT -5
Some people have short memories. I'd like to know why we aren't still scared of the Japanese. Maybe because we haven't been threatened by them since before you and I were born. I bet if Pearl Harbor had happened in 2001, we might still harbor some fears. I totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Oct 22, 2010 10:40:11 GMT -5
The non-politically-correct answer is because we kicked their asses, taught them a lesson, and they decided fucking with us was a loser-move. I would have thought the answer was that we had moved on to other groups, but let's go with your answer. So why are we still afraid of Muslims? We haven't kicked their butts? Or maybe we haven't kicked them enough? What's the solution, using the Japanese analogy? Different situations, different responses. I don't think we have this one figured out yet.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 22, 2010 10:43:06 GMT -5
The Japanese were a country with a ruling organization. The guys we are fighting now have nobody that can say, "Stop fighting." That's why a 'war on terrorism' is so silly.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Oct 22, 2010 11:42:40 GMT -5
Maybe you had to be part of the academic community for the last 40 or 50 years to see this, but "politically correct" was originally an ironic term, used by leftists to describe other leftists who were so rigid that they would take positions rooted entirely in whatever brand of doctrine they subscribed to rather than broader or more practical concerns. Early on I heard the term from a leftist friend who had nothing but scorn for abstract theorists, apparatchiks, and other ideological reptiles--her concerns were things like labor organizing, civil rights, and general economic justice.
I recall the shift from inside joke to more general usage and finally to tin can available to be tied to the tail of anyone to the left of Reagan on social issues (particularly those involved with language) as starting in the late 70s--and in general usage it was always a term of scorn aimed at the often sentimental and over-senstive attempts of liberals to eliminate any trace of bigotry or other social sins from their vocabularies, associations, and habitual actions. In fact, it struck me as being the precise secular equivalent of the Catholic practice of examination of conscience, with a big dollop of scrupulosity--guilty-liberal syndrome.
Of course, love of political/moral theory and the corresponding urge to purify language are not the exclusive property of the left--just watch any social-issues conservative talk about abortion. (Or note the re-branding of the anti-abortion movement as pro-life, paralleled on the other side by re-branding as pro-choice. Though I do notice an asymmetry of descriptive accuracy in the two labels.) Libertarians are just as prone to doctrinal rigidity as any Marxist (cue Rand Paul), and I'd say that the Tea Party movement is about 75% about labels. Of course, any political movement that scales up beyond seminar-room size is about labels, so that pretty much cancels out, left-to-right.
Sometimes I wish I were a cat instead of a monkey.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 22, 2010 12:55:50 GMT -5
Conclusion of editorial in today's Washington Post: "In short, Mr. Williams was attempting to do exactly what a responsible commentator should do: speak honestly without being inflammatory. His reward was to lose his job, just as Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod lost hers over purportedly racist remarks that turned out to be anything but. NPR management appears to have learned nothing from that rush to judgment. 'Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality,' Mr. Williams told Mr. O'Reilly. NPR, alas, has proved his point."
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Oct 22, 2010 13:03:27 GMT -5
Conclusion of editorial in today's Washington Post: "In short, Mr. Williams was attempting to do exactly what a responsible commentator should do: speak honestly without being inflammatory. His reward was to lose his job, just as Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod lost hers over purportedly racist remarks that turned out to be anything but. NPR management appears to have learned nothing from that rush to judgment. 'Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality,' Mr. Williams told Mr. O'Reilly. NPR, alas, has proved his point." +1
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 22, 2010 13:18:15 GMT -5
Conclusion of editorial in today's Washington Post: "In short, Mr. Williams was attempting to do exactly what a responsible commentator should do: speak honestly without being inflammatory. His reward was to lose his job, just as Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod lost hers over purportedly racist remarks that turned out to be anything but. NPR management appears to have learned nothing from that rush to judgment. 'Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality,' Mr. Williams told Mr. O'Reilly. NPR, alas, has proved his point." Right, wrong or whatever, this thing couldn't have worked out better for Williams. I heard he's hosting O'Reilly's show tonight.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Oct 22, 2010 13:19:25 GMT -5
Oh oh. It just hit me - I heard that on NPR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2010 13:24:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dickt on Oct 22, 2010 13:25:39 GMT -5
The WashPo editorial page said that? Damn lame-stream liberal lying media.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 22, 2010 14:44:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 22, 2010 14:46:21 GMT -5
The WashPo has become considerably more middle-of-the-road since I worked there.
|
|
|
Post by paulschlimm on Oct 22, 2010 16:11:19 GMT -5
I got yelled at in college for calling the Washington Post "Pravda on the Potomac" while discussing the media's effect on public opinion in a politics class. I've mellowed with age.
|
|