[Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?

[Joe Campbell]

We're not spending too much on NPR! We spend more bombing Libya in one day
than a year's worth of NPR! I don't see any good arguments supporting your
case. That's all.

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:37 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

> N PR receives less than half it's funding from the government. It is not a
> 100% federal entity. Its management is private and so should it's funding.
> Your comparison with colleges is still apples and orange. You said " If you
> can tell me a better way for the US to spend it money, I'll listen." The
> problem is we are spending too much. We are head over heels in debt and need
> to cut many other things in addition to NPR funding. To name just a few
> OSHSA, EPA, planned ParentHood, and even waste in the military. I would not
> cut FDA or Child Protective Services. Both of these are more important that
> funding NPR. I was the Compliance officer for most of the feed companies I
> worked for.  I dealt with all of the agencies. EPA and OSHA were ridiculous.
>  We had some feed bend at Lewiston the bottom of witch were about 15 feet in
> the air. Feed sometimes hung up in them. We had to hang in the air with one
> hand and beat on them with a hammer with the other hand. To make it safer we
> installed a cat
> walk bellow them to salve the problem. OSHSA made us take them out because
> the regulations sday you have to be able to walk down a cat walk. There was
> not room to do that, so we were back to clearing bins in an unsafe manner.
> There are many more examples I could site. FDA's regulations for the moist
> part made sense. Our food supply is very important. Most food business(not
> all) do their best to insure a safe food supply, but the FDA is short of
> inspectors and can not do their job adequately. Imports are not properly
> inspected either. When I started as manager of the feed mill in Colfax I put
> in a ridged control system and weigh back procedure for drug  use. The next
> day after I instructed the crew on the proper procedure, I caught an
> employee putting  a feed scoop in a drug bin walk over to the mixer and dump
> it in with Aureomycin falling off all the way. I fired him on the spot.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:41:23 -0700
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
>
> > NPR is the NATIONAL PUBLIC radio. NPR was set up for exactly this reason:
> to
> > have a state run radio station that does not risk genuine objectivity due
> to
> > corporate interests. It is the only such radio station in existence, the
> > only thing of its kind. Better one than none, I think.
> >
> > Your question is kind of like asking, Why should we have state colleges?
> Why
> > can't all colleges be private? The answer is the existence of state
> colleges
> > is a public good: it keeps costs down, etc. I think ONE state run radio
> > station should exist; it is a good way to use state funds, it has a
> general
> > interest to the public. And really that is all that matters. If you can
> tell
> > me of a better way for the US to spend its money, I'll listen. But so far
> > you have not done that.
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 9:48 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Joe
> > > I do not know how many times I have to say I do dont wish to see NPR
> > > disappear. They have some very good programming. They receive only a
> portion
> > > of their funding from the government. They can do just fine with out
> it.
> > > Would you please explain to me, just why you think that NPR should
> receive
> > > federal funding and Fox, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc should not.not?Comparing
> funding
> > > of NPR to the military is like comparing apples and oranges.
> > > Roger
> > > -----Original message-----
> > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:37:29 -0700
> > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > >
> > > > I'm not angry, Roger. A bit frustrated but not angry.
> > > >
> > > > Listen slowly. I've taught logic for 20 years. I tell you your
> argument
> > > is
> > > > fallacious and you should believe me. To do otherwise shows a kind of
> > > > arrogance and disrespect for longstanding social institutions.
> > > >
> > > > So it frustrates me. You have, thus far, given very bad arguments for
> not
> > > > funding NPR. I've pointed out some problems: one might take the very
> > > words
> > > > you say and support some ridiculous claim. You acknowledge that the
> claim
> > > is
> > > > ridiculous ("Don't fund the military") but fail to see the logical
> > > > connection between your very words and the claim. If the words
> support
> > > your
> > > > claim they also support the ridiculous claim; if the ridiculous claim
> is
> > > > unsupported by your words, so is your claim. But you don't want to
> play
> > > > because you think I'm biased.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not angry, I'm just very in-your-face. If you met me, I'd be in
> your
> > > > face, too, but you'd see I wasn't angry.
> > > >
> > > > Roger, you have voted for an idiot for president twice, you've
> supported
> > > for
> > > > state office a man who is openly disrespectful to our Mormon
> community
> > > and
> > > > another man who is disrespectful to progressives, and you are now
> trying
> > > to
> > > > tell me that the world would be better off without NPR.
> > > >
> > > > I, on the other hand, think the world is better off with better
> sources
> > > of
> > > > information, sources that test our critical thinking skills. You
> can't
> > > > compare NPR to Fox, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be more than happy to consider your opinion that NPR should not
> be
> > > > funded but so far you have not given one non-fallacious argument in
> > > support
> > > > of that claim. So what am I to do? Accept your opinion because, well,
> > > you're
> > > > a nice guy and everyone is entitled to his position?
> > > >
> > > > No. This is public forum and I'm going to point out that, although
> you
> > > have
> > > > your own opinions which we are entitled to respect, it is my right
> and
> > > duty
> > > > to note that you do not have one damn good reason for believing them.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:01 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Shame on you. Your argument is illogical. You attribute things to
> me
> > > that
> > > > > arn't factual. Why do you seem so angry? I do not wish to see NPR
> fail.
> > > I
> > > > > hope that they continue to survive. Only a fraction of their
> funding
> > > comes
> > > > > from the government. Why should they recieve federal funding and
> Fox,
> > > ABC,
> > > > > NBC, CBS, etc. do not? None of them should receive federal funding.
> > > That is
> > > > > the only way to insure a free press.
> > > > > Roger
> > > > > -----Original message-----
> > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:09:00 -0700
> > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > > > >
> > > > > > The point is NOT supported by you or anyone else. You radical
> right
> > > wing
> > > > > > folks think your views should be adopted for no other reason than
> > > that
> > > > > you
> > > > > > believe them; because you believe it is true I should also. But
> that
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > the case. We have a history of objective standards for judging
> the
> > > merits
> > > > > of
> > > > > > reasons and argument. It is called the discipline of logic. If
> you
> > > had
> > > > > more
> > > > > > respect for the history of Western civilization and public
> > > institutions
> > > > > you
> > > > > > would realize that. The fact that you ignore those is no ones
> fault
> > > but
> > > > > your
> > > > > > own. Shame on you. Worse, you want to promote further ignorance
> by
> > > > > > disallowing legitimate news sources (NPR) and gutting education.
> That
> > > way
> > > > > > even fewer people will be able to see through your irrational
> > > rhetoric.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But here in a nut shell is the issue for all fair minded people
> to
> > > see.
> > > > > You
> > > > > > have nothing but fallacious arguments and unsupported accusations
> to
> > > > > support
> > > > > > your claims. Nothing at all. The nameless "Glenn" is in the exact
> > > same
> > > > > boat.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The real issue is, like with respect to military funding, whether
> the
> > > > > source
> > > > > > funded provides a public good. Whether it is "slightly right" or
> > > > > "slightly
> > > > > > left" is completely irrelevant. Shame on you!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 11:53 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The point is that is they should not be funded period. It makes
> no
> > > > > > > difference whether they are right, left or down the center.
> > > > > > > Roger
> > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> > > > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > > > > > > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 11:42:44 -0700
> > > > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et al?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No Roger, Glenn did not answer the question. Glenn made
> several
> > > > > > > fallacious
> > > > > > > > points, some of which were pointed out and all of which are
> > > ignored
> > > > > > > below.
> > > > > > > > And do you also support slavery, another view that "Glenn"
> > > supports?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why bother pretending to engage in discussions about these
> issues
> > > if
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > > IGNORE criticisms of points made? Here is another refutation
> of
> > > one
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > points. Please respond.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You write that NPR is "[s]lightly left of center" [even
> though
> > > you
> > > > > admit
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > listening to it only "occasionally" and do not provide ONE
> > > example
> > > > > > > > supporting this claim]. If this is a reason to not fund NPR
> via
> > > > > taxpayer
> > > > > > > > money, then the following would also be a good argument: The
> > > military
> > > > > is
> > > > > > > > slightly right of center, so it should not receive any public
> > > > > funding.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So which is it: should we end public support for the military
> or
> > > > > should
> > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > recognize that your argument is a bad one?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, lfalen <
> lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have not been on the computer all week, but I think that
> > > Glenn
> > > > > > > answered
> > > > > > > > > your question.
> > > > > > > > > In response ro Nick- I do not know it Nader is right or
> not.I
> > > have
> > > > > only
> > > > > > > > > listened to NPR occasionally. What I have caught is Fresh
> Air
> > > or
> > > > > All
> > > > > > > Things
> > > > > > > > > Considered. They both at the times I heard them seemed to
> be
> > > > > lightly
> > > > > > > left of
> > > > > > > > > center. Nader only mentioned Charlie Rose. I am sure there
> a
> > > lot of
> > > > > > > other
> > > > > > > > > hosts besides Rose. I have never heard him. In any event
> this
> > > is
> > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > irrelevant. It would not make any difference if they were
> > > equally
> > > > > > > balanced
> > > > > > > > > or were 100% to the right. They should not be geting any
> > > funding
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > taxpayers. In case you don't realize it we are in a money
> > > crunch.
> > > > > Let
> > > > > > > spend
> > > > > > > > > only on those thing that are essential and can not be done
> > > > > adequately
> > > > > > > by the
> > > > > > > > > private sector. I want to see our veterans taken care of
> for
> > > just
> > > > > one
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > many that we should be spending on. Your ideal Nation of
> Sweden
> > > is
> > > > > > > geting
> > > > > > > > > the message and cutting back on services before they wind
> up
> > > like
> > > > > > > Greece and
> > > > > > > > > Ireland. I hope they succeed, that is the ancestral home of
> the
> > > > > > > Falen's.
> > > > > > > > > They come from Ostergotlund.
> > > > > > > > > You may know  where that is.
> > > > > > > > > Roger
> > > > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> > > > > > > > > Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:27:38 -0700
> > > > > > > > > To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et
> al?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > State one left wing point of view that NPR broadcasts,
> Roger.
> > > > > Just
> > > > > > > one.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > They broadcast news. You are so used to listening to the
> lies
> > > on
> > > > > Fox
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > you confuse them for "points of view."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 10:17 AM, lfalen <
> > > lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If  NPR wants to broadcast left wing points of view and
> > > > > supporters
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > > willing to fund it, more power to them.
> > > > > > > > > > > Roger
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: "Robert Dickow" dickow at turbonet.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2011 02:18:10 -0700
> > > > > > > > > > > To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Vision2020] No government support for NPR et
> al?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I hear that the conservative congressmen have
> proposed
> > > > > > > withdrawing
> > > > > > > > > > > > government funding for NPR. Apparently a newscaster
> or
> > > fund
> > > > > drive
> > > > > > > > > person
> > > > > > > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > > > > somebody made some disparaging remarks about the Tea
> > > Party.
> > > > > Fie!
> > > > > > > Fie!
> > > > > > > > > > > Now,
> > > > > > > > > > > > denying public broadcasting all those scarce taxpayer
> > > dollars
> > > > > > > sounds
> > > > > > > > > like
> > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable and just response to such offenses if
> you're a
> > > > > > > > > conservative
> > > > > > > > > > > > Republican sympathetic with the Tea Party movement,
> > > right? Uh
> > > > > > > > > huh.sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > How
> > > > > > > > > > > > dumb can anybody be?! NPR won't suddenly go belly up
> and
> > > go
> > > > > off
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > air,
> > > > > > > > > > > > slinking off into the shadows with its tail between
> its
> > > legs.
> > > > > > > Private
> > > > > > > > > > > > donors-- those dwindling middle class stalwarts--
> will
> > > > > valiantly
> > > > > > > step
> > > > > > > > > up
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the plate in ever greater numbers. So what will
> actually
> > > > > happen,
> > > > > > > > > then, is
> > > > > > > > > > > > that NPR will be unfettered and free to unleash all
> their
> > > > > rabid
> > > > > > > > > commie
> > > > > > > > > > > pinko
> > > > > > > > > > > > liberal gun-hating womens libber staffers to say all
> the
> > > > > rabid
> > > > > > > commie
> > > > > > > > > > > pinko
> > > > > > > > > > > > tea-barfing they've always wanted to say but didn't
> > > because
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > felt
> > > > > > > > > > > > compelled to be balanced in their commie pinko
> > > tree-hugging
> > > > > > > opinions
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > bleeding-heart liberal union thug biased news
> reporting.
> > > > > Clearly,
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > > government measure will not serve the common good.
> And I
> > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > forced to
> > > > > > > > > > > > mix even more metaphors in the future.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Bob Dickow, troublemaker
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > > > >               http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > > > >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110330/14d2a9b8/attachment-0001.html