Tag: NPR

Red Team, Blue Team

In a report on Attorney General Eric Holder’s approach to seeking the death penalty, NPR reports:

A few months after Holder made that statement, he authorized a capital prosecution in Vermont, a state that does not have the death penalty. When Ashcroft brought a federal death penalty case in Vermont seven years ago, the mayor of Burlington called it “an affront to states’ rights” and “not consistent with the values of a majority of Vermonters.” But this time, there was hardly any outcry.

So the former antiwar movement doesn’t complain about President Obama’s expansion of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And opponents of capital punishment don’t protest the Obama administration’s seeking the death penalty in liberal Vermont. It’s beginning to look a lot like the Bush years, when conservatives put up with a great deal from a Republican administration that would have sent them into apoplexy if it had been done by Democrats.

All the News That’s Fit to Subsidize

Today, Politico Arena asks:

NPR v. Fox News?

My post:

Do I sense a bit of chutzpa in Politico’s report today that NPR executives have asked their top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her appearances on Fox News because of what the executives perceive as the network’s political bias?  The request would be impertinent if NPR itself were beyond reproach, ideologically, but “fair and balanced” it is not.  It’s a playpen for the left, subsidized by the American taxpayer, exceeded in its biases only by Pacifica Radio, another tax subsidized playpen straight out of the late ’60s.

There’s nothing wrong with a news organization tilting left or right, of course:  let the public then decide, as the Fox News numbers show the public is doing.  (And that, plainly, is what’s behind the White House efforts to marginalize the one network that’s had the audacity to criticize it systematically.)  There is something deeply wrong, however, with asking the public to subsidize that tilt.  NPR and its listeners would be screaming, and rightly so, if the taxpayers were subsidizing Fox News.  Is it any different in their case?  And please don’t say that NPR’s news is “news” – we’re all adults here.  There’s a reason conservatives, mostly, and libertarians want to reduce the reach of government.  It’s because so much of life – from news to education, religion, health care, the arts, and so much more – is fraught with values about which reasonable people can have reasonable differences.   For that, there is only one answer: freedom, including freedom, as Jefferson put it, from having to subsidize views one finds abhorrent.

“Why Don’t We Fix the Two Public Options We Have Now instead of Creating a Third One?”

That sensible – and hopefully not rhetorical – question was posed by Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) on National Public Radio, according to The Hill.

Regarding recent polling that shows that a new Fannie Med (my term) commands majority support among the public, Landrieu quipped, “I think if you asked, ‘Do you want a public option, but it would force the government to go bankrupt?’, people would say no.”

Real health care reform wouldn’t bankrupt taxpayers or the government.

What Caused the Crisis?

Last night National Government Radio promoted a documentary on National Government TV about the financial crisis of 2008, which concludes that the problem was … not enough government.

If the “Frontline” episode mentioned any of the ways that government created the crisis – cheap money from the central bank, tax laws that encourage debt over equity, government regulation that pressured lenders to issue mortgages to borrowers who wouldn’t be able to pay them back – NPR didn’t mention it.

For information on those causes, take a look at this paper by Lawrence H. White or get the new book Financial Fiasco by Johan Norberg, which Amity Shlaes called “a masterwork in miniature.” Available in hardcover or immediately as an e-book. Or on Kindle!

And for a warning about the dangers lurking in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, see this 2004 paper by Lawrence J. White.

Your Choices Are Unacceptable

Through my work on agriculture, I get occasional media calls on obesity and the agri-industrial complex supposedly behind it.  On Sunday, for example, I gave an interview on NPR about the USDA’s push for – and subsidisation of – farmers markets and “eating locally” as the solution to poor nutrition. (This a recurrent theme of the Obama administration: Michelle Obama has made people’s food habits her business, growing a White House Garden and driving in a convoy of 36 vehicles to the H Street farmers’ market in a photo-op to promote it. The USDA even has a “People’s Garden”.)

So an article in today’s New York Times caught my eye. According to a recent study, the push for calorie postings in restaurants has had no affect on people’s eating habits in certain low-income areas of New York City.  People’s choices are, apparently, pretty impermeable to the information that nutrition and public health advocates assured us was the key to better choices.

You would be forgiven for thinking that was the end of the matter and we could go on eating what we like unharassed. Think again:

“I think it does show us that labels are not enough,” Brian Elbel, an assistant professor at the New York University School of Medicine and the lead author of the study, said in an interview.

I hope I’m not coming across as hyperbolic, but I find it difficult to believe that healthy eating advocates will be content to accept that people are making choices, unpalatable though they may be to the ”slow food” movement, based on the benefits and costs of the alternatives available to them. If people won’t voluntarily submit to the food police – even when information is available – then I suspect calls for regulation will soon follow.

(HT: Radley Balko)

The Misuse of “Reform”

When Samuel Johnson said that ”patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” he overlooked the value of the word “reform.” (I didn’t say this first, but I can’t discover who did.) Webster’s says that “reform” means “to put or change into an improved form or condition [or] to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses.” So in political terms, a reform is a change for the better. But whether a particular policy change would actually improve things is often controversial. Unfortunately, the mainstream media typically use the word “reform” to mean “change in a liberal direction.”

It’s bad enough that they constantly use the phrase “campaign finance reform” to refer to laws that restrict individuals’ ability to spend their money to advance their political ideas. And of course every day we hear and read the term “health care reform” used to mean new subsidies, mandates, regulations, taxes, and restrictions on how health care is provided. Needless to say, there’s heated debate in the country as to whether such laws would constitute reform.

And now the Washington Post gives us this prominent headline (page 3, upper right):

450 Mayors Petition Obama
To Adopt Broad Gun Reform

The story makes clear that what the mayors want is what used to be called “gun control” – more power for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, the creation of an “Interstate Firearms Trafficking Unit,” more restrictions on gun shows, more data collection on individuals.  No doubt anti-gun strategists have discovered that “gun control” is an unpopular term, so they advise advocates to use terms like “gun reform”; and reporters, headline writers, and editors at the Post go along with it.

Now try to imagine this story in the Washington Post:

450 Mayors Petition Obama
To Adopt Broad Media Reform

A new report from a national coalition of mayors urges President Obama to adopt dozens of reforms to help curb media excesses, including steps to crack down on problems with unauthorized leaks, the creation of a federal interstate media monitoring unit, new rules on media concentration, a federal database of people who use hateful language in letters to the editor and online comments.

Hard to imagine the Post would blithely accept the term “reform” in that case, isn’t it? And I don’t think the Post and other mainstream media called President Reagan’s tax cuts “tax reform.” (They did use the term “tax reform” when the proposed policy involved eliminating loopholes and thus taxing more activities, along with a reduction of rates.) Nor, I think, did they call President Bush’s proposed Social Security private accounts “Social Security reform.” They should be equally careful when liberal activists dub their proposals “reform.”

Meanwhile, kudos to Mara Liasson of NPR, who in this story from Friday uses the terms “health care legislation” and “health care overhaul,” but never “health care reform.” I hope that was a conscious choice, in recognition of the fact that about half of Americans don’t think the current subsidy-regulation-mandate legislation is in fact reform.

Name That Company: Fiasco

NPR asks listeners what the new company created by President Obama out of the remains of the Chrysler corporation, to be controlled by the United Auto Workers, funded by the American taxpayers, and managed by Fiat, should be called.

One listener suggested AutomObama, with the slogan ”You’ll Be Paying on It for Years.” Another offered “FIAT: Fix It Again, Barack.”

Of course, the name Fiat works pretty well for this new company. After all, “fiat” means, according to Webster’s, ” a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort” or ”an authoritative or arbitrary order.” (And note that when you look up “fiat” in Webster’s, you get an ad for the new company.)

But it’s hard to beat the name suggested by most listeners: Fiasco.