a fool and her money are soon parted
joan b. kroc, heiress to the ray kroc mcdonald's fortune, willed 200 million dollars to national public radio. according to npr, this is the largest donation ever made to "an American cultural institution." npr is an american cultural institution? it's a leftwing propaganda mill. wait, that's the same thing. in my last trip to the local museum, i counted the word "diversity" on informational placards no less than ten times--and i was in the gemological hall.
Joan Kroc, widow of McDonald's Corp. founder Ray A. Kroc, died Oct. 12 of cancer. She was 75. In recent years she had made substantial gifts to organizations promoting world peace.
why not give the money to a televangelist? i'm dead serious. if you're going to waste 200 million dollars, why not give it to someone who will waste it with some style. you know: flashy watches, pimped-out suits, diamond-crusted shoes (and teeth!) ...think of what fun creflo dollar could have had with that money...
perhaps the only thing more useless than npr (unless you're chairman of the democratic national committee) are "organizations promoting world peace." from this i am to infer that she made hefty contributions to, what, the campaigns of jacques chirac and gerhard schroeder? if you want to contribute to world peace, then pay your taxes and write your congressman to request an increase in the military budget, because when there's been peace over the last century, the american military has usually made it.
i guess i should be thankful that joan "whata" kroc resisted the temptation to make the safe play by sending the money to homeless kids or starving africans or the ronald mcdonald house. i mean, right now, in your very own backyard, there are upper-class white snobs driving around in their mercedes SUVs with nothing to listen to. other than their satellite radio and 9 million disk cd-changers. can we, as a society, allow this to continue? don't we owe our betters the self-satisfaction that comes from hour after hour of high-quality mental masturbation--the kind that only public radio can bring you? will you look this thirty-two year old investment banker/environmental activist from aspen, colorado, in the eye and tell him that he'll never again have access to the news and views of all things considered--do you realize what that will do to his self-esteem? how can we, who have so much, be content to--whoa, sorry. got swept up in the moment there.
locdog's ok now
now here is a truly extraordinary event: liberals standing up for the rights of the poor, poor, mega-corporation against the oppression of the tyrannical proletariat. talk about a role reversal. as a conservative, i feel half-obligated to stand up and defend cbs' decision not to air their embattled reagan miniseries myself, but there are so many liberals piled on the platform that i can't seem to find any room. ah, well.
"This is censorship, pure and simple. Well, maybe not all that pure. Censorship never is," says barbara streisand, wife of reagans star james brolin. i can see why she's upset. hubby can't afford to lose many roles, even movie-of-the-week cheese-logs like this one.
according to streisand, we're witnessing VRWC v 2.0 (that's Vast RightWing Conspiracy version 2.0 for those of you unacquainted with the fever dreams of liberal paranoia.) an "organized Republican spin machine" brought "right wing Republican pressure" against cbs via "a small group of right wing activists." so, like, why won't you tell us who was responsible, babs?
there are times when i'm truly mystified by the inner-workings of the liberal mind, and this is one of them. that's not to say that i'm surprised by the inevitable charges of censorship, merely that i'm puzzled as to whether or not the liberals in question actually believe they've been censored. i could respect them, i suppose, if i knew their whining to be rhetorical, but i can't shake the suspicion that some of these kooks have actually bought into their own line of b.s. iraq gave us several good examples: consider tim robbins' "chill wind blowing" speech or the dixie chicks and their genuine surprise at their southern-fried fan bases' revolt against their shameless euro-pandering. what, flag-wavers in the south? next thing you know, they'll be finding liberals in vermont.
real censorship is pretty much the polar opposite of what happened to the reagans. in real censorship, a liberal icon like fidel castro sends a police group against a political dissident or media outlet who's trying to share inconvenient information with the public. there's force, be it physical or legal, implied or applied. there's imprisonment, torture, possibly even death. there's a confiscation of the offensive material, and a whitewash of the facts. in a country like cuba where censorship is a reality rather than a buzzword, the state rules the airwaves and if people complain about what they see on the tube, they disappear. i'm reminded of the tale of an iraqi reporterette who made a catty remark about saddam's wife. her death could give harold pinter material for years.
contrast that now with the reagans where
1. we have a private corporation whose product is offensive to
2. the consumers and hence the sponsors who paid for the programming, both private parties themselves. when the consumers voice their outrage at the viscious slandering of a living and cruelly-afflicted american president,
3. the private corporation freely chooses to pull their product. this they decide on the basis of the dire economic consequences sure to follow if they maintain course.
no government intervention. no agency of force. no censorship. just a display of raw freedom of the sort that was virtually unprecedented before the inception of these united states. and it's not a bad lesson on the virtues of the free market, either: even heartless corporate titans must supply change when their consumers demand it.
whenever anyone anywhere and for any reason tells a liberal that he's not interested in listening to his crap, he's branded a mccarthyite and charged with censorship. strange as it is, some liberals (entertainers in particular) truly believe the constitution entitles them not to free speech, but to the right to be heard. they are guaranteed an audience and we the people are thus obligated to attend their rock concerts and sit through their miniseries whether we like their politics or not. if we boycott their sponsors, burn their albums, or write their financiers to voice our disdain, we're not hurting them, we're hurting the constitution. we're hurting america, gosh darn it, and for the sake of america babs and her buds have taken it upon themselves to speak out.
it's funny, though, that none of them thought to speak out against the cbs network for taking it upon itself to grossly misinform an entire generation of young americans who have no meaningful impressions of ronald reagan at all--and this on the basis of gossip and admitted fabrications. the power of television networks to reach and influence tens of millions of americans is nothing short of the power to change the course of our nation. it's a power that's waning, thankfully, because of the information revolution of the nineties, but it's still very real. when liberal media moguls and entertainers look at the influence they can project, they don't see an unfathomably deep responsibility to the american people in particular and democracy in general, but a giant protest sign or bumper sticker, blank and waiting. they see a toy.
locdog thinks playtime is over