20 plus years ago I was elected the local President of a NY
State public employees union representing professional, scientific, and
technical workers, a somewhat curious occurrence considering I am/was a
conservative and generally anti-union. Nevertheless, I won by a 2:1 vote margin
and was fairly popular, if I may say so; it proved to be a revealing
experience. One of the members was a middle-aged guy with whom I had a friendly
acquaintance. He was always affable and seemed perfectly competent and
dedicated, but there was always a vague stain on his reputation- he was barely
tolerated by management and never seemed to be going anywhere in his career. At
times he suggested there was an ill-defined conspiracy against him, which he
attributed to his declining to be part of the old-boys network from years past,
the kind of claim to which one responds, “Is that right?”
One day, as an office building was being shuffled about, another employee came across a file with his name and, assuming it was his, handed it to him. As he looked through it he came to quite a realization- the folder contained all sorts of management documents and communications ridiculing and demeaning him, going back years. In essence he was accidentally given a “secret” file that proved he was indeed a target of an administrative conspiracy, in violation of numerous contractual and policy rules. Keep in mind we were not a nerve center of NY State government, but a rather remote outpost, so to speak. From the union standpoint we had a field day, with one of the few administrative people with integrity admitting, “We have no excuse or defense.” I learned during my union time his case was not altogether unique, and that there are always plenty of petty people lining up to curry favor with bosses by disparaging others and bosses who bask in their own petty power and who live to have their boots licked.
Virginia's enlightened progressive Governor Dr. Northam's medical school yearbook photo
Part 1, Milton
We first knew Milton when he was perhaps 5 or 6 years
old. He was a fairly regular attendee
at our charity children’s program (breakfast, story time, playtime, lunch, arts
and crafts, sports, games, snack, finish up by around 4 pm) near a small
village in rural Honduras. To be honest
he wasn’t the brightest of kids, but he was very cute as he sat on the swing
and said, “Reid, calame (Reid, swing me).”
We would open in the morning, often with 20-30 kids, and by
the afternoon 40 to 50 wasn’t unusual.
They largely had one thing in common in regards to the following: pretty
much none of the parents (mothers) had any idea where their kids were. There is no tradition of, “Hey mom, I’m
heading off to the guarderia, be back around 4:30,” but rather the kids go off
to do whatever they do and all is well if they end up back home by dark. By our “we are right in the latest
incarnation of whatever we do in the US at the moment” standard this might
sound negligent, but it’s more similar to the way my generation was raised than
not, plus our project had a pretty good reputation. For the most part the mothers in the village sincerely care about
their children, fathers typically less so, considering so many of them are
absent from their children’s lives, which is pertinent to Milton.
Briefly, the last full session of the kids’ program was in
2011, for a variety of reasons we did not leave the US in 2012, and beginning
in 2013 I (now with my wife staying at home) began spending about two months a
year in the village, not doing a program for kids per se but more young adult
and adult oriented, especially teaching English, carpentry, and sewing. Not surprisingly on each trip down there I
catch up on the latest, especially asking about how the kids we had gotten to
know quite well in past years are doing.
This past March (2019) upon my arrival I inquired as to Milton’s status
and learned he had recently gone to los Estados Unidos illegally, which was
unexpected. In learning the details I
was told his father had taken him. I
mentioned that to the best of my knowledge his father was never part of his
life, and this was confirmed, i.e. Milton simply became a pasaporte for his
hitherto absent father.
We are funny in America in regards to children, at least the
left is. In any social policy, or political debate, invoking “the children” is
supposed to stifle the other side and assure their acquiescence (which
unfortunately has often proven to be true, at least in pre-Trump times). Though the left gleefully ends the lives of
children by the boatload under the guise of “women’s rights,” they seem to drip
with compassion for non-aborted children as long as it advances their
narrative. This has very much filtered
down to the villages in Honduras in the form of, “if you show up at the border
with a kid you will get in.” This explains Milton’s father’s newly discovered
love for his dear son. It also explains
why 13 year-old Julia’s aunt was planning on returning to the village and drag
her with her to the border (“remember Julia, I’m your mother!”).
We hear a good deal about child/human trafficking these days
and what I’m describing is at the lower end: certainly the parents aren’t
knowingly giving up their children to be sex slaves, and not even selling them
per se. There is simply an implicit understanding that “when you get into the
US using my son or daughter as your passport, I will expect to be spending time
at the Western Union office to receive remittances from you.”
Although I could fill pages talking about immigration, I
merely want to end this section with a few thoughts. First, our progressive
Democrat policy, which is essentially in effect Trump or no Trump, turns
children into commodities, and indeed makes them susceptible to full-blown
exploitation.
Second, our policy ignores the most basic and humane (though
most difficult) solution, which is to improve the situation in the countries of
mass emigration. This should not mean
everyone has to have the American middle-class standard of SUVs, big screen
TVs, streaming video, smart phones, wine coolers, and air conditioning, but
there are basic modern comforts that, if more universally available, would
certainly improve living standard.
Third, a common aspect to the immigration debate is the idea of assimilation, and there seems to be a reluctance to embrace this ideal culturally and linguistically, at least when compared to the widely held narrative pertaining to prior immigrants. The concept of assimilation simply doesn’t exist in the minds of the current wave from Latin America: there are no tired, huddled masses yearning to breath free. They are not refugees with legitimate asylum claims planning to assimilate, but rather have seen plenty of Hollywood movies with all the glitter and materialism and say to themselves, “I want that.” And you can’t really blame them.
Part 2, The Blind Girl
In modern progressive Western culture the most odious
creature is the white male Christian conservative, even worse if they are from the
South, and even worse if they are credentialed as a Baptist pastor- the horror!
I will call him Leonard, and yes, he is all of these things. Around 15 years ago his fictitious (I am a
non-believer) God called him to Honduras to help children, and eventually he,
along with his Christian Mexican- American wife (I forgot to mention he is also
a dreaded heterosexual), established an orphanage. It wasn’t your typical orphanage, however, with cottages and
hired caregivers, but rather the kids were their kids, and they lived with the
kids. They peaked at perhaps 20-some
children, lost a few for a variety of reasons, and now have about 15. Needless to say, these kids were from the
worst situations of neglect, abuse, and abandonment imaginable, for the most
part have been with them since infancy, and they are “children of color.” More
on this shortly.
About 13 years ago a baby girl was born, named Xiomara who
was obviously blind, and there was some concern she had a “syndrome” that would
make her mentally retarded, deaf, or what have you. During the time the baby was a neonate an American physician
(OB/Gyn, who traveled on a somewhat tortured road that led her to Honduras,
then back to the US) happened to see this baby and declared it would be better
off if she were simply left to die.
This did not happen, and shortly she was taken in by Leonard. She grew and thrived and a couple of years
ago she was adopted by, yes, a despicable Christian, conservative heterosexual
American couple from, Lord help us, Texas.
I’ve known Xiomara since she was a baby and had the chance to see her
this past March (the adoptive parents bring her back to Honduras to visit her
siblings, i.e. the kids she grew up with until her adoption), and she was
everything wonderful in a child- happy, vibrant, engaging, etc.
Not to long ago the Democrat Governor of Virginia became embroiled in some
controversy, especially in terms of a black face/KKK medical school yearbook
photo. Though this has faded away
(together with a sexual assault accusation against the Democrat Lt. Gov. it was
conceivable a Republican could have ascended to the VA executive office, so the
initial progressive outrage had to be quelled), there was a lesser-reported
controversy that reminded me of Xiomara.
The Governor, who graduated medical school and is a soft-spoken
progressive extremist, was prompted to muse about a bill to end any
restrictions on abortion, to include allowing the abortion of baby while the mother
was in natural active labor. In the
event the child survived the abortion and continued unwanted by the mother he
suggested “comfort care,” in other words putting a blanket over the infant and
allowing it to die from dehydration or starvation. He added, “And it's done
in cases where there may be severe deformities.”
My primary career was as a medical provider, Physician Assistant (PA), and I worked or associated with many physicians over the years. I can say some of the finest people I’ve known were physicians, many were of average integrity, and too many were disingenuous reprobates, the kind of people like VA Governor Dr. Northam who couch barbarism- starving and dehydrating babies to death- in feel-good terms such as “comfort care.” Needless to say, under Dr. Northam’s professional and august guidance, Xiomara would have died an agonizing death. It’s ironic to note that it would be less cruel to simply use a pipe or hammer and smash the baby’s skull, but with all the blood, bone fragments, and brain tissue it would be less sophisticated and less quaint, and wouldn’t qualify for the soothing term “comfort care.”
The children under the care of Leonard and his wife, their children (the oldest are now 15) are a true joy to know. They are kids and have all the normal concerns and problems of kids certainly but are pretty well adjusted, enthusiastic, and are also truly fluent in both Spanish and English- and it’s quite a bit of fun to watch them switch back and forth with ease as the situation requires. Less than two years ago Leonard (known as Papa to the kids), was diagnosed with an adult form of muscular dystrophy and can no longer walk or stand, and is losing the use of his arms. As much as the left finds solace and satisfaction in ridiculing Christians, Leonard endures and even thrives because of his Lord and Savior and because he believes in something greater than himself. I doubt very much that those who would call him a racist bigot simply because he’s a Christian could bear riding in his wheelchair: they wouldn’t sacrifice materialistic comfort for a moment to care for “children of color,” no matter how much they claim to love them.
In 2015, when the Supreme Court issued its Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex
marriage, Barack Obama ordered the White House be bathed in rainbow colors.
This was an immature and inappropriate thing to do considering 10 of millions
of Americans opposed the decision, but it was Obama doing what he did so well:
divisive in your face activism.
Perfectly compassionate religious people opposed the decision based upon
the concept of sin, and otherwise perfectly typical people might have opposed
it simply because they viewed the decision as legitimizing what was unnatural
or perhaps opening the door to further erosion of traditional mores. Nevertheless, no reasonable person, no
matter how upset, argued that sex between two men or two women approached the
level of evil.
Evil has been with us as
long as we’ve been in existence.
Perhaps a few groups or cultures have not been perpetrators of evil, but
it’s been pretty universal to be on both the receiving and the committing
sides, depending on who was on top or at the bottom at the time. One aspect of evil that has been relatively
uncommon has been the overt celebration of one’s atrocities. Perhaps there were public relations
considerations, perhaps strategic, and even maybe some residual sense of right
and wrong, but for the most part evil people and entities haven’t been inclined
to trumpet their reprehensible accomplishments.
There are, of course, people
and philosophies that discount the existence of evil, claiming some are driven
to do bad things based only upon extrinsic factors. Religious people might argue that evil exists as a consequence of
Satan. Personally, as a God
disbeliever, I think some people are innately evil. Whether this reflects some aberration of genetics, or even some
evolutionary imperative I’m not sure, but I’ve been around a bit- worked at a
prison, been in the military, lived in other (“third-world”) countries and
cultures for a number of years- and I’m fairly certain I’ve met some evil
people. And like that storied serial
killer living next door, the neighbors inevitably say, “He seemed normal.”
The New York State
government gave us something almost unprecedented the other day- an act of not
just unadulterated evil but a perverse celebration of it, ordering the spire of
the “Freedom Tower” to be illuminated in pink.
It doesn’t take a great moralist or contemplator of ethics or even run
of the mill reprobate to understand that dismembering a child just weeks, or
even just hours before his or her birth is blatantly evil. Nevertheless, majorities in both houses of
the NY State legislature voted for this latest “health” bill, and the Governor
enthusiastically and pompously signed it into law. One could imagine a legislator from Queens applauding the law and
giddy with pleasure, perhaps not even cognizant of their affirmation, “I am
evil, and I’m feeling pretty good about it.”
Sadly and historically evil
doesn’t occur in a vacuum, but rather it typically finds adherents or enablers
willing to rationalize it. It also
encounters those who recognize evil for what it is and, in theory at least, are
charged with opposing it. Sometimes the
people and organizations charged with identifying evil and countering it fail
to do so, even willingly, and hence are justly tainted by it. And speaking of the NY Catholic Church
establishment (what Trump supporters might refer to as “the Swamp”), no matter
how irresistible the sweet love of their Savior Jesus or their veneration of
the Blessed Mother, there is something even greater for which to yearn- being a
player, no matter how trivial, in secular politics.
I am a Bishop and I have a staff and mitre to prove it, and by God I’m allowed to utter platitudes of the sanctity of life. But the Governor, evil incarnate he may be, is a good Catholic, and I can find all sorts of arcane doctrinal and theological arguments of how he should remain in good standing. My God, if we really did the right thing and disavowed him as one of us, the Cardinal’s calls might not be forwarded to one of the Governor’s administrative assistants, and we would feel diminished. Besides, what could be more fun than giggling with the Governor at the annual Al Smith dinner? Yeah, sure I love the Cross, but I love the idea of being accepted by the woke cultural elite even more.
Not too long ago pink was the color the oppressive patriarchy associated with little girls. In short order, however, pink has become the symbolic color of victory over the helpless and innocent; in New York that is a reason for delirious celebration.
Note: The below is an (edited) e-mail I sent to a very accomplished young man (early 30s) who is successful in the higher levels of academia but also in the “real” world, including the military. As I’m writing this the “migrant caravan, largely from Honduras, is a hot topic. I think the e-mail is fairly self-explanatory:
I have a semi-serious question about academics and Dr. XXX, EdD. He and I had a happy and meaningful time together without too much emphasis on politics. While I think it’s bad form to discuss politics in general social settings, I realize leftists especially have a difficult time constraining themselves, and I generally accept this. Hence I’m disinclined to respond to references to “that mad man in the White House” or derogatory references to Trump overall. I see a number of similarities between the most obnoxious of Christians and progressive leftists. Have you ever know someone who constantly says “praise the Lord,” or “thank you Jesus (not including XXX when winning at a casino!)?” If I’m attending the XXX Baptist Church it’s to be expected, but outside such a venue it’s impolite and inappropriate, especially if you don’t know the beliefs of the people you are with or know them to not be Christians.
Anyway, can an uneducated ignoramus such as me have a reasonable expectation that a highly credentialed academic possess the ability to view things dispassionately and objectively? Poor Dr. XXX, EdD, in considering Honduras, seems unable to discuss the topic without mentioning the Standard Fruit Company with great angst. I’m not sure what you know about this but it was an absolutely proto-typical scenario of a capitalist international corporation lining the pockets of willing petty dictators in exchange for favors, sometimes to the detriment of the “masses.” I said to him, “It’s been 120 years, you’ve got to get over it!” So the question is, can a PhD/EdD historian look at the record, however distasteful, and not be overwhelmed with anger and emotion. If not, can the scholarship be trusted?
You probably know some 13 years ago he received a $100,000 grant from the US Dept. of Interior to investigate the feasibility of processing coffee in an environmentally friendly manner in Central America. Ultimately nothing came of it and the money was for naught, but it did finance a two-week trip for him to Honduras and Costa Rica. I think this brief experience profoundly affected him, somehow legitimizing his already established leftist inclinations in his own mind. He said something like, “I did go to a non-tourist village, and they were really welcoming,” as this was of great significance. Despite his being a truly decent and caring person, I see such a strange contrast between him, the academic leftist whose outrage at the injustice of Central America (for example) suffices for action, and the uneducated ignoramus (i.e. conservative) that I am who has spent years, quite a bit of personal effort, and 10s of thousands of dollars down there in hopes of bettering the lives of the impoverished. I fear in the elite worlds of academia and wealth, a sense of righteous indignation offers much greater prestige than actually doing something!
“Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it.” George Costanza
by Reid Fitzsimons
Sometimes it’s good fun to listen to politicians lying. The idea that, “They all do it,” really does have some basis and certainly isn’t anything new. Does our current President lie? Of course! Anytime he proposes a new program and talks about the many wonderful benefits to be reaped, with never any downside, he’s lying. Did our immediate past President, Obama, lie? Probably even more so than Trump. We know they are lying, of course, and usually they know it too, at least we hope so because if not we’ve elected people who are delusional. Kind of a paradox.
Back in 2008 the voters of California were presented with and approved a proposition for a high-speed rail system between San Diego and San Francisco with an extension to Sacramento- transportation and environmental nirvana for the masses. Promises were made in terms of speed, safety, completion dates, costs, passenger numbers, yada, yada. Of course all he benchmarks have proven elusive- the original 33 billion for the major LA to San Francisco portion has been revised repeatedly and now sits somewhere between 65 billion and 100 billion and completion dates keep slipping, slipping into the future. Did Gov. Jerry Brown and the high-speed rail cheerleaders believe the lies? They are so emotionally and economically vested in this project there is likely no way out, so their only option is to keep consciously lying and perhaps start believing their own BS.
Churchill surveying bomb damage during the Blitz, Barack Obama playing golf
by Reid Fitzsimons
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved (Barack Obama, Oct. 2016).”
A lot of people yearn to be viewed as serious and reasonable. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but there is a difference between being perceived or described as reasonable versus actually being so. That’s why it’s a hoot to watch some Republican politicians abandon their deepest held beliefs as they seek out ephemeral accolades of being “moderate,” or “bi-partisan,” from a media outlet. Being described as “he’s willing to cross the isle to get things done” is like a dog getting his tummy rubbed to certain Republicans, who proudly think to themselves, “I’m a reasonable person; they really like me!” Curiously, Republicans never seem to wonder why they have to do all the congressional and ideological aisle crossing.
The reason for this, however, is really quite simple: like morality, “reasonableness” is increasingly a product of relativity, and certainly since the 1960s the leftist progressive culture has been empowered to define the parameters. Hence, someone holding what had been a perfectly understandable position on a issue, say supportive of marriage and family integrity as the best foundation for children, is now a racist and/or misogynist, considering the alarming rate of black kids raised without fathers (lots of white kids as well). Feminism, an influential offspring of progressivism long ago decreed that fathers aren’t necessary, but outside of urban chic and manorial affluence with nannies, tutors, and upscale daycares, kids of single-parent families tend to do poorly where the actual world is found. Americans in general, and some Republican politicians in particular, will readily contort themselves and their moral beliefs to avoid being labeled “racist,” “phobic,” or whatever, even if the accusing person is a talentless celebrity or 19 year-old rich college kid sipping on her $5 cappuccino, smart phone always in hand.
Robert Casey, Jr is the senior senator from Pennsylvania. He has a name you might know in that his late father was a former governor of PA and one of the last truly Pro-Life Democrats, a belief and position which is now incompatible with being a Democrat. His son the senator, whose qualifications are pretty much limited to the fact he is the son of a revered figure, lamely claims he is Pro-Life but this is fully contradicted by his actions. Why he feels the need for this pretension is not entirely clear. Certainly he’s aware there is an ethnic/Catholic voter demographic that wants to believe his utterances (Casey is one of those Catholics that rejects much of the church doctrine but enjoys the wafer and wine part), but I wonder if some deeper psychology is involved. Perhaps some Daddy issue- “I'd like to be a good boy, but if I do what is right the celebrities and hip media won’t let me be in their cub” kind of thing.
Hypocrisy is an inevitable frustration we encounter in life; it is especially annoying when it originates with our elected elites and when it is effective in terms of re-election, etc. In Sen. Casey’s case, his undying support of Planned Parenthood combined with his faux Pro-Life position makes one almost appreciate Donald Trump’s “drain the swamp” sloganeering. Below is a letter sent to Casey’s senate e-mail address with three possible outcomes: no response (likely), a meaningless form letter response (likely), or a thoughtful reasoned argument (awaiting the cow to jump over the moon).
by Reid Fitzsimons (note: off to East Africa for several weeks, will complete this article upon return)
The other week I was checking out at the Dollar Tree when the cashier asked, “Do you want to donate a dollar to the Red Cross for Hurricane Harvey relief?” I replied with a resounding, though polite, “No.” What a cheap SOB one might say, to which I am sympathetic. I will, however, justify my lack of charity in this case with two reasons.
The first involves the generosity of the Red Cross as it applies to salaries for its upper echelon employees, as old as this argument might be. The IRS form 990 is the means by which tax exempt/non-profit groups report their financial statuses, which is publicly available. Looking at the Red Cross 990 for 2014, there are at least 14 people at the national level who receive well over $350,000 in salaries and other benefits. The three highest are the CEO (Gail McGovern) at $556,772, the President for Biomedical Services (Shaun Gilmore) at $554,236, and the Deputy Chief Investment Officer (Anne Shelton) at $526,685. Hence, a mere three employees of this benevolent non-profit charity receive $1,637,693 in compensation: there is big money to be had in the world of the mega charities. In Dec. 2012, apparently in response to some controversy, the Red Cross released a statement: “The president and CEO of the American Red Cross is Gail McGovern, and her base salary has remained $500,000—without any pay increase—since she joined the American Red Cross in 2008. This is considered well within the range for executives of large non-profits like the Red Cross, a $3.3 billion organization.” I am reminded of my son at 10 or 11 arguing that all of his friends had Nintendo 16s. The cashier at the Dollar Tree could have asked, “would you like to donate a dollar to the Red Cross to cover 1/1,637,693th of the compensation for three Red Cross Employees?”
The political left and right are commonly viewed, incorrectly, as a linear function: the further left or right the greater the separation. More properly it is circular function, i.e. the further one becomes “right” the closer one gets to the “left,” and vice versa. If we compare the historic archetypical right-winger Adolf Hitler with the archetypical leftist, Joseph Stalin, there really was little difference. They both yearned for and largely achieved a totalitarian state in which not just speech was but even thought was controlled. And, of course, countless millions suffered and died in the process.
We can apply this circular concept to the fracturing between right and left we seem to be experiencing today. Though I suspect the pathetic right-wing white supremacists are comparatively small in number despite the media and social media hype, they have a commonality with the progressive left antifa fascist movement in that they are all, to resurrect an apt term from the 70s and 80s, douche bags. While rarely do we see the KKK minded people dressed in the full regalia of white sheets and hoods, which I always thought was tacky from a fashion standpoint, metaphorically at least they are interchangeable with the more stylishly black clad antifa fascists and their jaunty balaclava face coverings.
Neither side can verbalize their goals and aims beyond bumper sticker drivel. As I’m writing this (Aug. 20, 2017) there is a headline, “Atlanta NAACP calls for boycott of NFL, Falcons game over treatment of Colin Kaepernick.” Now there is a goal worth fighting for- take it to the streets to support a whiney rich guy, the beneficiary of a lifetime of “white privilege” who somehow discovered he can grow one heck of an afro, to demand he receive another multi-million dollar contract to play a meaningless game. Actually there is something we have in common- boycotting the NFL out of existence wouldn’t be a bad thing. As for the white supremacists, to the extent they exist, I have no idea what their demands might be.
Now and then the usual suspects of the Republican establishment- the Mitch McConnell’s, John Kasich’s, etc- make meaningful, principled, and at times intelligent statements about any given issue or topic. Hence, it is generally disheartening, though occasionally amusing when, like a dog yanked back on a leash, they have to modify or retract them when faced with the accusations we’ve come to know so well: misogynist, various prefixes followed by “phobe,” and of course racist. One such phrase we have heard for years, usually during faux budget negotiations, is “They want to kill Big Bird.”
The origin the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) and its entities of PBS and NPR extends back only to the 1960s and can be succinctly described as the product of Lyndon Johnson’s conflicted emotions. He viewed himself largely as an unsophisticated hick and, especially when associated with the cosmopolitan Kennedy’s, yearned for acceptance by the elites. From a policy standpoint this translated to a perhaps noble albeit Quixotic goal of “bringing the arts to the masses,” but in reality has meant decades of heavily subsidized entertainment for the educated and wealthy. Since inception tax dollars given to this therapy for Lyndon Johnson’s inner turmoil has probably totaled in the billions- for 2014 CPB alone received close to half a billion in tax dollars.
Not surprisingly, to be “for” tax funding of CPB, etc imparts an aura of lover of the “arts,” broadmindedness, sophistication, compassion, and humanity. To be “against” stigmatizes one as an uneducated right-wing nut who has an unnatural attraction to pick-up trucks and lives in fear of fluoridated water.
I am a little too old to have watched Sesame Street (premiered in 1969) and I’m ambivalent as to whether it has been truly educational without indoctrination or more of a guilt-free way to plop your kids down in front of the TV. One can state with a clear conscience, however, that the Sesame Street franchise has been shamelessly marketed for decades with great remunerative success (from 2003 to 2006, Sesame Street made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales; I not sure if this includes the exorbitant admission price I paid to see Sesame Street on Ice in 1988 when my son was two). Nevertheless, the accusation that “they want to kill Big Bird” recurrently engenders night sweats and tremors in congressional Republicans.
Certainly over 50 years PBS has provided us with some fine upscale programming (though the only time I saw any of Conan the Barbarian was curiously on a PBS station; I think there was some nudity, thank goodness). The issue is not whether they have some fine programming, the issue is who benefits. Let us be honest: people residing in Section 8 housing, various urban projects, and trailer parks aren’t glued to their radios listening to the Splendid Table (“…public radio's culinary culture and lifestyle program that celebrates food and its ability to touch the lives and feed the souls of everyone”) or animatedly guessing the value of that painting found in grandma’s attic on the Antiques Roadshow. The audience and demographic for the vast majority of PBS/NPR programming is certainly composed primarily of the wealthy and educated. Hence, a reasonable question is, are the rich deserving of tax-subsidized entertainment?
Last week I was up in the Adirondack Mountains south of Canada doing some house renovation work and was not well “connected.” On Thursday morning I did check e-mail and news and learned of the very newsworthy shooting of the house Republican Majority Whip and others. Seeking updates in an area of sparse radio coverage I reluctantly tuned in to the dreaded NPR morning programming, with the nauseatingly saccharine timbre, tone, and cadence of the announcers; as obnoxious as any equally saccharine pre-recorded Bible studies one hears on Christian radio. The half hour news summary finally came on and, just 24 hours after the shooting, the lead story was not the shooting but the continuing saga of the Trump/Russia investigation. The NPR editors placed the story of the attempted assassination of the Majority Whip in the second slot and pointedly emphasized authorities were examining possible motivations, failing to even mention the perpetrator wore his leftist progressive angst on his sleeve for all to see.
For NPR News, as with what is collectively called the mainstream media, maintaining the progressive narrative takes precedence over actual news reporting. Therefore it can only be Republicans and conservatives strutting about like Brown Shirts in 1920’s Munich looking to beat down people who look, sound, or think differently from themselves. The minds of progressives are so filled with happy thoughts that Love is Love and Love Trumps Hate that James Hodgkinson certainly could not have been motivated to murder by his progressive politics; there must have been another reason. Needless to say, if the victim had been a Democrat and the shooter politically motivated by right wing leanings, it would have consumed the NPR news cycle, with emphasis on the right wing part.
We’ve entered an unfortunate age where gross slanting of news by organizations traditionally considered objective is common. Nevertheless, subtle slanting- nuanced prioritizing of stories, things deftly said, implied, or omitted so as to obfuscate the facts at hand, etc, remains effective. It doesn’t take great talent to do this but somehow its practitioners are held in high esteem, much like Miley Cyrus is heralded as a “music artist.” PBS and NPR are exceedingly adept at this and understandably so: their biases are shared by their target audience, wealthy and educated progressives, who prefer to remain comfortable in the warm bosom of their cultural and political narratives.
The CPB/PBS/NPR franchise is like the Christian who fornicates on Saturday night then shouts “Praise Jesus” louder than anyone else in church the next morning. It’s not the adultery that is so exasperating per se, it’s the hypocrisy:
The myth that they are commercial free when in fact they run ads just like everyone else, with sponsors including massively wealthy corporations, elite progressive foundations and, depending on the program, local businesses. That they usually run the ads preceding or following their shows doesn’t mean they are not crass commercials, despite always being capped off by the quaint, “and viewers like you."
Undeniably they have at times aired excellent programs, including child oriented shows such as Mr. Rogers Neighborhood and perhaps Sesame Street. While I admittedly have not had success researching PBS/NPR demographics (one related stat I found is interesting- Thomas Corley, author of “Rich Habits: The Daily Success Habits Of Wealthy Individuals,” found only 6% of the wealthy watch reality shows, while 78% of the poor do), it is doubtful the ostensible targeted audience- the masses- are significant consumers. Rather, support and occasional watching or listening to PBS/NPR has become essentially a litmus test for progressive acceptance.
While our cultural mindset is that receiving government funding somehow imparts legitimacy, PBS/NPR should be able to stand on its own or be fully propped up by its vocal and wealthy proponents. Let’s not fool ourselves- rich people, including the many who refuse to acknowledge their wealth, like to spend money on Self, generally to the exclusion of Others. The tax monies received by the CPB are not insignificant but could easily be replaced by its supporters, if they really believed in action versus utterances, and we could blessedly be free of this tedious funding debate. What the heck, if we finally end government funding I’ll make a pledge at the $60 level, and they don’t even have to send me the Kings of Dew-Wop CD collection.
It is a fantasy that CPB/PBS/NPR, being “non-profits,” are operated by benevolent people who are willing to sacrifice their material wealth for the greater good of their mission. Like televangelism, there is serious money to be had in the world of “non-profits.” Rather than taking the effort to place financial stats in prose form, I simply end with a listing of some examples of salaries-
Gary Knell, recently made the CEO of National Geographic, first began working for Sesame Street Workshop in 1989, became the COO in 1998, and CEO in 2000 until 2011, then CEO of NPR until 2013. In 2008 he was paid $956,513, and according to the 2013 IRS form 990 $743,575 for the covered year.
The form 990 for 2014 shows the CEO of the CPB was compensated with $418,574 during the pertinent year. Additionally, there were at least 15 other CPB officers that made at least $200,000 per year.
The PBS CEO was paid $962,594 for the period covered by the 2013 990.
Note these are compensation amounts at just the national level. There are hundreds of affiliate stations paying generous salaries: the 2014 990 for the Detroit PBS local shows the CEO making $378,343 and the Assistant Secretary $215,823; in 2010 or 2011 14 employees at the Boston affiliate WGBH made more than $200,000.
Lastly, a headline from the March 20, 2017 edition of USA Today:
Could Trump's 2018 budget kill Sesame Street's beloved Big Bird?