Palin and Huckabee are angry at NPR.

[Townsend]

It's a shame when someone takes pleasure in something that damages an excellent organization like NPR.

I assumed the far right would try to attack NPR since it doesn't tow their line.

Alot of local affiliates could be closed due to funding cuts but that's okay with the conservatives.  To much realism and fair journalism damages their soap boxes. 

[Conan71]

Overall?  No. But I don't particularly see much of that as a stereotype.  I see it as a fairly accurate description of the Tea Party these days.  By the time you roll all the Obama-as-KenyanIndonesianMuslimWitchdoctor stuff together with the anti-Muslim hysteria together with the anti-immigrant legislation sweeping some of the more conservative statehouses you've got a pretty solid pattern of xenophobia emerging. 

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck . . .

You do realize there are still quite a few hardline racist Democrats, right?  Probably about the same percentage as there are in the Tea Party, GOP, Green, Libertarian, etc.  Racism and xenophobia are hardly disorders of political affiliation. 

[Conan71]

It's a shame when someone takes pleasure in something that damages an excellent organization like NPR.

I assumed the far right would try to attack NPR since it doesn't tow their line.

Alot of local affiliates could be closed due to funding cuts but that's okay with the conservatives.  To much realism and fair journalism damages their soap boxes. 

Let the listeners support their local stations with a donation if they like it so much and it provides a value to them instead of expecting someone else to pick up the tab to keep it on the air.

Essentially that's what those of us do who listen to commercial radio, we spend money at the businesses who keep the programming we like on the air.

[Red Arrow]

. . . . and you ignored the last part of what I said.  Which is:  there's a lot of loud, demonstrable anti-foreigner stuff going on with the different Tea Parties across the country.

We can get into the answerless argument about when a stereotype becomes truth, but in my opinion it's getting harder and harder to ignore that part of the Tea Party.  Especially because they seem intent on screaming it from every corner. 

Actually, I did not ignore it. I considered it part of the justification of the stereotype.  Stereotypes are often based somewhat in reality for a portion of the group.  I agree the remainder of the argument will be answerless.  Once again we disagree.  No surprise there.

[Townsend]

Let the listeners support their local stations with a donation if they like it so much and it provides a value to them instead of expecting someone else to pick up the tab to keep it on the air.

Essentially that's what those of us do who listen to commercial radio, we spend money at the businesses who keep the programming we like on the air.

We could also start collecting taxes on any tax free organization taking any political stand.  Seems fair to me.

[Townsend]

An employee is fired for stating a stereotype fear about Muslims on a plane and the right wing has a fit.

An employee states a stereotype about a far rightwing conservative group and then resigns.  Then his former boss resigns.  This brings rejoicing from the far right.

[Red Arrow]

We could also start collecting taxes on any tax free organization taking any political stand.  Seems fair to me.

Churches and possibly some Labor Unions come to mind.  Anything else?

[Townsend]

Churches and possibly some Labor Unions come to mind.  Anything else?

No, that'll do.

[Red Arrow]

An employee is fired for stating a stereotype fear about Muslims on a plane and the right wing has a fit.

An employee states a stereotype about a far rightwing conservative group and then resigns.  Then his former boss resigns.  This brings rejoicing from the far right.

I'll let you spin that one around for yourself regarding who rejoices and who has a fit.

[carltonplace]

I am a fan of PBS and NPR, but I think that federal funding should stop.

Why in the heck would they want to continue to be victims of political swings?

Republicans have wanted to cut the funding since the 70's...lets get it over with. As long as the funding continues they will stay under the microscope that the privately owned "news" sources avoid.

Public Broadcasting is a luxury that the US can no longer afford. Cutting their funding should get us out of the red and into the black and maybe even help us find money to enter more conflicts or buy some new helicopters.

[Conan71]

Cutting their funding should get us out of the red and into the black and maybe even help us find money to enter more conflicts or buy some new helicopters.

Helicopters...black helicopters...

[cannon_fodder]

We could also start collecting taxes on any tax free organization taking any political stand.  Seems fair to me.

I was thinking that same thing today.  I was stopped in traffic behind a vehicle with a "not for profit" license plate and couldn't help but think "hey, they use the road just as much as I do... why don't they pay to help maintain it?"

Imagine the tax base Tulsa would gain if we taxed churches.  WOW.    Perhaps with that revenue the state could have more schools than churches.    

IMHO, the portion of funding used to support arts, charity (feeding homeless people, helping with healthcare, clothing poor kids, etc.), or education makes sense to be tax free.  But why is money tax free to fund the political message of unions or the religious messages of churches?  You take a trip to XYZ to convert people - fine, but why is that tax exempt?  Your union takes a trip to DC to protest- fine, but why are the proceeds to pay for that trip free? 

Those things are not bettering everyone.  They are bettering the person who holds that belief or point of view.  But I digress...


The "NPR scandal" is of course entirely political.  The right has hated the media for decades and has atively campaigned to kill NPR for at least a decade.  Whatever the current crisis may be is just an excuse to go on the attack.

What's missed in the entire debate is that the FUNDRAISER agreed with Muslims willing to give a bundle of money that the Tea Party was racists.  He probably would have agreed with a bunch of rednecks that Muslims are a threat if they offered a boatload of money.  His job was to get money, not spread a message.

On top of that, if someone had set up a sting to catch Rush being a dude - they would have attacked the person who set up the sting.  Not the result. 

The best thing to come out of this is the Blogger Geller (creator of the "Ground Zero Mosque" issue), who came across a fake website of the of the Islamists and wrote:

I'd rather blow up the world than live as a slave. As for [MEAC chairman] Bin Talal, we have to stop financing our executioners. Enough dollars for jihad. We need to throw the left-enemy out of power and start drilling and mining our own resources. We must throw off the shackles that the enemy within has enslaved us with.

Yeah, damn those terrorists!  If they don't do what we want or if they try to tell us what to do we'll blow up the world!  Stupid terrorists. 

Of course now she knew it was a hoax all along.  Here is a liberal link making fun of conservatives who made fun of a liberal muslim site that was really set up by conservatives to trap liberals into agreeing to something stupid:
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/03/08/okeefe_npr_pamela_geller/index.html

[nathanm]

I have a hard time believing what O'Keefe claims to have recorded is what actually happened. Beyond that, I was unaware that people weren't allowed to have personal opinions. Well, apparently they are if they're right wing opinions, but not if they're left wing opinions.

And, FWIW, Tea Partiers are about 25% more likely than the rest of the population to hold racist views: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html

For instance, the Tea Party, the grassroots movement committed to reining in what they perceive as big government, and fiscal irresponsibility, also appear predisposed to intolerance. Approximately 45% of Whites either strongly or somewhat approve of the movement. Of those, only 35% believe Blacks to be hardworking, only 45 % believe Blacks are intelligent, and only 41% think that Blacks are trustworthy. Perceptions of Latinos aren't much different. While 54% of White Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be hardworking, only 44% think them intelligent, and even fewer, 42% of Tea Party supporters believe Latinos to be trustworthy. When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36% think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17% are in favor of same-sex marriage.

[Conan71]

I have a hard time believing what O'Keefe claims to have recorded is what actually happened. Beyond that, I was unaware that people weren't allowed to have personal opinions. Well, apparently they are if they're right wing opinions, but not if they're left wing opinions.

And, FWIW, Tea Partiers are about 25% more likely than the rest of the population to hold racist views: http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html

I don't have near the time to go into depth, but let's just say that's one of the poorest surveys I've seen in quite some time. The methodology is suspect and it's obvious the good professor started out with the intention of painting the Tea Party as racist.  As far as "scholarly" work, this is not a career moment for the author.

[nathanm]

I don't have near the time to go into depth,

I can wait until you do.