It's a spat for the ages, I tellz ya: National Public Radio’s Twitter Fight With Elon Musk. Via James Freeman:
The FBI isn’t the only taxpayer-supported organization coming under the microscope at Elon Musk’s Twitter. The staff at National Public Radio seems to be getting very prickly, to use a favorite NPR adjective, over Twitter’s effort to inform users about NPR and its business model. Mr. Musk’s social media company might just expose the basic contradiction in public broadcasting’s public relations.
For those who don’t follow government-favored media, the basic contradiction is this: Public broadcasters say they receive so little government funding that they remain completely independent. But if anyone ever tries to cut this allegedly trivial taxpayer funding, public broadcasters respond with howling lamentations about the looming destruction of essential communication and culture.
NPR gets "annual grants" from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Which,
six years ago was
<metaphor class="tired">on the chopping
</metaphor> in the
first budget proposed by that crazy libertarian, Donald J. Trump. As were the
equally noxious National Endowment for the Arts and
the National Endowment for the Humanities. Good times.
Also commenting on the fuss is Chris Queen:
So, instead of pushing out its “editorial independence” on Twitter, NPR is asking listeners to follow it on TikTok — you know, the Chinese Communist spyware social media outlet.
Language notes from Charles C. W. Cooke, inspired by Bud Light’s Not-So-‘Inclusive’ Marketing. He notes Bud Light's Vice President Alissa Heinerscheid's efforts to make her swill more "inclusive".
One might wonder how it is possible for the “truly inclusive” “tone shift” that will supposedly save Bud Light from the darkness to have lined up so perfectly with the exact collection of obsessions that are held by Heinerscheid and the cadre to which she belongs. Well, I’ll tell you: Because, when Heinerscheid talks about “inclusivity,” she doesn’t actually mean “inclusivity” in the way that an average observer would assume she means it. Once again, we have an example here of America’s rapidly diverging languages. In theory, terms such as “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” sound presumptively desirable; who, in a country such as the United States, wouldn’t want those things in abundance? In practice, however, they mean something else altogether. In practice, “diversity” means people who look different but all think the same thing; “equity” means equal outcomes achieved by government force; and “inclusion” means prioritizing and protecting groups that progressives like. So it is here. In its modern context, “inclusive” has begun to resemble those “COEXIST” bumper stickers that you see on Subarus: Nominally, the message applies to a whole host of disparate groups; practically speaking, it’s aimed at just one.
At right are the magnet stickers on my Subaru. No "COEXIST" there, Charlie.
The "0.0" one is a self-mocking note to my lifelong aversion to running.
And the doggie one is just the simple truth. (More dog content below.)
Speaking of the simple truth, David Harsanyi says Joe Biden's EV Edict Isn't Just Harmful, It's Fascistic.
According to the contemporary left, it’s “authoritarian” for local elected officials to curate school library collections but fine for a powerful centralized federal government to issue an edict compelling a major industry to produce a product and then force hundreds of millions of people to buy it.
President Biden is set to “transform” and “remake” the entire auto industry — “first with carrots, now with sticks”— notes the Washington Post, as if dictating the output of a major industry is within the governing purview of the executive branch. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing draconian emissions limits for vehicles, ensuring that 67 percent of all new passenger cars and trucks produced within nine years will be electric. This is state coercion. It is undemocratic. We are not governed; we are managed.
I left a comment-tweet on Harsanyi's yesterday:
This WIRED headline is Orwellian: You'll have more options because the government is forcing you to have fewer options. And ("thanks") you'll be grateful. https://t.co/ocqYVmpVzZ— Paul Sand (@punsalad) April 12, 2023
This got more likes and retweets than I've ever had before. (It's roughly equivalent to my item here yesterday.) My endorphins were spiking.
Veronique de Rugy claims The Fed Has More Than a 'Credibility' Problem.
I have heard some people say that the Federal Reserve has a credibility problem. The agency missed the biggest inflation spike since the 1980s, was slow to start rolling back pandemic policies and failed to spot the risks that some banks, such as Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), were facing. Instead of instilling confidence and stability, the Fed's policy communication has at times been so unclear and confused that it has only served to exacerbate market volatility.
Credibility is a big enough problem, but unfortunately the Fed's issues go beyond that. The Fed as an institution, along with its policies, seem to be a main source of the economic instability America faces. In fact, David Stockman, Budget Director under President Ronald Reagan, calls the Fed "an SDI" — a Systematically Dangerous Institution.
Back in my USENET days, I was chastised for criticizing the Fed, because it was brought into being because the previous US banking system "didn't work". Wish I'd had Vero around to quote back then.
Reason's recent "debate issue" featured a back-and-forth on a number of propositions. But none more important than this one between Jason Russell and Peter Suderman: Cats Are More Libertarian Than Dogs. Jason takes Pro:
Cats don't take orders from anyone.
True! But Suderman:
To imagine that cats are more libertarian than dogs is to commit a fundamental error by assigning libertarian values to an animal's generalized character and behavior. It may well be true that cats are more independent-minded than dogs, that they follow fewer rules and orders, that they have an anarchic streak. But when determining whether cats or dogs are more libertarian creatures, the behavior of the animal on its own is irrelevant. The libertarian project is the project of human civilization and human liberty. A world with fewer anarchic cats—or even, for that matter, no cats at all—and far greater human freedom would obviously be a far more libertarian world.
I see his point too. Just to be on the safe side, I have one of each.