Presidential Profiles the Media is Hiding from You

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, there are more than 2 people running for US President.
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-and-romney-not-only-ones-running.html




Yeah, I know, our media act as if Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are the only ones running for president.



But there's more.




Here are the 3 lesser known candidates that I am familiar with




1) Jill Stein ( Green Party)

The Green Party is more left-wing than the Democratic Party.

http://www.jillstein.org/

On foreign policy, Stein and the Green Party are angry that Obama has been to slow to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan. They are disappointed that Obama has kept Guantanamo, military tribunals, warrantless spying and drone warfare all in tact.


On domestic issues, they feel that Obama's health care doesn't do enough to insure all Americans. In fact, they feel that his health plan is a more about propping up private insurance companies than about helping the poor. Instead, they want the government to totally take over the health care system.



In pretty much everything, Jill Stein and the Green Party believe in MORE entitlements than Obama is willing to offer.  Those entitlements range from tuition-free college education and a dramatically increased  minimum wage. Stein also promises to halt all evictions and foreclosures.



Whereas Obama bragged about increased fossil fuel production, Stein wants to dramatically halt all fossil fuel production in an effort to transition to renewable energy.


Whereas Obama bailed out the big banks, Stein is totally against that.


Also, whereas Obama continued the militarized anti-drug policy, Stein plans to end all that, and transition to treating drug abuse as a health problem instead of a law enforcement issue.



Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
 http://www.jillstein.org/issues



2) Virgil Goode (Consitution Party)

The Constitution Party is more right-wing than the Republican Party.

http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/

Goode and the Constitution Party feel that Romney and other mainstream Republicans are too soft on immigration.   Goode wants a militarized US-Mexico with a fence and tons of troops, just like the border between North and South Korea. 


Also, whereas Mitt Romney promised a green card to any foreign student who got their degree, Goode wants a moratorium on immigrant until unemployment has dramatically decreased.


Whereas the Republicans (Romney included) have been influenced by the neo-cons who favor a more aggressive foreign policy, Goode aligned with the paleo-cons who believe in withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan, as well as withdrawing US troops from foreign bases as well.


Goode also feels that Mitt Romney doesn't go far enough to reduce the federal budget. The Romney budget plan promises to gradually reduce the deficit over a span of decades. Goode demands an end to the federal deficit now. That means the  elimination of National Endowment for the Arts, No Child Left Behind, Pell Grants and other programs that Romney promised not to eliminate


Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/the-issues.html






3) Gary Johnson (the Libertarian Party)  

The Libertarian Party is about reducing government interference in both economics and civil liberties.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

    Whereas Republicans have promised less government interference in economics, and the Democrats have promised less government interference in civil liberties, NEITHER PARTY has even come close to keeping those promises when they have taken power  the last few decades.


  Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico is tired of all that! He tried influencing the Republican party from within, but screw it, he was being ignored.  


So, now it's on to the Libertarian Party.



 Johnson wants to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan immediately, and wants to end drone warfare in other nations as well.


 Johnson wants to end the militarized war on drug policy (which Obama promised and BROKE his promise) and wants legalization of marijuana.  


Johnson feels that Obama also broke his promise on civil liberties, especially when it comes to warantless spying, indefinite detention, and military tribunals.  


When it comes to economic issues like health care, Johnson believes that privatization works best. More competition and less regulations are what Johnson believes will make the health care industry more flexible and more costumer friendly.


Johnson believes that education should be a state issue, which he believes will make the education system more flexible and more attuned to local needs.


 Unlike the Republicans, Johnson doesn't believe in bailing out the big banks or other forms of corporate welfare.  


And for immigration, Johnson (who as I mentioned, was a governor of New Mexico), believes in making the legal immigration process a lot more easier and a lot less bureaucratic. He also believe in giving a grace period to illegal immigrants to gain work visas and to go through the legalization process.


 Obviously, there's more, which you can learn about by checking out
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues



4) Who do I support?


I mentioned the 3 lesser-known presidential candidates and their positions.

You already know about Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.


So who will I vote for ?

----------------------

I won't support Barack Obama.  He has broken plenty of promises. He promised to reduce the deficit, restore the economy in one-term, a less militarized drug policy, an end to the civil liberty violations, and  "if you like your health insurance policy, you can keep it".


Let's face it, wouldn't you want to ditch someone who broken promises over 4 years?



Yeah,yeah, yeah,  ...... 1st minority president,............1st Hawaii-born president........ ..........blah, blah, blah!



Nothing wrong with be a minority from Hawaii. After all, that describes me too!



Obama's presidency showed that race is no longer a barrier to success that it used to be. That in itself will be a great thing for racial minority children out there. Now, there's no excuse for not striving to achieve the best you can!


But it is NOT enough to just be satisfied with "yay, we got a minority  president"  After all, didn't Martin Luther King tell us to "judge someone not by the color of the skin, but by the content of their character"?


I'm not going to vote for someone with so many broken promises. I'm not going to vote for someone who mishandled the health care debate with a 2,000+ page law. I'm not going to vote for someone who still allowed for a militarized drug policy, when he promised to end it. I'm not going to vote for someone who tried to confuse the public over how his administration mishandled the Benghazi consulate incident.

--------------------

I won't support Mitt Romney.  If you think Obama was a "promise breaker", Romney is a flip-flopper. He has flip-flopped his opinions on abortion, gay marriage, gun control, health care and other issues.


While all of us have changed our opinions on various issues, Romney's timing in his "opinion changes" has MORE to do with what will help him get elected.



He tried to go more liberal while running for office in Massachusetts, then more conservative while running for the Republican nomination for US President. 


Now, he is trying to be more moderate for the general election. Whereas he promoted a "tough on illegal immigration, tough on foreign policy" persona for the Republican primary, all of a sudden, now he's promising a more lenient immigration policy and a humble foreign policy.


Those are warning signs that Mitt Romney WILL "change" his political opinions AGAIN during his time as president. 



On the few issues that Romney hasn't flip-flopped (yet), Romney promises to continue a militarized war on drugs, warantless spying, and indefinite detention. All issues I disagree with.


As for foreign policy, Romney  promised a tougher foreign policy, promised more US interference in foreign affairs, and thinks Obama is "too soft" and "apologizes for America", even though Obama bombed Libya, expanded drone warfare and got Osama bin Laden killed.  


 This attitude shows that Mitt Romney is a "video game hero", which is almost the same thing as a "studio gangsta".


 At least John McCain could back up his aggressive foreign policy beliefs, since he put his life on the line for real in Vietnam.


-------------

I think Jill Stein is too far to the left and overly idealistic in her beliefs that more government interference in the economy would bring magic (ie. economic prosperity).

We're already in a deficit, the government can't be spending more than it already spends, even for "worthy causes".

And this "make the minimum wage a living wage" stuff is pure idealistic fantasy.  Raise the minimum wage from (for example) $7 to $10 WILL increase prices. Prices keep going up, and therefore a minimum wage will NEVER be a "living wage".

 
------------------

I think Virgil Goode is too far to the right.

Virgil Goode is an anti-immigration fanatic. His anti-immigration policies could only be enforced with racial profiling, warantless spying and more excessive regulations for citizens and businesses.

Also, he supports the same militarized anti-drug policy supported by Obama and Romney. This militarized drug policy could only be enforced with warantless spying, massive raids on private homes, and belligerent police profiling.

Whereas Romney flip-flops on abortion, Goode is a true anti-choice fanatic. He wants to ban abortion, which again, could only be enforced by warantless spying, and militarized tactics.

-----------


I want a president who respects civil liberties.


I want a president that defends America first, instead of having military bases in countries that can afford to defend themselves.


I want a president that believes in allowing for free, flexible markets instead of centralized planning.


I want a president that believes that states should be flexible when it comes to health, drug, and education. That means less federal interference on those issues.


I want a president that treats drug issues as a public health issue, instead of an issue to be dealt with by  militarized police actions.


I want a president who believes that federal civil rights shall expand to sexual orientation.


I want a president who will make our immigration policy easier for those who want to come legally, instead of our current mega-red-tape process we got now.


I want a president who believes in legalized abortion.


I want a president who believe in the citizen's right to own a gun.


I want a president who will lower USA's  corporate tax rates, which is higher than "socialist" Europe or "socialist" Canada.


I want a president who doesn't have a long track record of broken promises nor a long track record of flip-flopping. 


The presidential candidate who best fits all of that is Gary Johnson!

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

I'm voting for this guy!

Would I agree with every little thing that Gary Johnson does. Probably not, but based on what I've read, I'm in at least 85% agreement with him.


That's way more than I would agree with Obama, Romney, Stein or Goode.




5) "waste my vote"?

Some say voting for a lesser-known candidate is "wasting my vote"


They say "vote for a candidate who can win"



This "chose for who can win" is more appropriate for betting on the Super Bowl.




Elections are about choosing the best leader.



And the best leader  is not Obama or Romney. I refuse to endorse them, their broken promises or their flip-flopping! I would not waste a vote for those two.



I'm not going to tell you who you should vote for. Don't just take my word for it. Do your own investigations. Do your own research.  Vote for whoever you think is the best.




If you don't think Gary Johnson is the best choice, then vote for someone you think is a better choice.




But please don't tell me I'm "wasting my vote" just because I don't vote as if this was a  popularity contest.

coming soon

My blog post evaluating the lesser known presidential candidates.

And I'm endorsing one of the lesser known candidates for president.

Those familiar with my political leanings might already know.

Either way, I'll try to get that blog post up as soon as possible, hopefully by the end of the week!

32 years of living

32 years ago today, I was born!

And with every year, I have been writing a birthday blog post, talking about updates and life lessons I want to share with you all!


1) The Apartment Makeover Continues

My apartment makeover is one of my  greatest accomplishments of 2012 so far.

I have written about it earlier at

 http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/06/my-war-against-clutter.html

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/07/my-apartment-gets-make-over.html

Since, then I have gotten a new refrigerator!

The old one was leaking! But I didn't have enough to get a new one! Though I tried to rely on my pride and am striving for more self-reliance, I couldn't take the waiting anymore. I just mentioned the issue to my parents, and they got a good deal for the refrigerator.

This also means my mother won't be able to buy additional birthday or Christmas gifts. That's fine! The new refrigerator is more important than anything else I could've gotten as birthday/Christmas gifts.

----

My thing is this  .......... in the past few years, I have allowed myself to live in 2nd world conditions. I didn't replace much stuff, kept too much old stuff!


(hey: I always had basic sanitation, showers, electricity and a roof over my  head, so I'll NEVER call my past life "3rd world")



I grew up in a public housing complex (Lanakila Housing aka Puahala Homes) for the first 14 years of my life, so I was used to living in 2nd world conditions, used to living without luxuries!


I did rebel against my parents moving to the suburbs when I was a teen, and I chose to stay with my grandma back in the housing.  The hood may not be perfect, but it was home! (plus, I wanted to be near my friends. It was a teenage thing!)  


This was why I could never relate to my fellow UH classmates from upper-class areas who complained about UH facilities being a "ghetto".  Those fools never been to a real ghetto! I've lived in one!


But ever since Colt Brennan went public about the sub-standard facilities at UH, and all the publicity about sports recruits enticed by luxury facilities at other universities (especially at Oregon, Ohio State, etc), that woke me up about how I've been too accustomed to "2nd world conditions".


Now that UH has been upgrading many of its facilities, and seeing constant renovations at so many businesses,  screw it, it was time to adapt that "makeover" attitude.


I have learned to stop accepting a "2nd world" life and strive for "1st world" life.





2

) Long hair!



In 2007, I decided to grow my hair long!

my facebook page

Someone told me to get a haircut

after seeing this photo on facebook

Part of it was observing my older brothers getting bald! I'll be next, so I better grow my hair while I still can!



Part of it was being a fan of the UH Warrior football team, which was famous for their long wild hair!

Northwest Hawaii Times, photo by Steve Kajihiro

(unfortunately, new coach  Norm Chow wanted his players to have short hair! This is also the worst football season since the von Appen days. Coincidence? As one caller to a talk radio show said "the rules against long hair is ruining the team spirit!"  Take that Norm Chow!)

------------


Also, I wanted the opportunity to get my hair braided  before I lose my hair permanently.

I got it done last Friday.

my facebook page

 -------------

Of course, some employers and schools don't want their male subordinates to have long-hair. They tell us we should shave off our facial hair?   I guess they will never hire Jesus! After all, Jesus NEVER had a crew cut!

http://jesuschristsavior.net/Jesus.html

We're told he's the greatest person to ever lived,

but if you have his hairstyle, some employers wouldn't hire you?

Yeah, the so-called Christians who demand all males to have short hair and no facial hair, aren't really Christians after all!  After all, you can't have the "Christian" without Christ.




Plus, this stuff about "males shouldn't have long hair" is a bunch of sexist crap that I have ZERO tolerance for.



My attitude  is "either everyone can have long hair or nobody can have long hair" Screw the gender double standards!


----------------


In the past, I did have short hair. It was always that way in high school and during my under-grad years at UH.

my facebook page

My high school ID

 --------------

You may not see it in my recent photos, but a bald spot already appears on my scalp, and my hair is thinning.

In a few years,  the bald spot is most likely to grow.

Enjoy my hair while you still can! 

Last Day to register to vote in Hawaii

And if you are still ungrateful for the chance to vote, hear this from Charles Djou

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7918/Djou-Voting-in-Afghanistan.aspx

My service in Afghanistan taught me a number of simple truths. One of which is the importance of voting.


While in Afghanistan, I was honored to have met and worked with the local district governor in my brigade's area of operations. I recall listening to the governor, through a translator, explain to me that for over a 1,000 years power in his country was wielded by, and for the exclusive benefit of, whomever held the most weapons. Caring for families, living conditions, or children's education, was irrelevant.

The simple, but powerful concept that individuals can vote to select their government has changed that approach in Afghanistan. I did not, however, have the heart to share with the Afghan governor that in my home state, less than 40% of those people eligible to vote actually vote.

As Americans, we are blessed with amazing rights and privileges by mere virtue of living in the United States. Please take a moment this weekend to find at least one person you know and get them registered and get them to vote.

AMEN to that!

If you are eligible to vote and you don't vote, please do us a favor and start trading places with someone who lives in a real dictatorship. They would love to trade places with you!


And if you're going to whine "I don't have time to vote" then please DO NOT BE ONE OF THOSE who stand for hours in mega-long lines for Black Friday shopping!

Because, then you show what screwed up priorities you got!

UH trying to over-manage the students

As if there's not enough drama at UH!

Eariler this year, I wrote the blog post "Let them take less classes"
http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2012/07/let-them-take-less-classes.html


It was about UH officials pressuring undergrads to take 15-credits instead of just 12-credits per semester.

That blog post basically told that UH officials to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS................. your students are adults, NOT children!

While that blog concentrated on the crazy statements of Linda Johnsrud, there's another UH official named Janet Itano who should even more idiotic statements

http://honoluluweekly.com/diary/2012/09/timely-grads-2/

but Itano says students should first enroll in 15, which costs no more money than 12, and then decrease their workload if need be.

Excuse me? You want students to sign up for classes so they can drop them AFTER they start enrolling in the class?

That is STUPID ADVICE!

The students (who I shall remind you, are ADULTS) know their personal situation better than you Ms Itano!

They know if they can handle their class load and balance that with work, family and free time!

So BACK THE HELL OFF, OK!


And here's an example of Itano's screwed up priorities

“I think graduation rates and retention are all parts of the criteria that different organizations that do ranking include,” Itano says. If we increase the number of graduates on time … it would help [our ranking].”

You see, Itano cares more about RANKINGS (which are based on arbitrary criteria by outside "experts") than the actual lives of the students!

UH's priority shouldn't be about rankings (read: popularity contests for mainland "experts"), the priority should be about access to higher education for Hawaii's students. And  greater access REQUIRES flexibility!

The for-profit-colleges get that, which is why they are attracting students who require a more flexible schedule than mainstream colleges.

Ms Itano doesn't get that! And neither do the UH administration, which is already in trouble for allowing themselves to be scammed over fake concert promotions, as well as corruption over hirings and firings!

Here's a student being quoted in that article.

While this would help with the university’s funding opportunities, many students find timely graduation to be a reality for only a lucky few. With many classes being cut to save money, sometimes there are only 20 spaces available in a course required for a particular major, and some of those classes are only offered once a year. Once the class fills up, students who do not fit are forced to wait.

Here's a letter to the Honolulu Weekly which backs up my point
http://honoluluweekly.com/letters/2012/09/ease-off-uh/

The assumption that a student should complete degree requirements in four years to graduate “on time” doesn’t make sense. [“Timely Grad,” Sept. 12] Individual circumstances are so variable that the “finish in four” imposes unnecessary and artificial pressures. Some of the most successful post-secondary (private) institutions are successful because they offer the most flexibility in scheduling, breaks in acadmic programs, etc. As THE public institution of higher education, UH should do everything it can to accommodate the individual–and become more user-friendly.




Kimo via [HonoluluWeekly.com]

It's time to "clean house" at UH! Change the administration!

And take down those "graduate in 4 years" signs already!

Obama and Romney NOT THE ONLY ONES running

If you just follow the mainstream media, you might think that the only people running for US president are Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

photo from Associated Press

Not the only ones running for US President



However, there are lesser known contenders out there.




There is the Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.

http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/


----

There is the Green Party  candidate Jill Stein











http://www.jillstein.org/


--


There is the Constitutional Party candidate Virgil Goode.



















http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/


---------



The major media outlets ignore them.  They only focus on well-known, well funded candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties.


The USA has 300 million people.

There is no way in hell that all 300 million people would be in near-total agreement with either of just 2 politicians!


But that's how the media portrays our nation.


To make matters worse, yesterday's  presidential debate only had Obama and Romney.


All I learned from the debate is both of them like to interrupt the moderator a lot!


And only 2 viewpoints are highlighted in the debate.


John Nichols, a liberal writer, express an extremely good point about opening the debates to more presidential candidates.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/170312/these-debates-could-use-some-jill-stein-and-gary-johnson

The United States does not have presidential debates in any realistic sense of the word.

It holds quadrennial joint appearances by major-party candidates who have been schooled in the art of saying little of consequence in the most absurdly aggressive way. And Americans will be served a full helping this evening, as the travesty that the Commission on Presidential Debates foists on the country every four years begins its latest run.

Good starting point, but Nichols is about to make even stronger points that everyone needs to hear..

What would make the debates better?

More candidates.

In most developed nation—from Canada to Britain to France—debates are multi-candidate, multi-party affairs. It is not uncommon for five, six, even seven candidates to take the stage. Those countries do not just survive the clashes, they thrive—with higher levels of political engagement than the United States has seen in decades.

Only the most crudely authoritarian states erect the sort of barriers that the United States maintains to entry into the debates by so-called “minor-party” candidates.

and it gets even better

The fool’s argument against expanding the number of contenders is that debates involving more than the nominees of the two big parties—which, conveniently, control the access to the debates through their joint Commission on Presidential Debates—is that it would somehow confuse the electorate. As if Americans aren’t quite as sharp as the French.

Adding more candidates would not create confusion. It would add clarity
 

.

Imagine if Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein joined Obama and Romney for this year’s debates. Instead of having to listen to a pair of adult men trying to distinguish between Obamacare and Romneycare, we could hear a working physician explain why a “Medicare for All” program would be dramatically more efficient, economical and humane than what either the president or his Republican challenger has proposed.

Imagine if Libertarian Gary Johnson could respond to the predictably empty wrangling about whether America is “broke”—as opposed to suffering from broken budget priorities. Johnson would propose bringing American troops and resources home from policing the world’s trouble spots, a wholly sensible fix that would make the United States safer, richer and a more popular.

Imagine if Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode—who once talked about denying a US House seat to Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, because Ellison clutched a Koran rather than a Bible when he was sworn in—opened up a real discussion about the relationship between church and state. Instead of dancing around the issue, as they both do, Obama and Romney would be forced to get specific about how seriously they take the promise of Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation.” They might even call Goode out, sending a message that America needs to hear. from the leaders of both major parties.
 

So what are Obama and  Romney afraid of? Why won't they engage with their lesser known opponents?  Are they nervous that the side effects of their policies will get exposed? Are they afraid it will be harder to pander to certain demographics?  Are they nervous about losing voters?



And what are the major media outlets afraid of?  Are they afraid of new ideas? Are they afraid of not having enough air time (or newspaper space) to cover more than 2 candidates?  Are they afraid of having less time to cover celebrity gossip?



Are the partisan networks (ie. Fox News, MSNBC) afraid of no longer being able to just rely on the "good vs evil" narrative when it comes to Democrats and Republicans




Whatever it is, it is time to spread the word. Let the people know that there is more to this election than Obama and Romney. But more importantly, let the people know that there is more to our politics than just Democrats and Republicans.


-----------

I also wrote a blog post (also published on UH's newspaper Ka Leo O Hawaii) back in 2004 concerning the same issue.

Check it out at

 http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2004/10/back-on-ka-leo-after-so-long-my-stuff.html



Privatize PBS already

At last night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, there was a question over how to reduce the deficit. Each candidate had their own ideas of what to cut out of the federal budget.


Mitt Romney mentioned that he'll cut federal spending on PBS.


OMG, people on facebook went ballistic!


People were acting as if Romney was going to make PBS illegal!

People were acting as if Romney had hatred towards Sesame Street!


HELLO PEOPLE,  all Romney said was that PBS would no longer receive federal funding!

PBS could still receive private donations!


That's how it should be! 

Let's put it this way ---- I  may like hip-hop and rock music. I prefer those musicians get paid by their fans instead of  receiving government subsidies! 

I feel the same way about PBS! 


I have NOTHING against PBS programming! I used to watch Sesame Street, Mister Rogers Neighborhood, Reading Rainbow, Wild America and Caillou. 

But I also think those programs should be 100% privately funded!  


Governments shouldn't be running media outlets. Period. Exclamation Point!

Private organizations should be running media outlets.

I wrote a blog post about NPR (National Public Radio) a few years back. It was related to a controversy regarding one of its former journalists Juan Williams. Towards the end of that blog, I linked and posted quotes from Jeff Jacoby about why NPR (and PBS) should NOT receive government funding!

http://pablowegesend.blogspot.com/2010/12/airport-secuirty-juan-williams.html

After the whole Juan Williams controversy, some right-wing conservatives were demanding the government stop funding NPR and PBS!

NPR and PBS are already mostly privately funded, though it still accepts government subsidises!

I do believe NPR and PBS should be totally privatized, but for a totally different reason from those Conservative Correctness Crowd!

Government shouldn't be owning any TV or radio stations. Government shouldn't be in charge of any journalism organization!

Jeff Jacoby made some following great points on the issue of government funding of NPR!

http://jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby112410.php3

1. They aren't fair. Other radio stations and networks, from Air America to Clear Channel to Univision to Westwood One, must sink or swim in a competitive market. They survive only if listeners and advertisers value what they do. Uncle Sam doesn't keep them afloat with tens of millions of dollars annually in direct and indirect subsidies. If they can operate without corporate welfare, NPR can too.

2. They aren't appropriate. In a free society, especially one with a robust tradition of press freedom, the very idea of government-underwritten media should be anathema. When news organizations depend on largesse from the treasury, there is inevitably a price paid in objectivity, fairness, and journalistic independence.

3. They aren't necessary. NPR's partisans claim that public broadcasting provides valuable news and educational content that listeners can't get anywhere else. That may have been a plausible argument in 1970. It is utterly implausible today, when audio programming of every description can be found amid a vast and dizzying array of outlets: terrestrial and satellite radio, internet broadcasting, podcasts and audio downloads.

4. They aren't affordable. At a time of trillion-dollar federal deficits and a national debt of nearly $14 trillion, NPR's government subsidies cannot possibly be justified. All the more so when public broadcasting attracts a fortune in private funding, from the gifts of innumerable "listeners like you" to the $200 million bequeathed to NPR by the late Joan Kroc in 2003.

AMEN to all that!