770 Comments
User's avatar
SimulationCommander's avatar

Maybe I'm biased here, but what if we just fired everybody who works at NPR and replace them with reporters thrown out of polite society during covid? Surely Democrats would be happy to save the station, right?

Expand full comment
Don Reed's avatar

07/16/25: The most original thought of the month, thank you. Goodbye, NPR! (That's what I voted for)... it wasn't nice knowing you; more specifically, what you turned into:

A deranged political lynch mob, with your 1930s Stalin show trials and unabashed looting of the federal treasury to line your pockets and fund NGOs, in concert with Soros, USAID, and countless other corrupt federal rackets. Do not rest in peace. Proceed directly to Hell. And stay there.

Expand full comment
Paul Harper's avatar

With respect, the close is a bit strong, but I take your point - these folks destroyed what was for many a great part of American culture.

Expand full comment
Don Reed's avatar

07/16/25: Thank you, Paul.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

And do not collect $200.00.

Expand full comment
Don Reed's avatar

07/17/25: Because Hillary Clinton already palmed it off the bar.

Expand full comment
TheUnderToad's avatar

Not like that, they wouldn't. With the daddy-issues, "smallpox in Indian blankets" crowd, the CPB/NPR machine wouldn't be acceptable in any form where they wouldn't have complete and total editorial control.

Imagine Matt Taibbi bringing actual unbiased stories to the desk of Katherine Maher for editorial approval. 🙄

Expand full comment
James Schwartz's avatar

You know any? Lol

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

I can think of a dozen or so right here on Substack -- and that's assuming Matt doesn't want the job!

Expand full comment
James Schwartz's avatar

It was a joke buddy. Of course here on Substack we can find them but the way things run over there they would never be hired and if they were the lefties would lose their shit over it. Better to just cut their funding and be done with it. I’d also go a step further for future administrations and if they ever receive govt funding again they need oversight and restructure which they’d never concede to

Expand full comment
Garsco's avatar

Taxpayers don’t need to be funding NPR / CPB in the first place. Let ‘em sell some advertising.

Expand full comment
Moe Strausberg's avatar

Thank you Simulation Commander,

I don't know where the thread disappeared . I assume the gremlins made off with it or some other useful idiot but thanks for the classic Moe comment.

Expand full comment
micheal's avatar

More likely they agree to cutting broadcast funding if the money is instead spent on imprisoning the reporters thrown out of polite society. The every dollar in propaganda reduction paired with a dollar in gulag spending fiscal policy.

Expand full comment
Moe Strausberg's avatar

Thank you Commander,

I am much more biased. I am 77 years old, senile demented , almost blind and spectrum disordered and stoned out of my gourd and the first time I spoke up in class and was not the class deaf mute was when I could not tolerate the cultural misunderstanding of Orwell. At 77 I am just beginning to understand why Orwell is so misunderstood by fans of virtual reality. Life is not a game for people like myself. I am a brilliant game player but life is all about luck. If I can draw an analogy it is like watching your opponent throw double sixes twice in a row when you have your rent riding an the backgammon table. I haven't got the absence of empathy to be a professional gambler. I cannot pretend to lose games to amateurs. I read SimulationCommander because of Orwell and found out you are not an Orwellian. You are a Useful Idiot.

Expand full comment
SimulationCommander's avatar

Classic Moe

Expand full comment
Indecisive decider's avatar

Moe's the kind of guy that has a poster of Fauci in a bikini, smoking a doobie, while riding a hog.

Expand full comment
Moe Strausberg's avatar

THANK YOU DECIDER,

I would would order a 16x20 if I knew where to buy one. I paid no attention to Fauci I live in Canada and don't trust the FDA , Big Fucking Pharma, or Democrats and Republicans. John Ralston Saul still lives and is the leading expert on Press Freedom not Press Gangs and oligarchies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment

I trusted JOHN SAUL on Covid along with HealthCanada, Assurance Quebec and the numbers don't lie. Montreal had Covid the same day as New York City and we couldn't kill off all my peers nearly as quickly as your ObamaCare, FDA and Big Pharma. John Saul served consecutive terms as head of PEN International in the 21st century.

https://www.pen-international.org/

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/saul-john-ralston

Saul wrote Voltaire's Bastards (The Dictatorship of Reason in the West) and dedicated it to Hannah Arendt.

I am a CANADIAN not a fucking blood thirsty Roman or Greek hedonist. I am a hewer of wood and and drawer of water.

https://crossidiomas.com/hewers-of-wood-and-drawers-of-water/

I am a DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST not a NAZTIONAL SOCIALIST like Thomas Woodrow Wilson or his namesake Ronald Iscariot Wilson Reagan. I like ROMA more than ROMANS even New Romans like Matt the useful idiot. I like Chrystia Freeland more as TRANSPORTATION MINISTER THAN Deputy PRIME MINISTER OR FOREIGN AFFAIRS and FINANCE WHERE SHE PISSED OFF YOUR FUCKING FUHRER and he signed the AUTOPACT or AutoPEN I think your Fuhrer is kind of a dull blade and full of shit but the United States of Amerika is quite an OXYMORON for a 50/50 country where TRUTH is the only thing forbidden in interpreting your constitution.

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=unite

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=religion

https://www.samueljohnson.com/tnt.html

https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.php?term=cabal

Expand full comment
Brian DeLeon's avatar

I happen to like my idiots useful.

Expand full comment
Moe Strausberg's avatar

Thank you Commander but there is no Classic Moe.;

I wake up, every day curious and go to bed even more curious. I am senile and demented but I know shit and I love writing only for the enjoyment of writing. One of the first books I ever read was Orwell's Why I Write. I was two or three years old and I still read it 75 yeaRS LATER. That is why THE ORWELL PICTURE TOOK ME IN. YOU WRITE FOR OTHERS NOT FOR YOURSELF AND YOU HAVE VERY LIMITED TALENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE ONLY VIRTUAL REALITY. VOLTAIRE CALLED IT PERCEPTION NOT bullshit. I AM A VERY POOR LIAR AND HAVE VIRTUALLY NO FUCKING CLASS AND I CALL IT shit. THANK YOU FOR A HONEST RESPONSE FROM YOUR HEART NOT YOUR HEAD.

https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/why-i-write/

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

Well, the BBB well and truly screws real professional gamblers-only 90% of losses are now tax deductible and even the absolute best only win at something like 53% max.

Expand full comment
Moe Strausberg's avatar

Thank you Stxbuck

https://archive.org/details/doubterscompanio00saul/page/n7/mode/2up

Gambling, State Run: The Doubter's Companion:A Dictionary of Aggressive Common Sense John Ralston Saul Viking Press 1994 Page 141

When governments raise money by acting as croupiers, the systems they manage are degenerative and are closer to their end than to their beginning.

.............................................................................................................................................................

The only nation to have prospered via gambling is Monaco which is not a nation. It is a corporation specializing in tax avoidance presided over by a croupier prince.

Expand full comment
Nathan Woodard's avatar

maybe walk in with a paintball gun just to keep track of all the firings? 🙂

Expand full comment
rob Wright's avatar

Great Americans come up with great action plans in time of need. Bravo.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 16
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

Right-wing people and views are illegitimate. Left-wing people and views are legitimate.

Because they said so.

Expand full comment
Anti-Hip's avatar

Hey, now! You need to learn to trust the science. Especially that provided by the social sciences. The experts have spoken.

Expand full comment
C.C. 95's avatar

"NEVER CONFUSE EDUCATION WITH INTELLIGENCE.

YOU CAN HAVE A PH.D. AND STILL BE AN IDIOT."

-Richard Feynman

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

They want you to trust them.... except that as Matt lands within striking distance of pointing out, you can't call for defunding NPR *because* it's viewpoint biased. It proves the point that it's viewpoint biased to claim that you can't defund it... if it was not biased, you could pull funding because that would be content-neutral!

Expand full comment
Ann Robinson's avatar

They can say whatever they want on their own dime. To this taxpayer, it's just one more case of wasteful spending on useless projects.

Expand full comment
TheUnderToad's avatar

Like Yossarian in Catch-22. If you seek removal from the war on grounds of insanity/Section 8, your desire for self-preservation is clearly proof that you are *not* insane, so you have to stay and fight. Or the converse: if you beg to fly missions that can clearly get you killed (which should by Army rules deem you insane), the Army would honor your request and keep you in the fight.

The Classic "Heads I win, Tails you lose."😂

Expand full comment
DemonHunter's avatar

We’ll see about that. I think the NPR 1st Amendment argument is a loser.

If there is case law on point nobody has bothered to point it out.

Expand full comment
Danno's avatar

NPR has a First Amendment right to voice any opinion that its editorial board and producers see fit. It does not have a right to eternal public funding.

Expand full comment
Savi_heretic33's avatar

Yet no one can clearly define "right wing" or "left wing."

Expand full comment
Anthony Davidson's avatar

Savi, since you find the concept of left and right confusing, here is a simple guide: The spectrum from left to right is defined by the degree of coercion. At the extreme left are those ideologues who wish to impose their will by force. They believe in their superior moral virtue and like to order other people around. Or kill them, whatever it takes. Moving from left to right you have communists, socialists, progressives (correctly identified as useful idiots by Lenin), Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and anarchists.

Expand full comment
Savi_heretic33's avatar

I'm not confused. The terms have no meaning anymore. The progressives are really authoritarians, and the Republicans are in truth liberal. I'm told I'm "right wing" because I accept the science of biology. It means nothing.

Expand full comment
JBird4049's avatar

The terms “right wing” and “left wing,” or communist, socialist, progressive, liberal, conservative, and anarchist seems to mean whatever the person saying it wants it to mean, not whatever a dictionary says.

Expand full comment
Mike's avatar

The guide I'd use is:

A. You consider yourself left-wing: Right-wing are the "bad guys", those you know you're superior to that should be forced to follow your ideas.

B. You consider yourself right-wing: Left-wing are the "bad guys", those you know you're superior to that should be forced to follow your ideas.

C. You think both terms have come to be so entirely subjective as to have no specific meaning.

:)

Expand full comment
Mike R.'s avatar

Our Republic's national conversation shouldn't be ping-ponged and controlled by two basically propagandist extremes. Both talk over the top of the truth/fact based solutions oriented human conversation We the People deserve. Hence the rise of subscription journalism. The use of tax dollars--(citizen hard work and labor)--to place political operatives inside public institutions does not serve progress. The desire for fair wages- a workable infrastructure and an educational system that educates does not make one Stalin. Love of country, patriotism and freedom from state control of person and property doesn't make one Hitler.

Isn't it time to accept that the terms left/right-what ever they meant in the past--no longer describe American political reality. Reality is an ascending totalitarianism that has already swallowed Europe and fully intends to swallow the American Republic. So called "woke"/global replacism and the NGO wielding billionaire class controlling the sterile "expert" managerial surveillance bureaucracy fronting both are a joined at the hip mutual admiration society. And--like NPR/PBS--every player in the game is doing it on your dime. Open contempt is the first step toward rationalizing open violence. People who without a flicker of conscience, violate human dignity, loot your life and willingly lie to your face do not mean you well.

We the People/the world has entered a new age. Don't be fooled by the grift. The American Republic, the Constitution and the free citizen are the only engines of survival.Depart the psyop and live.

Expand full comment
Tom Mittnacht's avatar

I grew up in rural Wisconsin in the 50s and 60s. Never heard the term "left wing" or "right wing" until I went to Italy as an exchange student. Even during the Civil rights protests and Vietnam the terms weren't used. I remember feeling relieved that we had not imported that divisive old world terminology to the U.S. Now, as an old man, I begin to despair for my country.

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

Of course we can. But some people deliberately do it wrong for selfish reasons.

Expand full comment
Savi_heretic33's avatar

Go ahead and define them then.

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

Support for (and opposition to) property rights, respectively.

Everything else is downstream from that.

Expand full comment
Outis's avatar

The trick question in the pop quiz is what was the historical basis for the terminology.

Spoiler alert: it's from the seating arrangement of the representatives in the French Assembly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Left

Expand full comment
Kelly Green's avatar

Merely show me the chicken, and I shall perform the feat.

Expand full comment
Kent Clizbe's avatar

Most people have some gut feeling about "right vs left."

But, for the last 50 years or so, the paradigm of "Left" vs. "Right" in the USA is meaningless. The only dichotomy that makes sense is PC-Progressive vs Normal American.

Considering social/economic/political beliefs, what might be considered "Left" or "Right" beliefs switch back and forth constantly (in slow motion, but constantly). Lots of examples of this.

Mis-labeling, and the consequent misunderstanding, of opponents is self-defeating.

The paradigm that best fits the two opposing factions in American life is: Normal vs. Politically Correct Progressive (PC-Prog).

Normals have a wide-range of political/social/economic beliefs and stances. Politically, they are unlikely to be Democrats (see below), but might have beliefs associated with the 20th century Democrat party. They are likely to be Republican, Independent, or Libertarian.

The PC-Prog belief system, on the other hand, is simple and monolithic. Even though they never lay it out in bullet points, analysts have, for your convenience.

PC Progs believe America is a:

1. Racist,

2. Sexist,

3. Homophobic,

4. Capitalist,

5. Imperialist,

6. Xenophobic...

...hellhole.

With the Action Corollary:

"And it must be changed."

https://kentclizbe.substack.com/p/politically-correct-progressive-belief

Expand full comment
Savi_heretic33's avatar

The terms have no meaning anymore. Progressives are in truth authoritarians; taking rights away and demanding speech control. And Republicans are like old fashioned liberals, supporting personal choice and personal freedom in most cases.

Expand full comment
Christopher Gaskins's avatar

RE: "The only dichotomy that makes sense is PC-Progressive vs Normal American." While I agree with your belief that political labels have lost their meaning, I disagree with your binary conclusion. IMO, the only meaningful political division is constitutionalist (i.e., individual freedm) versus neoMarxist (i.e. collectivist, and including Islamist).

Expand full comment
Kent Clizbe's avatar

"...the only meaningful political division is constitutionalist (i.e., individual freedm) versus neoMarxist (i.e. collectivist, and including Islamist)."

Sorry, those divisions don't reflect reality.

"neoMarxist": The Democrat party is full of capitalists, businessmen, entrepreneurs. Calling them "Marxists" (neo or old) totally ignores that fact.

"Islamist": So, how about actual Catholic Marxists? Or Jewish communes (kibbutzes)? Or Christians actually living Christianity's dictates to impoverish yourself for the poor? Or Buddhists monks living an ascetic life in a commune?

Politically Correct Progressivism (PC-Prog) encompasses all the factions that now conglomerate in the Democrat party, plus other factions. The factor that ties them all together is their hatred for Normal America (see the 6 bullet points of their belief system above).

Normal Americans encompass a range of beliefs, religions, and approaches to life. Normals can disagree on politics and economy, but don't hate America.

Once you understand this dichotomy, observation and analysis of American political life makes sense.

Expand full comment
John Duffner's avatar

And every time, it only becomes culture war when the right notices and reacts to the left's crazy actions.

Expand full comment
Paul Harper's avatar

Easy to forget just how bad rural religious and political radio was during the post WWII years. That survived into the internet age - recall that Obama was a secret Muslim terrorist was a real meme in 2008 right-wing circles such as Free Republic and V-Dare.

What we didn't expect (or want) in 2016 was that the NYT, NPR, and PBS front pages would blast TRUMP is PUTIN's PUPPET - nonstop right up to today. The NYT curated comments section confirmed America's "best-educated readers" TM turned out to be indistinguishable from the most hate-filled lunatics of the Free Republic and V-Dare. Same today - folks here have read the recent polls that many/most Dems still believe Russia elected Trump in 2016.

Persistently characterizing people who disagree with "us" as racist, ignorant, incurious, demented and worse comes at a price - and I should know because I spent too much of my "adult" life doing exactly that - bundling people I didn't know into groups.

I love PBS as it was, not like - LOVE, still do. Matt chronicles the demise of PBS and NPR in his own inimitable and illuminating style.

I've noted here and there that I reached out to young dunces like Lisa Desjardins begging her and her ilk to get out of the way of the oncoming train and start treating the half of America that elected the president with some level of respect. Her replies - perfect Alice E. Newman - What? Me Worry?

Expand full comment
Tricia's avatar

Work in a university for any length of time and you will see that the “educated” aren’t all that.

Expand full comment
C.C. 95's avatar

"Never confuse education with intelligence. You can have a PhD and still be an idiot."

-Richard Feynman

Expand full comment
Bull Hubbard's avatar

Who or what is "TM"?

Expand full comment
Don Reed's avatar

07/16/25: Meanwhile, in the real world, "learn to code" now belongs in the same rhetorical graveyard as the century-old scolding, "Get a horse!" AI is now writing its own code and humans of all political parties are being replaced by electronic impulses.

Expand full comment
cottonkid's avatar

And where does, "learn to plumb(er)" belong?

Expand full comment
Don Reed's avatar

07/16/15: Depends on how AI handles a straight flush.

Expand full comment
trembo slice's avatar

It will have more staying power. So glad to see developers predictably our of work so quickly by AI - learn to code was so smug…

Yeah asshole… it’s real hard to go to GitHub and copy paste other ppl’s code. Your lack of foresight that AI would quickly replace human developers (one of the first industries) feels like justice. Learn to plumb!

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

State-run media is a Soviet relic unfit for the free world.

Being made to fund speech is the same as compelled speech, and compelled speech is as much a free speech violation as censorship. Taxpayer-funded media (and schools) should all be tossed as First Amendment violations.

Expand full comment
Allison Brennan's avatar

agree 100%. Congress cannot establish religion, so why can they establish (i.e. fund) so-called public radio? Do you know if it was ever challenged?

Expand full comment
DMC's avatar

earlier in life i was a regional sales manager in the midwest often driving to remote location. NPR was the one thing you could count on. It had its bias but it did not get in the way, just a sometimes annoying feature you took in stride.

No better example of how liberalism was destroyed from within,

Expand full comment
Allison Brennan's avatar

I was never an NPR listener, but I grew up on Sesame Street and I think the Electric Company in the 70s. My grandma loved some of the PBS programming. I think my issue is, as a fiscal conservative as well as big first amendment advocate, that government shouldn't find media. Funding emergency radio channels (as someone else mentioned in the comments) is completely different because that's for public safety. But we can have that without paying for any media -- I don't want government funding television shows, radio shows, news shows, no matter if they are liberal, conservative, or neutral. But I agree -- if NPR didn't go off the deep woke end, there wouldn't be the groundswell of support to defund public broadcasting. (In the same way that if Biden didn't let in millions of illegal aliens, Trump wouldn't have the support for mass deportations.)

Expand full comment
DMC's avatar

Ha I was about 8 when "educational television" kicked in and always made fun of the kids sitting inside watching TV under their Mom's approving glance while I was outside doing kid stuff.

However, to my point, they did fill a need in underserved communities and there was a lot of quality stuff. Car Talk was go to for this non-gearhead and i like Market Place. But i stopped listening around 200 and never went back.

Good riddance

Expand full comment
Allison Brennan's avatar

Don't get me wrong, I'm Gen-X and I spent more time outside than I did in front of the TV! And we didn't have cable or a VCR, so I only had maybe 10 channels total. But I do remember Sesame Street. It used to be cute. Now it's just woke, and then when they pushed vaccines on the kids? Ugh. But I honestly haven't seen it since I was young. I never let my kids watch it.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

We used to let our daughter watch it, but the cuts were too sudden for her. She liked Bert & Ernie, but the segments were so short, she'd just sit there saying, "Where's Bert & Ernie?" over & over, and we'd finally shut it off.

Eh, she did better being read to.

Expand full comment
DMC's avatar

yeah - my kids never watched and I did not push it.

But I probably have some explaining to do about what I did let them watch!! lol

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

Thanks to Car Talk, I know when to suspect motor mounts.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

"that government shouldn't find media".

Given the present "tribalism" found in most every media outlet, it would be great to see a truly balanced, unbiased and fair media source. In theory, The Market could provide this, but it's doubtful given 1) how infatuated many have become with their own echo, 2) how closed-minded many have become to opposing viewpoints, and 3) advertising dollars. Also in theory, the gov't could be a source for fairness and balance, in a similar vein to CSPAN. I can support gov't funded media, PROVIDED it is truly unbiased and has people like Matt who provide content, and moreover, supervision!

My BIG issue with NPR is the absence of real opposing viewpoints. I stopped listening years ago when I realized they were stacking the deck as badly as commercial outlets. What made it worse to my eyes is they were pretending to be otherwise.

Expand full comment
Allison Brennan's avatar

Whoops, it should be government shouldn't FUND media. I need to proof-read!

And I remember a show (frontline?) that was a debate between different viewpoints. But I still don't think it should be funded by taxpayers. Considering that universities have billions of dollars in endowments, they could easily create programs like this and have students run cameras, write, make-up, produce, etc.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

But that would not ensure balance. Universities are as bad (or worse?) than NPR. Having gov't fund it WITH legitimate oversight COULD fill a niche commercial outlets don't.

It was Firing Line, with William F. Buckley. It presented sober, rational, balanced, INFORMED debate. Can't conceive of PBS airing this now!!

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

Did you look at that linked statement by Katherine Maher? "Pretending to be otherwise" indeed.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

Ichabod Crane: "Villainy wears many masks, none so dangerous as the mask of virtue"

Love your tag line: "Look at the message, not the messenger". Sadly, the messenger has become a convenient excuse to ignore "inconvenient" messages!

Expand full comment
Ralph's avatar

Back when people could disagree over politics without screaming "Nazi" and "baby-killer", NPR was the quirky hippie who might be wrong but probably meant well. The overstressed Mexican accent of Maria Hina*JO*sa's name, the smell of patchouli oil from the speakers, some pretentious poetry by a Schoolchild of Color.

Now it's basically "kill the Boer, from the river to sea White Guilt Rules Everything Around Me!"

Expand full comment
DMC's avatar
Jul 16Edited

LOL - Maria's over stressed accents were a running joke between my wife and I.

Talk about trying too hard and making a fool of yourself

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

"Schoolchild of Color". Stop! I need to get up off the floor.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

I remember when “Kill the Boer” was a unifying sentiment-everyone loved Lethal Weapon 2!!!!

Expand full comment
C.C. 95's avatar

"the smell of patchouli oil from the speakers"

Hilarious.😆

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

Ralphie,

I read your comment, again. For maybe the 10th time. You've pegged everything vomitus about NPR!

But this sentence is pure gold: "The overstressed Mexican accent of Maria Hina*JO*sa's name, the smell of patchouli oil from the speakers, some pretentious poetry by a Schoolchild of Color."

Expand full comment
BiltvonGott's avatar

My liberal spouse always has our NPR outlet tuned on the car she most uses. When I use it, it’s always a test of my conservative constitution to see how long I can endure it before my head explodes. If both PBS and NPR could be de-woked I would support its continuation but the rot and cultural/intellectual capture (like many of our bureaucratic & academic institutions) is so deeply entrenched that I conclude it must be razed to the ground. Perhaps the best, least biased pieces can be salvaged to conceive a new thing. It makes me sad.

Expand full comment
Torpedo 8's avatar

I was more than happy to replace NPR with Pop Rocks! and Classic Vinyl on SiriusXM.

Expand full comment
Zach Miller's avatar

No public schools? Well JD, that's not the dumbest thing you've ever said, but probably the dumbest thing you'll say today.

Expand full comment
Madjack's avatar

Disagree. Public school monopoly is a disaster. School vouchers and competition for students

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

Exactly.

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

State-run schools are like state-run media, except with a captive audience in its formative years. They are quite obviously a terrible, terrible thing.

That's why nothing is more important to evil people.

The evil defend their abomination in a way long-since defeated by Bastiat's famous quote. Their message: "But education is important!"

Bastiat's quote, in response: "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Expand full comment
Torpedo 8's avatar

I like the way the Left constantly confuses "government shutdown" with "societal shutdown", as the Chicken Littles scatter, waiting for impact.

I wouldn't mind if the government was shutdown 6 months of the year. I mean, we'd still have Treasury, State, Defense, and Justice. Screw the rest, totally unconsitutional.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

Curiously (and sadly), the word "Democrats" could replace "socialists" in every instance.

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

John Dewey. Enough said.

Expand full comment
Roger Kimber, MD's avatar

No, not a bad idea, particularly given the indoctrination of the teachers by the education departments of our colleges.

Expand full comment
BiltvonGott's avatar

Come to Chicago.

Expand full comment
ironwrkr's avatar

Govt schools are a failed experiment.

Expand full comment
John Reilly's avatar

In a country where the wealthy 10% own and control nearly all means of communication , and will own all all the productivity of Artificial Intelligence , what quality value will they buy for the education some or all segments of the 90 % ? Those who buy elections never get a tough interview , the way those with roles as educators do . Why do so many commentators here expect the marketplace to solve the educational values of all or most of the 90%. ?

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Did you actually just write that taxpayer-funded schools should be tossed? Did you do that on purpose, or under duress?

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

It is an obvious truth that such things are a violation of the First Amendment and always have been. This violation has been tolerated at the behest of the following counter-argument:

"But I really want them!"

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

An "obvious truth?"

this doesn't help your argument.

Expand full comment
JD Free's avatar

The argument was won by my original post. You have posted nothing whatsoever as a counterargument. Only juvenile insults.

If you're true to form, you'll continue to lack introspection in your next reply.

Expand full comment
Roger Kimber, MD's avatar

I don’t disagree.

Expand full comment
Alan Collinge's avatar

The last time I sat for an interview with NPR, I walked out of the interview. They were spewing nothing but Department of Education inspired propaganda about the student loan program.

I protested in 2016 in front of their national headquarters with a big sign that read "National Propaganda Radio". This was years before anyone protested NPR.

They don't do journalism anymore. They do elitist, stupid culture war porn and liberal propaganda.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

Wow, Alan.

I never realized what a badass you were!

Respect, dude!

Expand full comment
Alan Collinge's avatar

;-)

Expand full comment
Andrew Dolgin's avatar

I'd like no national funding of any media, period. It's clearly not going to serve the public interest and just becomes a tool of political infighting.

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

National Socialist Radio.

Expand full comment
Jesse's avatar

“ but the federal government shouldn’t be issuing Surgeon General’s warnings for its foundational ideas.”

This is the journalism I gladly pay for every month.

Expand full comment
Brian DeLeon's avatar

My favorite line:

“… a Nine Perfect Strangers retreat for high-income audiences micro-dosing on Marx and Kendi.”

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

And administering of vegetables. Ouch

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

So many great lines in every article.

Expand full comment
Andrew Dolgin's avatar

That is not journalism, it's commentary.

Expand full comment
Bardamusic's avatar

I mean if it defends slavery and exterminating Native Americans, is that really something you want to cheer? Rather than focus on the good parts of America :/

Expand full comment
An Inconvenient Truth's avatar

I don't recall it defending slavery - in fact, Jefferson WANTED to conclude it with a passage EXCORIATING it (and blaming it on the Crown), but Congress struck it out.

Expand full comment
Bardamusic's avatar

I agree it doesn’t explicitly states slavery is great. But the block by the British of US expansion stopped the spread of slave states. And the restrictions on increasing the population also reduced the import of slaves. The US revolution also blocked a path out of slavery for slaves by enrolling in the British army.

You can argue that it was a necessary part of nation building (which frankly is rather debatable), but I don’t think you can deny it had horrible principles.

Expand full comment
An Inconvenient Truth's avatar

What did? The Declaration of Independence??? I hope not, that'd be exactly the kind of Orwellian-iconoclastic bullshit Matt's talking about here.

I read Howard Zinn back in high school; see my standalone comment somewhere on here. The current rhetoric is like a ghoulish 180 of the blindly jingoistic Bush years, but it serves the same effect. I forget her name, but there used to be a cool young historian who specialized in the Colonial/Revolutionary era who sometimes showed up on "The Daily Show", and I remember enough of what she had to say to recall that we've REALLY forgotten a lot of important detail about the Revolution, why it really mattered, and why "the American Revolution was reactionary and bad" is seriously misleading. How convenient that monolithic, Zinn-esque iconoclasty has suddenly come in vogue at precisely time when our current predicament has more in common with that of the 1770s than ever (and Zinn, of course, is no longer around to complain if people misuse his works).

Expand full comment
Bardamusic's avatar

> What did? The Declaration of Independence?

Yes? 2 out of 3 are things they directly complain about and the third angered the Southern States.

> I hope not, that'd be exactly the kind of Orwellian-iconoclastic bullshit Matt's talking about here.

How is bullshit?

> Zinn-esque iconoclasty has suddenly come in vogue at precisely time when our current predicament has more in common with that of the 1770s than ever

lol. Zinn loved America though, for the right reasons. The American people’s struggle for freedom. While you and Matt seem to default to defending the US government and state power as long as the right person rules like an Emperor.

Expand full comment
An Inconvenient Truth's avatar

1. This is simply too incoherent to reply to.

2. The normal way, i.e. it's a deceptive McNarrative.

3. You are either confabulating this, OR both Matt's and my communiques with you are getting mixed up with something transmitted from a parallel universe, OR there is always the possibility you are an agent-provocateur.

Expand full comment
Sevender's avatar

If only your dad had come into a kleenex.

Expand full comment
Sevender's avatar

I deny it. You're using devices made with literal slave labor right now and couldn't be arsed to give a shit. You're just posturing. No one cares what you think about the past.

Expand full comment
michael888's avatar

Weren't the Native Americans Amalek in the context of that time?

Every society Others their bogeymen to justify immoral acts. The bad guys are always NAZIs, Russians, Muslims (and in past times Blacks and Jews). Probably a necessary part of a national or imperial psyche.

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

"Where is this coming from? Why are so many people in positions of influence in a superpower suddenly so keen on letting the air out of the national tires?"

I know I've said it multiple times here, but in the wake of the 2016 Peasants' Rebellions (Trump plus Brexit, then the rise of Marine Le Pen and of Germany's Afd), the entire Western liberal class (meaning just about everyone in culture, education, business and politics not explicitly conservative) has converted en masse to the Social Justice faith. And this means first and foremost positing a globalist humanitarianism and using this fictional standard as a way to batter the nation-state and its supporters. (Left v Right has been supplanted by Globalist v Nationalist).

The Social Justice faith means interrogating everyone and everything about whether it "can ever live up to its high ideals” (without of course acknowledging that no one ever has minus a few saints here and there) and dousing every aspect of our shared world with Left academia's special blend of nihilistic critique, where everyone not in their church/cult takes his/her turn in the pillory to be denounced for crimes against the marginalized and the egalitarian future all the Good People support (even our own Matt Taibbi has taken his turn). And as the nation-state and its supporters are the main enemies of the Social Justice faith (the nation being another artificial and oppressive "construct" that needs to be deconstructed on the road to total liberation), of course the high priests who make up the NPR/NYT vanguard can only paint America in the worst possible light. It's 1619 all day every day, until we all cry uncle to end the Struggle Session and agree to hand them total power.

One other bad habit our liberal classes have picked up from Left academia (who own their brains and souls entirely) is punching America, its history and citizens with one hand while demanding to be well-compensated with the other. They simply expect all of us to be so grateful for their prophetic wisdom and moral guidance that we give them blank checks and exalted social status. Their arrogance and self-regard is limitless, which is why the closest they can ever come to introspection is (another) rephrasing of language. Our liberal clerisy are our new priests and see themselves as blessed w Papal infallibility.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

'The Social Justice faith means interrogating everyone and everything about whether it "can ever live up to its high ideals”'

Except themselves?

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

since Rousseau everyone knows that their own heart is pure, you just have to trust your feelings, which of course can never be wrong ;)

Expand full comment
Dave Light's avatar

Good comment, as always.

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

Thanks!

Expand full comment
Kathy Hix's avatar

"One other bad habit our liberal classes have picked up from Left academia (who own their brains and souls entirely) is punching America, its history and citizens with one hand while demanding to be well-compensated with the other. They simply expect all of us to be so grateful for their prophetic wisdom and moral guidance that we give them blank checks and exalted social status. "

I can think of no better description of NPR than that!

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

Underline that they expect to be well compensated for telling us all this!

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

lol thanks

Expand full comment
cottonkid's avatar

"And this means first and foremost positing a globalist humanitarianism and using this fictional standard as a way to batter the nation-state and its supporters." God damn.

The entire Western liberal class...converted en masse...in the wake of the 2016 Peasants' Rebellions...Globalist vs. Nationalist. What a clear way of interpreting the moment. But I don't know enough to judge if you are exactly right.

How would I test this idea? Is there some kind of globalist Mein Kampf that lays out the plan?

Matt and Walter were talking about something like this after that magnificent Vance speech in Munich: I believe they were speculating that the speech restrictions overseas were American made, with a Harris administration planning to import restrictions that had begun as exports. If I remember, their "speculations" were based on Matt's concrete reporting about the maze of speech moderators. One test for your idea might be inside that conversation.

Expand full comment
Clever Pseudonym's avatar

"I don't know enough to judge if you are exactly right."

Neither do I! ;)

"Is there some kind of globalist Mein Kampf that lays out the plan?"

Definitely not, I think I've probably cobbled together my thoughts from all the people I read: Matt & Walter, NS Lyons, Mary Harrington, Douglas Murray, Frank Furedi, etc plus older writers like Lasch, Hoffer, Burnham, Roger Scruton, etc.

As for speech restrictions, it is part of the strategy of the Globalist class to try to smother discourse and dissent by claiming censorship is needed for safety and to protect the "marginalized". (Their excuse for every power grab.)

The reason it failed (for now) here is because of our glorious First Amendment and because Elon bought Twitter. But they will keep trying, as there's no point having so much power if you can't use it to hobble your enemies.

Thanks!

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

'The reason it failed (for now) here is because of our glorious First Amendment and because Elon bought Twitter.'

For which I will be forever grateful to Elon, no matter what else he does. To my shame, I applauded (President!) Trump being tossed from the platform. Then Covid caused the scales to fall from my eyes.

It's worth pointing out that our First Amendment is unique in the world. Other countries claim they have free speech, but in their case, it's granted by the government.

Expand full comment
Cowgirlcontrarian's avatar

Yes, our bill of rights protecting individuals is different. They come from "natural law" and not a king or government. British law was our template but their rights were granted from the king and based on "common law". "We the People" give rights to government and not the other way around.

Expand full comment
Tom Paquelet's avatar

WEF - The World Economic Forum is/was the foundation of the new globalist enterprise. That’s the globalist Mein Kampf - in this case not quite as explicit but the results would be the same.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Whiny Elitist Fuckfaces.

Expand full comment
cottonkid's avatar

Thank you, the WEF was definitely not a part of my diet. So I looked at "The Future of the Global Liberal Order" and thought I saw balance, which quickly eroded under the weight of such articles as, "How populism is poisoning the global liberal order." It will take a minute to understand who they are and what they say, but I feel like you have sent me in the direction I was looking for. Thanks--

Expand full comment
Orenv's avatar

It would be nice if these global humanitarians used their energy to find out why there are still s-hole countries in a world we have been giving copious aid to for decades. I am all about global humanitarianism in the sense that I want the world to develop so everyone can enjoy the wealth and security we have.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

It definitely smells religious.

Good comment.

Expand full comment
Ken D.'s avatar

Recently a disgusted friend told me that Trump is bringing back "Jim Crow" style racial segregation. I asked her for some evidence and she sent me the link to this recent NPR story:

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/03/18/nx-s1-5326118/segregation-federal-contracts-far-regulation-trump

Take a look at this linked NPR article, and notice how many deceitful tricks they used to give liberals like my friend the false impression that Trump wants to return to Jim Crow.

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

I can't believe this article was ever published. For pity's sake.

Expand full comment
Ken D.'s avatar

I think the originally published version was probably even worse. But my friend and countless others now believe Trump wants racial segregation. And we helped pay for this. Good riddance us funding this crap!

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

While universities offer segregated dorms and graduation ceremonies. . .

But it's okay when they do it.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

The private universities are free to do that. I just don't want to contribute my tax dollars.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

"To be clear, all businesses — those that have government contracts and those that do not — still need to follow federal and state laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes segregated facilities illegal."

End of story?

They eventually provide some context:

"Kara Sacilotto, an attorney at the Wiley law firm in Washington, D.C., which specializes in federal contracts, speculates that the provision was flagged because it was revised under the Obama administration to include "gender identity."

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

NPR is worse than the shitty drivers on the road you have to endure while you’re listening.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

My liberal friends are similarly brainwashed. I ask them for evidence of some statement or other, and they give me NPR or the New York Times.

Expand full comment
Frak's avatar

The utter lack of respect for their own audience, who are devastated at the thought that their font of propaganda might be turned off, is... kind of really disgusting.

Expand full comment
Ken D.'s avatar

using Federal funds to promote division within the population is exactly what the government should NOT be doing. Defund pbs & npr now.

Expand full comment
Maenad's avatar

Unbelievable spin. Would signs on every establishment saying that segregation is illegal according to federal, state, and local law make them happy? Is there one on NPR’s door? Using segments of society to polish virtue credentials should be illegal, it is racist tokenism.

Expand full comment
kgasmart's avatar

Great piece.

"Where is this coming from? Why are so many people in positions of influence in a superpower suddenly so keen on letting the air out of the national tires?"

Because they believe America has been proven morally deficient for failing to live up to its foundational ideals. What they miss is that no country is perfect - except the Utopia in their pointed little heads. The American project is about struggling to realize those ideas, but the NPR crowd would tear it all down and shit on the broken bricks because, in their moral superiority, they believe America has failed - and it's therefore their duty to denigrate it at all times, lest anyone see a ray of light in their dark vision.

Expand full comment
Paul Zrimsek's avatar

It's not that Mommie Dearest doesn't love you, it's just that you're a continual disappointment to her.

Expand full comment
Kathy Hix's avatar

Mommy doesn't WANT to punish you, but you give her no choice. DO BETTER!

Expand full comment
Prof Chill's avatar

This is so, so true, and I've noticed it so, so often. They treat the US exactly the way parents who they themselves consider emotionally abusive treat their children. It's gross.

Expand full comment
Yuri Bezmenov's avatar

Pravda would be proud of NPR. CEO Katherine Maher is the quintessential AWFL PMC NPC. Full receipts of her insanity: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/commissar-npr-ceo-katherine-maher-she-her

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

PMC and NPC translations ?

AWFL could also be AWFUL with a white wine Ultra

Expand full comment
John Duffner's avatar

Professional Managerial Class

Non-Player Character (they just follow a script no matter how much it starts to conflict with reality)

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

Thanks ! PMC came to me eventually. But NPC fits the mold

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

I totally agree, Matt. NPR is soft "virtue porn" for coastal elites. Of course, CEO Maher could commit to complete objectivity and politically diverse board and management, but they won't even consider that, and most of their core audience doesn't even want that. This is a one billion dollar subsidy that the U.S. taxpayer does not have to foot. Let the fundraising campaign begin!

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

"CEO Maher could commit to complete objectivity and politically diverse board and management, but they won't even consider that"... and that is the part I find unforgivable.

Expand full comment
Tardigrade's avatar

"virtue porn"

Spot on.

Expand full comment
Sea Sentry's avatar

I listened to radio Moscow, broadcast offshore, from a farm in Chile in the 1970's. It was more objective and less strident than NPR. What does that tell you?

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

I sometimes watch Russia Today's news programs on Rumble.

I realize they have a point of view, but they do give a lot of in-depth coverage to international events.

Expand full comment
Ralph's avatar

> What does that tell you?

By the seventies, Brezhnev was pretty tired?

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

I mean, we basically got USSR 1982 under the Biden admin-a senile head of state puppetized by loyalist apparatchiks who didn’t know how to do anything but run a half-ass surveillance state and destroy the economy with inflationary handouts.

Expand full comment
Ralph's avatar

"das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce"

Expand full comment
Forheremenaremen's avatar

Every NPR segment should come with a 'SMUG' warning, which breathlessly tells the listener that only the most elite, smart, credentialed, non-humorous a-holes with a broomstick firmly up their arse will understand the tripe we are serving.

They can't go out of business soon enough.

Expand full comment
Matt330's avatar

I got tired of NPR interviewing the same kind of hacks over and over who would show off their credentials and tell me in the most insufferable voice possible how some court case or bill was going to turn out. Next week the case or bill would turn out the exact opposite of what they promised but they are going on about something else now.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

"tell me in the most insufferable voice possible" LOL!!!! But that erudite voice gives them credibility!!

Expand full comment
MG's avatar

"Thoughts for Your Thoughts" -- Park's and Rec Derry Murbles.

https://www.ign.com/videos/parks-and-recreation-pawnee-public-radio

Expand full comment
Kathy Hix's avatar

A big, quiet, arcane ball of fun

Expand full comment
Matt330's avatar

Holy crap. That skit is exactly what I am talking about.

Expand full comment
Frank A's avatar

Exactly! LOL!!

Expand full comment
Michelle Enmark, DDS's avatar

That clip is hilarious! Thanks for sharing it. SNL had a segment they ran in the past that poked fun at public radio as well. Some of those are hilarious as well, think Alec Baldwin’s guest appearance on one installment known as,“ Schweaty Balls”.

Expand full comment
Torpedo 8's avatar

Won't you sample my balls?

Expand full comment
Michelle Enmark, DDS's avatar

One of their best! So funny!

Expand full comment
Jane De Haven's avatar

The voices alone are why I stopped listening to. How a voice can be self-righteous, I don't know, but my skin crawls as soon as I hear them. Those voices have even infected the bird podcast I listen to, plus they keep reminding us how birdwatching is TOO WHITE. I just cannot.

Expand full comment
Prof Chill's avatar

It's like the boobs who read Steve Vladeck's weekly substack screed on the Supreme Court. I don't think he has ever correctly predicted the outcome of a close court decision, always thinks the leftish side will win (obviously), and then excoriates the conservatives in the majority for their idiotic reasoning. And then moves on to the next case. It's all so tiresome.

Expand full comment
Matt330's avatar

Is he that One First guy who cites almost no case law despite being a court blog?

Expand full comment
Prof Chill's avatar

Yeah. He's a law professor someplace. I mean, he cites cases and has these long, tortured explanations of why the court simply *has* to agree with his reasoning... and then the justices always, but always, rule the opposite. The guy is such a dork.

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

The all knowing tones of inflection

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

Their "experts" are always some "Associate Professor of Sub-Species Humanist Studies at Northwest Rhode Island College of the Arts"...

Expand full comment
RandomSourceAnimal's avatar

The status-insecure upper-middle class always seeks to distinguish itself over lower classes. NPR exists to explain to lily-white, professional-class listeners how everything cherished by the median white person is actually bad.

Expand full comment
Parker W's avatar

An acknowledgment of a throwaway reference to NPR is a metric used to determine if someone is fit to associate with a particular cohort of Older Liberal White Women.

Expand full comment
Rick Olivier's avatar

AWFL, just AWFL. Deplorable, even 😎

Expand full comment
John Duffner's avatar

I believe this is the reason why multiculturalism used to be the Correct View, but now participating in other cultures is verboten as cultural appropriation. Too many median whites got on board with multiculturalism so it lost its power to show that the practitioner is a Good Person.

Expand full comment
RandomSourceAnimal's avatar

Multiculturalism justified protection from the dominant culture. Once the cultural left became sufficiently institutionally powerful, multiculturalism was discarded in favor of woke orthodoxy: "when I am weaker than you ...."

Expand full comment
ptb's avatar

I have NPR (Mn Pub Radio) on in my car frequently. I don't like to listen to music in the car and hate "talk radio," so MPR is it. Some of the coverage is useful local stuff like weather and the biased reporting gives me insight into what the left is spinning on at the moment. One of the things I've noticed is that in an apparent attempt to attract more youthful listeners, the national voices are much less professional. "You know" and "like" are more prominent, lots of laughing and chattiness to make the news less newsy, women (mostly) who end every statement with "uptalk," annoying accents. Soon it will also be stylistically unlistenable.

Expand full comment
Matt Taibbi's avatar

Ah, I was going to mention all the “like, uhs” in the broadcast, clearly a conscious choice, but didn’t think it through. Good catch

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

AOCspeak

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

Does she uptalk at the end of sentences, too?

Expand full comment
Graham Baird's avatar

The verbal tic I really hate is “right?” At the end of a long controversial monologue. “So, the American project is a big failure, right? And we have to rip the first, second, fourth and sixth amendments entirely out of the constitution, right?” Uh…what?

Expand full comment
Shaun's avatar

Exactly: "NOT fucking right, RIGHT?"

Expand full comment
Parker W's avatar

Uptalk and vocal fry. 🪓🪓🪓

Elocution lessons used to be de rigueur if one wanted a career in broadcasting.

Expand full comment
Running Burning Man's avatar

I'm seriously bothered by uptalk. I may become psycho if I hear much more of it. I thought it was something akin to "Valley Girl" speak. That it would disappear. But no, it seems to have taken over.

Expand full comment
James Kannas's avatar

I used to really enjoy Frontline. I considered them above the fray and willing to dig into a story and present it “as it is”. Then, the relationship with Pro Publica began and Frontline became another leftist narrative. They completely “crashed” The News Hours. MacNeil and Lehrer at least attempted to be straight with the news. Now… Amanpour and Alcindor… are you kidding me? Lastly, David Brooks is no Paul Gigot, and Paul Gigot was hardly the voice of strident conservatives.

Expand full comment
RSgva's avatar

Yes. Brooks just wants to be liked and invited to fancy parties.

Expand full comment
RSL's avatar

And the vocal fry

Expand full comment
Alex K.'s avatar

Why don‘t you listen to podcasts instead? Podcasts are where all the interesting stuff are right now. I now rather listen to fiction podcasts over watching TV. Many more original and creative stories than formulaic crap or woke crap. There are those too but i can ignore those and find alternatives. For non-fiction talk shows, your choices are endless. I'm sure you can find tons whatever your interests.

Expand full comment
ptb's avatar

I do listen to podcasts all the time on walks. But most of my driving is for errands, short/city distances, and I find that paying attention to traffic makes me lose the thread. I'll listen to a podcast on a longer highway drive.

Expand full comment
Alex K.'s avatar

I know what you mean. So for shorter drives, I listen to shorter podcasts that I consider background noise, meaning ones that I don’t mind if I miss something the hosts/guests said. Here are a few you might consider checking out:

Love Letters From WWII - https://open.spotify.com/show/6JNf1lsQxyDwMWHZHv5Gy5?

Mike Carruthers: Something You Should Know - https://open.spotify.com/show/0v9reyR22LeAMLQFvPpk6c?

Inside Trader Joe’s - https://open.spotify.com/show/6eNqCVggsQKIQzuyqvrRP2?

Aaron Mahnke’s Cabinet of Curiosities - https://open.spotify.com/show/34RuD4w8IVNm49Ge9qzjwT?

Also check out Blocked and Reported. Jesse Singal annoys me sometimes but the topics they cover are about woke shenanigans and nonsense that can be amusing and I don’t care if I miss part of what they’re talking about.

Expand full comment
ptb's avatar

Thanks!

Expand full comment
Mrs. McFarland's avatar

So long overdue.. and of course, if PBS or NPR was the least bit “ right leaning” , Democrats would have scrubbed it instantly.

Expand full comment
JB's avatar

Incredible that the NPR people and their ilk never realized that their actions have made them significantly less popular than Donald Trump.

Expand full comment
Mrs. McFarland's avatar

And there is their haughty hubris…

Expand full comment