NPR on the Houston Unarmed Case

Go to NPR and search for "Michael Brown."  You'll find 1120 results.  Type "Darren Wilson" and you get 294 results.  Now type "Juventino Castro" (or just Juventino).

Zero results.

I wonder why?

National Pubic Radio and the Tit of the State

As I'm listening to an NPR news report about a documentary (surprise) fighting "racism and homophobia" this MavPhil post is timely.  (Oh, no.  Frank Deford is now coming on to preach talk about some lefty issue sports.)

I reproduce below the words of the Maverick Philosopher:

NPR Morning Edition Story Today

I had to go to Sherwin Williams this morning to get another gallon of paint while their 40% sale is still on (among other things, we're building another bathroom at the house we bought).  So I get back in the van and there's a story on NPR that's already begun about this lady who is a Christian, she came from a conservative, evangelical background, her dad was a pastor of a large church, etc.

"WHY is this human interest story on NPR?"  I'm thinking.  What IS the catch? Why is there a story about a white evangelical on the news this morning?

Ah.  She's bisexual.  Got it.   I kinda figured it had to be either the B or the T but the T's have been receiving a lot of press, so it's only fair to throw in some B stories too to be fair and balanced.

Of Course NPR is Liberal

It's (partly) government funded!  How many people working for NPR do you think believe that the federal government should not tax people to pay for national, public broadcasting?

*UPDATE*  I forgot to mention that NPR pairs David Brooks with liberal, E.J. Dionne, as their political commentators.  So their go-to Republican is pro-choice, insists on gay marriage, is a mild fiscal conservative, and the author of the A Moderate Manifesto. 

The Shame of PBS: Are Abortionists Serial Killers?

According to these authors, the answer is (at least), "sometimes."

Excerpt:

Speaking of the horrific slaughter of infants, and the depravity of mind necessary to tolerate it, it appears that PBS will go ahead with broadcasting fiendish propaganda designed to “humanize” late-term abortionists. [Could this broadcast be more offensive than this Slate article favorably comparing late term abortionists with brave veterans of foreign wars]. 

Now “late-term abortionist” is just a feeble, unmanly euphemism for “legally-sanctioned serial killer.” [GREAT sentence]  His wicked business consists in nothing less than this: by direct impalement, precision throttling, dismemberment, or poisoning, to snuff out the life of wholly viable, and often fully mature, infant human beings. It is an undisguised assault upon all innocence superadded to an exploitation of the vulnerable, easily-led, and desperate. Torments and agonies that we would hardly countenance for the most pitiless sociopaths, convicted of ghastly murders and rotting on death row, we suffer to be inflicted on helpless babes maturing in the womb.  

Yes, Virginia, Round Two

In the recent Virginia ruling, the text of the opinion begins with a quotation from Mildred Loving who was unjustly sentenced to a year in prison back when Virginia had a statute barring "whites" from marrying people who were "colored."  Judge Allen then goes on to make the hackneyed connection between interracial marriage and homosexual "marriage".  I don't want to spend much time hashing out all the relevant disanalogies between the two, so I will just say these two things about the matter: (a) criminalizing interracial marriages makes as much sense as criminalizing marriages between different cultures, different eye colors, etc.--that is, it makes no sense and (b) the Virginia anti-interracial marriage laws made interracial marriage a crime, it did not invalidate the marriage.  Rather, in criminalizing the act, it tacitly recognized the marriage because a "white" and a "colored" person can marry independently of state endorsement.  Marriage is a relationship that can be entered into prior to state recognition.  The Virginia law (unjustly) penalized interracial marriages.  But on the natural-law view of marriage, homosexuals cannot enter into a marriage (nor can humans and animals or humans and lampposts).  Homosexuals can love each other, they can get a legal "marriage" but they cannot marry.  There is no moral right to marriage between homosexuals because there is no pre-legal relationship, marriage, that can be entered into.  As such, Mildred's own statement about marriage, unfortunately, has flaws which Judge Allen is then able to put to rhetorical use. Comments below the fold on Mildred's statement:

Yes, Virginia, there is a Constitution

Yesterday I was listening to NPR (I think it was Diane Rehm's Friday roundup) and the talking heads were discussing the Virginia federal ruling that overturned Virginia’s ban on same sex marriage.   My interest picked up when someone quoted the judge as saying that “Our Constitution declares that "all men" are created equal. Surely this means all of us….” The NPR discussion then turned to speculations about how the Supreme Court surely won’t overturn so many Federal rulings (it would be too much overturning of overturnings I guess). 

Not a single soul, however, mentioned what I was thinking: The Constitution declares all men are created equal??  Surely she didn’t say that.  Maybe they misheard her.  Wait.  Maybe they heard correctly.  Have any of these jokers ever read the Constitution (or the Declaration of Independence for that matter)?  I wouldn't bet on it.

But sure enough, this Obama appointed Judge DID say just that in her opinion:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/edva-ssm-opinion.pdf

Pretty embarrassing coming from a federal judge (but I don't expect to hear about it in the mainstream press).  Also embarrassing for NPR that no one picked up on it.  More evidence for what I've long thought: some liberal court opinions are not bad interpretations of the Constitution; rather, they are not at all interpretations but opinions.