We sorely need that here in America.  This privately borne proposal is just one such plan, one which would provide some needed fuel for new American jobs.  Up to 96,000 by AT&T’s estimation.

Yet the FCC’s got the company by the proverbial short hairs, firmly believing that its judgment is better than those who are taking the risk and making investments needed to build out new broadband facilities for Americans.  Consequently, as one industry observer dryly noted:

“This is central planning at its most repugnant.”

Yes it is.  And, it’s got some powerful cheerleaders from the media-Marxist crowd jumping up and down with profound excitement.

Leading this pack is the holier-than-thou radicals at Free Press.

Holier-than-thou because, though they claim AT&T’s Washington money has corrupted communications policy, it is they who have raked in millions from murky “progressive” foundations – the latter actively working this past decade to corrupt and “transform” America by laundering – often from hidden / non-transparent sources – approximately $100 million to kneecap telephone, cable and media companies with new rules, regulations and costly proscriptions.

Not surprisingly, Free Press sits atop the list of “media reform” foundation grantees.

Between 2003 and 2009, Free Press received at least $15.4 million in IRS-disclosed grants from foundations, including a third of that from Schumann (almost $4.7 million), as well as grants from the Partridge Foundation ($1.5 million), OSI/FPOS ($1.26 million), Ford ($1.1 million), Park ($1.125 million), and the Sandler Foundation ($1 million).

Examples of some of these grants include:

Ford Foundation

• $100,000 in 2006 for research and content development for state and local issues

• $300,000 in 2007 to leverage knowledge about electronic media policy on the ongoing debates on media reform

• $300,000 in 2008 for general support to promote diverse and independent media ownership

• $400,000 in 2009 to support independent media ownership

Joyce Foundation

• $50,000 in 2006 to organize Future of the Media town hall meetings

Open Society Institute

• $200,000 in 2004 to help fund the National Conference on Media Reform

Park Foundation

• $250,000 in 2005 for the Campaign for the Future of Public Broadcasting

• $250,000 in 2007 for media reform work to take place in 2008

Schumann Center for Media and Democracy

• $478,000 in 2003 as a challenge grant of $600,000 to advance citizen action on media reform

• $500,000 in 2008 for general support to advance citizen action on media reform

(Source: FoundationSearch.com)

This cash has helped Free Press stay busy in Washington.  Very.  Not coincidentally, during the span of time that they and others on their side have been involved, we’ve seen the fall of bi-partisan efforts to craft communications policy – where guys like Republican Tom Bliley could reach across the aisle to Democrat Ed Markey and actually agree on telecom competition law.

Today, that’s largely gone.

Now, any policy that involves “access to knowledge” or “media reform” policy – such as Net Neutrality, or the ownership of the “pipes” by telephone, cable or wireless providers – almost reflexively divides Congress and policymakers across party lines.  This phenomenon threatens to strangle technological progress, taking us back to the inglorious past of stultifying monopoly regulation rather than confidently into the future, protected by innovation, industry best-practices and competition.

Such a state of affairs could not have occurred without the “progressive” foundation-driven echo chamber, of which Free Press plays a leading role.

Sadly, the cost of their corruption is immense.  Through their work – which has captured not just the FCC, but also the Administration and virtually the entirety of Washington’s left-leaning policy apparatus – America stands on the brink.

Through their work, private enterprise – imperfect as it is – has become a dirty word, a casus belli instead of the miracle it is in lifting billions out of poverty and squalor.

Liberty-loving individuals must fight back against these oblique forces who desire “repugnant central planning” to “right” the world of all of its “evils.”  At every chance we must ask: Who are these foundations; how are they funded; and why does anyone call them “public interest” advocates when it appears through any rational analysis that they are hellbent on undermining capitalism and the American way?

Here’s the equation: Soros’ Open Society Institute gave $3.5 million from 2007-2009 to the Tides Center.  In that same period, Tides gave $26,000 to Adbusters, the group that proclaims to have initiated the Wall Street occupation.

Sure, Soros has been said to be sympathetic to the “cause,” but is he orchestrating the demonstrations?  Probably not.  At least not in a coordinated, marching-order sense.

However, there are some interesting connections.

In the media reform space, which I follow closely, Soros and Tides, among others, have spent over $100 million this past decade funding the efforts of radical groups like Free Press (surprisingly, sitting atop of this pyramid is not George Soros; rather, it’s the Ford Foundation, which has given over $12 million to media reform activists in the last ten years alone).

One name that stands out among the “media reformers” as they’re connected to the OWS movement is Free Press’s Tim Karr.   To be sure, there is a firm connection between Soros and Tides to Karr’s employer.  Since 2003, Free Press has received $1.26 million from Soros’ Open Society Institute; and from 2005-2007, nearly $215,000 from Tides.

Throughout the OWS occupation, Karr has been actively tweeting his support of the protestors.  From those numerous tweets, one can see his vocal criticism of how the press covers the demonstrations, ostensibly goading them to present a more “balanced” (that is, favorable) reporting of the events.  He has also urged that OWS demonstrators “Occupy the Internet,” too, presenting the next logical step as it relates to his main focus of work–Net Neutrality.  Finally, he has posted 80-plus portraits of the New York demonstrations from weeks of photography, generally portraying the assembled activists as modern-day, everyman heroes.

That seems like a lot of off-the-clock activity for Free Press’s “campaign director.”  Someone must be covering that time for his paycheck, right?

Perhaps.

Elsewhere, this video hints at Karr’s more formal engagement with OWS, wherein the moderator of the panel on which he’s speaking highlights, albeit tenuously, his work promoting the occupation (at the 40-second mark of the video).

As to Karr’s connections to Adbusters / Tides, there are many.  If you Google Tim Karr and Adbusters, you see their collaboration going back for several years through various conferences, speaking engagements, and other events.

Added to this, there is this mildly fascinating Tides connection between Karr and Liza Pike, director of New Media Mentors.  In this piece, Pike promotes OWS, giving advice to further the “cause.”  And as part of her article, she uses Karr’s portraits taken at OWS.

Interestingly, Pike’s New Media Mentors project is a Tides collaboration, and she sits on Free Press’s board.

I’m sure if I wanted to I could fund numerous other connections between Soros and the groups he funds to the OWS events.  But as to an overall Soros coordination of the OWS demonstrations or a smoking gun?  That remains to be seen.

So, what does all this mean?

It is evident that some Soros money has helped, if indirectly, several progressive front groups exploit the “buzz” that is OWS.  But I think if these efforts were part of a plan, they’d be organized akin to what we see with Net Neutrality–i.e., virtually all of the activist groups in lockstep, shopping their cookie-cutter bullet points in an aggressively open and notorious manner to effect a clear policy objective (whatever that may be here).

That’s largely absent in this case.

Perhaps the cost of overtly siding with the decidedly anti-capitalist OWS protests is an un-American bridge too far.  In other words, for the foundations–which seek to influence policy through the funding of public interest groups, “alternative” media outlets, and academia–they see such open support as leading with one’s chin, interfering with their longer-range, boil-the-frog game plan to “transform” America.

Who knows?

What seems clear to me, though, is that in this world where reputation plays a huge part in whether ideas and their messengers find acceptance, connections matter.  Consequently, where there’s smoke there’s fire.  Yet I’ve read of no stories where Soros or Tides or the numerous other progressive funders have adequately distanced themselves from the OWS “message.”  In fact, the opposite seems more the truth.

Is OWS the Soros (and the others’) “brand”?

If so, America should boycott that “product.”  It is a cardboard sham of an offering not worth the plastic wrapping it comes in.

If not, from a branding standpoint, it might serve their interests to clear up any confusion that the connections have created, and disavow the OWS movement and whatever it stands for.

Something tells me, however, that that ain’t happenin’ any time soon.

But as these supposed media reformers actively work with community groups and state and federal agencies to oppose corporate interests on behalf of consumers, they fail to divulge their own ties to competitive corporate interests. And now, there are reports that a state commission may also have played a role in helping the competition.

As Amanda Carey has detailed at The Daily Caller, these Net Neutrality advocates have a long history of opposing these very companies, with the support of corporate competitors.

There is, and has been, a growing coalition advocating for media reform. But when the dots are all connected, what is left is far from a grassroots campaign. In reality, it’s a web of players advocating for corporate interests, coordinated by a public affairs specialist.

Within weeks of its announcement, media reform groups teamed up on a new “grassroots” initiative to fight the proposed telecom merger, complete with its very own website, NoTakeover.org.  Notice the website’s fine print?  “This site was developed with the support of Sprint.”

That’s right, Sprint.  Do you smell Astroturf?

The activity and its funding is especially notable in light of an incident that occurred earlier this week.  Politico reports that Sprint customers received an unsolicited text message notifying them of a public hearing with the California Public Utilities Commission, another entity that’s been recruited to review the proposed merger.

Some Californians were baffled to receive a text from Sprint this week reading “SprintFreeMsg: Public hearings on Proposed AT&T / T-Mobile merger July 21, 25, 27 in Culver City, San Diego, Fresno. More info at www.cpuc.ca.gov/merger” Was this a case of Sprint telling its customers to go lobby against the deal at public hearings held by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which is reviewing the acquisition?

That’s a good question.  It would certainly appear that CPUC is coordinating with Sprint.

Politico goes on to state:

It turns out the origin of the message was the state commission itself, which drafted it and asked Sprint to send it. “Doing the texts messages was one of the ways we thought would reach the exact audience we are trying to reach, but we wanted to be sure there was no cost because we realize the text is unsolicited,” said a commission spokeswoman. A Sprint spokesman said the company has received a couple of complaints about the texts. Kate Hennigan, a Sprint customer who works for the city of Los Angeles, said she received the message this morning but “didn’t care.” For its part, AT&T has got the word out about the hearings through notices in 80 newspapers in 10 languages, said a spokesman.

So, a state entity, by its own admission, has in fact coordinated with Sprint to send out the unsolicited text message – an action that violates Sprint’s own Customer Privacy Policy.  Various state and federal laws of course also prohibit cell phone providers from sending unsolicited text messages to a recipient unless there is an already established business relationship.  In this case, Sprint may be facilitating the distribution of the message, but the content actually comes from a third party, the CPUC, which in most cases likely does not have a relationship with Sprint’s customers.  Did the CPUC or Sprint break any laws with this action? Did the commission request that AT&T and T-Mobile send the same message to their customers as well, or were those companies left to rely only upon their newspaper announcements?

If this turns out to be the case, how can this commission render an unbiased judgment if they are already secretly collaborating with one side?

Ironically, many of the same media reform activists argued the stance in 2007 that “the decision of what kinds of speech a customer hears should be left to the customer and not to their wireless carrier.”  Will these so-called public interest groups condemn the actions of CPUC and Sprint?

In the days and weeks to follow, it will be interesting to see if the CPUC members who coordinated with Sprint recuse themselves from the review and decision making process.

In addition, CREDO Mobile, the progressive phone company and subsidiary of Working Assets co-founded by Drummond Pike, is a mobile virtual network operator that resells Sprint, and uses its platform to conduct a wide variety of political activism campaigns through text messaging.  CREDO lobbied the FCC just recently, urging the agency to deny AT&T / T-Mobile’s petition.

The proposed merger between AT&T and T-Mobile will have a deleterious effect on competition and consumers, and render it difficult to succeed with business models like that of CREDO Mobile, Inc.  [snip] CREDO’s customers, who rely on innovations in the wireless arena to connect them with both mobile devices and service and with sophisticated tools for charitable giving, will be hard hit.

Charitable giving?  Let’s not forget that CREDO, whose slogan is “fight the right wing with every call you make,” has long been exploiting the Tea Party to help grease the skids for this AT&T fight.

“CREDO would never give a dime to the Tea Party. When you join CREDO, you’ll join a movement dedicated to defeating right-wing radicalism.  [see "CREDO Action site]

That’s a platform for enabling political attacks, not “charitable giving.”  I’m all for fair competition, but let’s at least stop pretending that propaganda comes only from one side of the political spectrum, shall we?  Perhaps it’s time to start asking some questions of Sprint, the California Public Utilities Commission and the so-called “media reform” activists.

We’ve all heard the saying “The fox guarding the hen house,” right? It essentially means  putting someone with their own agenda in charge of making sure something contrary to their interest doesn’t happen. What’s happening at the Department of Education (DoE) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are similar stories of inappropriate interactions between bureaucrats creating policy and the appearance of partnerships with outsiders with their own agendas. It’s not the fox guarding the hen house, it’s closer to the fox designing the security system for the hen house.

Over at the DoE, they’ve been working with Wall Street short-sellers to push regulations that would all but destroy the for-profit education system. Short-sellers, who stand to make a fortune once that regulation is fully implemented and have zero expertise in education policy, have been intimately involved in the drafting “Gainful-Employment” rules that essentially mean a certain percentage of graduates have to get jobs related to their field of study in order for a for-profit institution’s students to qualify for financial aid.

Forget the fact that in this economy, state-run schools would have difficulty in meeting that criteria. Focus on the clear conflict of interest in having people who stand to personally benefit financially helping create rules to increase the chances of that happening and you begin to see why the Inspector General of the DoE opened an investigation into this.

But Education Secretary Arne Duncan is unrepentant about this and has ignored calls from both sides of the aisle to slow down this process until an investigation can be concluded. Even Senator Harkin (D-IA), who had the audacity to call one of the unqualified short-sellers as an expert witness on the subject, has shown no concern for these conflicts and continues even still to push forward, holding another hearing this week, his 5th on the subject. With the corruption charges and investigation ongoing, Republicans refused to take part, boycotting the hearing. (Free registration required)

In the case of the FCC, the issue is the oxymoronically named Net Neutrality, which is the push for regulating the Internet under the guise of keeping it free.

The Internet is the marvel that has revolutionized everyone’s lives and drives a significant portion of our economy. It allows anyone a foot in the door to what is basically the closest to a truly free market we have left in the world. Aside from the economic benefits available to anyone with something to sell on sites like eBay or Craig’s List, it’s the main source of communication and entertainment for countless Americans.

The Internet works because the companies that sell you access to it manage the traffic on it so it works for everyone. There’s only so much data that can travel through it at any given moment, so, like a traffic cop, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) manage its flow in such a way that their work is nearly impossible for users to notice. It’s done freely and is in the best interest of both the ISPs and the subscribers. But it’s done without government control, which is a problem for some.

There’s been a push for years, under the friendly sounding name Net Neutrality, for the government to essentially fire that traffic cop and mandate all traffic flow however it flows. This would be disastrous for users, but this isn’t about users, this is about control. And money.

As President Reagan famously said about the government’s view of the economy, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” There’s long been a push to tax transactions on the Internet, and that day is getting closer. Next they want to regulate it, which is Net Neutrality, and no group has been as vocal a proponent for that regulation as the ironically named Free Press.

A left-wing activist group pushing government control of nearly every aspect of media, Free Press, is was recently discovered, has been working closely with FCC officials to push Internet regulation from inside the government. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) called it “collusion,” and it very well could be.

As the FCC seeks to impose Net Neutrality over the objections of the majority of Congress, which has rejected all legislation on the subject that has ever come up for a vote, this “collusion” was discovered in time to make a difference. But if recent history is any indication, it may just be ignored and big government, pro-regulation juggernaut may just continue to roll.

But none of this gets as much attention as a Members of Congress’s, um, “member.” That’s not to say that the corruption in WeinerGate is not important, politicians betraying the public trust is always important. But also important, and also worthy of exposure, forgive the pun, is the fact that our government appears to be actively working with outside groups and individuals who stand to gain from those partnerships. Surely the media can find time to multitask and look into these charges at some point…before Americans find their educational options severely limited and are unable to easily go online to sound off about it.

If these shady dealings don’t get the wide exposure they deserve, and the investigation they require, who knows what’s next? It’s time to get the fox off the hen house planning committee before it’s too late. With the government feverishly writing regulations for their virtual take over of the nation’s health care system, the possibilities are truly frightening.

You can stalk Derek Hunter’s thoughts 140 characters at a time on Twitter by clicking here.

John Donne famously said no man is an island.  He didn’t live to see the Media Marxists and their absurd policy positions.

These Leftist alleged media “reformers” incessantly demand massive government insertion into and interference with every free market-media nook and cranny.

Insertion and interference in which almost no one else has any interest.

Save, of course, for the other forces of Big Government – Big Government being always interested in expanding its authoritarian sway.

We have noted this previously.  For instance, the Media Marxists have all along been strident proponents of Network Neutrality – a government takeover of the Internet that was and remains the kid sitting by himself in the high school cafeteria – almost no one else wanted anything to do with it.

Except, again, Big Government.  President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) joined the Media Marxists at the lonely lunch table – and unilaterally and illegally imposed Net Neutrality.

So radical and foolish is Net Neutrality that – in addition to 302 members of the then Democrat-controlled Congress and a unanimous D.C. Circuit court – a gaggle of normally pro-government groups are opposed to its imposition.

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC), the Urban League and the Sierra Club, to name but a few.

And then there were the unions.

Which are almost always Leftist, overwhelmingly pro-Democrat and were in 2008 vociferously pro-Obama – and they oppose Net Neutrality.

The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Communications Workers of America (CWA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) – all opposed.

Why?  In a word – jobs.

Net Neutrality will kill tech sector investment (and by the way, the tech sector requires huge coin to grow).

How do we know this?  Because Robert McChesney – the Godfather of the Media Marxist movement – says that’s the point:

“(T)he ultimate goal (of Net Neutrality) is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

And that investment – while it still exists – means lots and lots of jobs.

High-paying gigs that must be done here – you can’t pay someone in China or India to hardwire Chicago or Indianapolis.

Large swaths of the tech sector are unionized – so they know of which they speak.

And is why they – rightly – oppose the Media Marxist push for Net Neutrality.

—–

Which brings us to the pending AT&T/T-Mobile merger.

The Media Marxists are, once again, almost all alone in opposition to this free market deal.  In large part because – they allege – it will cost jobs.

The proposed takeover will eliminate stores, jobs, back offices and marketing spending. This is not only a loss of jobs for T-Mobile and AT&T workers, but for every business with ties to the wireless telecoms industry.

So why are the unions – always on the lookout to keep their current gigs and add new ones – not on board with the Media Marxists this go round either?

Because the merger means investment – and investment means jobs.

The Communications Workers of America (CWA) understand this.  From a CWA publication entitled “The AT&T/T-Mobile Merger – Benefits for Consumers and Workers”:

In the long term, a post-merger AT&T will be better able to retain and increase jobs than either company could do separately.

CWA President Larry Cohen, in a Hill piece entitled “AT&T and T-Mobile Merger Means Better Broadband”:

“The acquisition of T-Mobile USA by AT&T is good news for everyone who realizes that the United States needs to catch up to the rest of the world when it comes to broadband speed and buildout.  It presents a real opportunity to expand true high speed broadband in this country that otherwise wouldn’t be possible…. This no-debt deal leaves more resources for quick buildout.”

“(M)ore resources for quick buildout.”  “Expand.”  These words means jobs.

If we are placing bets on who better understands the tech sector job market – the CWA or the Media Marxists – my money ain’t on the Marxists.

Meanwhile, T-Mobile has been losing money, so Deutsche Telekom – its current owner – would thusly have little or none to invest in maintaining its wireless network, let alone building it out.

And of course, past is prologue.  So let us look at a recent wireless merger to see how it affected the tech sector job market, shall we?

Oh wait – we don’t have to, the Phoenix Center already did.

(I)n the two years preceding the (2004) AT&T-Cingular merger, wireless sector employment was in decline, falling 4.7% over the two-year interval. In contrast, sector employment rose 9.4% over the two-year period following the merger.

Oops, looks like history’s not on the Media Marxists’ side either.

So, if the federal government is truly interested in growing the private sector and creating private sector gigs – it will quickly and without concessions approve the AT&T/T-Mobile merger.

If the federal government is truly interested in growing the size, scope and sphere of influence of the federal government – it will drag the merger approval out endlessly and mercilessly.

And if it does eventually approve – will saddle the parties with pages and pages of illegal and anti-free market, intrusive and punitive coerced capitulations (a la the Comcast/NBCU merger).

I’d much prefer A.  I’m, sadly, again expecting B.

Judging by the response of House Republicans to the FCC, however, it appears that Genachowski judged wrong.

On Sunday, Speaker Boehner fired a shot across the FCC’s bow, telling a group of religious broadcasters that the FCC’s net neutrality rules demonstrate that the agency “is creeping further into the free market,” and suggesting that FCC regulation could impact freedom of speech, moving forward.

“The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades,” Boehner said in comments cited by the Washington Times.

The Speaker’s view seems to be shared by Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee, led by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.).  That panel is set to vote tomorrow on a “resolution of disapproval” of the FCC’s regulations.

Rep. Walden previously succeeded in inserting an amendment into the Continuing Resolution that would bar the FCC from using funds appropriated to it to implement net neutrality.

The FCC has remained quiet regarding such moves, though net neutrality advocates such as the hard left group Free Press have critiqued them, as well as Boehner’s comments.  Tomorrow’s House Subcommittee vote will take place at 9:30 a.m., and the resolution is expected to pass.

As one series of highly organized “grassroots” tweets trilled:

RT @jcstearns: New House budget will NOT fund #pubmedia, #netneutrality, #epa but WILL fund gov sponsorship of Nascar http://nyti.ms/eOEgNk via @aschweig

The DoD’s NASCAR recruiting and marketing campaigns – at about $15 million in all – survives, but PBS’ $430 million gets axed.  “Say, what?!!!”  That just isn’t right, Free Press’ Josh Stearns seemingly tweet-claims.

Perhaps Josh is on to something – that is, what’s right.  Putting on my class warfare hat for a moment, how is it right that the rich have had this subsidy for so long?

Many American’s have long-known PBS’ upper-crust focus.  Inside the beltway, it’s kind of a perennial joke (or thorn in one’s side, depending on your point of view).  The $430 million in annual federal funding – representing about 15% of PBS’ budget (they get most of their support from private sources) – is just one of those subsidies that the media and intellectuals endlessly admonish the rest of us to stop worrying about.  At $1.50 per American, per year, it’s a steal.  And besides, it helps kids, the disadvantaged, minorities, etc.

Yet, when you look at who’s actually watching PBS, and the shows they air, another picture emerges.  According to this document, 73% of the audience watching any given PBS show makes household income of $75,000 or more (with 37% of the audience actually making more than $125,000).  In comparison, Census Bureau statistics show median household income in America is just shy of $50,000.

Of course, if you’re wanting for a diversity of PBS / NPR programming on states’ rights, or the right to bear arms, or the constitutional conflict to our liberties presented by the new healthcare law – you’d be hard-pressed to find much of that there.  I guess that’s what Fox is for.

No matter.  For those who support public media (beyond simply tax dollars), America should just be quiet and accept the status quo – the PBS, rich-progressives-subsidy is an entitlement, even though every one of the shows being broadcast on the network sees numerous competitive options in the commercial marketplace, and PBS could thrive on its own without nursing off of Uncle Sam’s engorged teat if it had to.

I have to hand it to admitted socialist and Free Press founder, Robert McChesney.  He at least comes out in the open about public media’s elitist tilt. Said McChesney recently:

Most working class Americans don’t watch PBS or listen to NPR…It’s skewed heavily to middle and upper income [audiences].

So much for the “helping the disadvantaged” spin we hear so often from public media cheerleaders.  That’s because public media isn’t really about that.  As McChesney and his comrades propound, commercial media in America corrupts American democracy; it fails miserably to give citizens enough of the “right information” for us to properly self-govern. To solve this “crisis,” they want to supersize public media like PBS via a $35 billion federal fund for journalism.

McChesney sees the struggle in Manhattan Project-like terms, stating:

The way we should respond to the existential threat to journalism is the way we would respond if there was a military attack to our country…You fight back until you’re safe.  You put everything into it.  You don’t check the price tag…35 billion is a drop in the bucket.

It’s a war out there.  I’ll say!  Look at Wisconsin’s budget woes, and you get an idea. Free Press and their progressive followers remain petulantly incognizant of it, though, with the Soros-funded group breathlessly exclaiming after the House’s budget vote:

…[T]hese cuts have nothing to do with reining in spending, but everything to do with irresponsible Washington politics that would further decimate local news gathering and serious programming that goes beyond shouting heads and recycled talking points…

At the same time I’m reading this statement on Saturday, a tweet comes across my computer screen about public media’s top dog, NPR:

Hah. Listening to @garyvee talking to @NPRScottSimon about merlot on @NPRWeekend. “you’ve got to smell your wine more” with a “sniffy-sniff”

Did you know that instructions on how to properly smell one’s bottle of Merlot helps better inform citizens for self-governance?  Do we live in France?

Perhaps the House is getting something right for a change.