Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I hate NPR (part II)
Myself | 9/24/2002 | 2banana

Posted on 09/24/2002 6:16:30 AM PDT by 2banana

This morning, I listen to a show on women in NYC being killed by abusive husbands/boyfriends on NPR. The show concentrated on how long it takes to get a restraining order (4 days) and that the restraining order sometimes did not stop the abuse/killing.

The solution: Enhance a database that can pick out men that are more prone to commit these acts so they can be singled out (Orwellian).

Not once did they mention that maybe the abused women could defend themselves (like with a gun). Of course, in the gun control utopia of NYC this would have went against the political correct world that the NPR staff live in.

Why I hate NPR (part I) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747140/posts


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
I hate NPR and I hate them even more becuase they use my tax payer money to do it.
1 posted on 09/24/2002 6:16:31 AM PDT by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2banana
How about more surveillance cameras. There seems to be a consensus building at FR that surveillance cameras and all kinds of compassionate 'authorities' are what the victims of abuse, such as men, women, children and the elderly, would need to be safe.
2 posted on 09/24/2002 6:27:25 AM PDT by A Vast RightWing Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Yip, NPR sucks. One liberal PC story/spin news after the other. They rank 1# in PC BS reporting among all. Listening to them can drive you crazy.
3 posted on 09/24/2002 6:28:26 AM PDT by demlosers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
The solution: Enhance a database that can pick out men that are more prone to commit these acts so they can be singled out

WHAT?? That is profiling !!!

4 posted on 09/24/2002 6:32:43 AM PDT by alley cat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alley cat
True. However, it is politically correct to profile males, especially white males.
5 posted on 09/24/2002 6:40:29 AM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: All
Once (about fifteen years ago) I had a restraining order. When I called the police to report the guy was hanging out in front of my house I was told that technically nothing could be done until he crossed the threshhold of my doorway and was in my house.

My advice to an abused man or woman. Inform the authorities for legal documentation. Keep a personal journal of the harrassment. Take self defense and/or buy a gun and use them with lethal force when your "threshold has been crossed".
6 posted on 09/24/2002 6:41:42 AM PDT by Cynderbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A Vast RightWing Conspirator
There seems to be a consensus building at FR that surveillance cameras and all kinds of compassionate 'authorities' are what the victims of abuse, such as men, women, children and the elderly, would need to be safe.

Such cameras seldom prevent abuse. They do frequently make it easier to catch and jail the abuser. Which is a great comfort to the dead abusee.

7 posted on 09/24/2002 6:41:53 AM PDT by Restorer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: 2banana
Yesterday, Senior Political Fossil Daniel "He Ain't Dead Yet" Schorr said that that German bureaucrat who compared Bush to Hitler "might have gone too far."

Ol' Bonehead Danny Schorr is the primary reason I despise NPR.

9 posted on 09/24/2002 6:49:12 AM PDT by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
The solution: Enhance a database that can pick out men that are more prone to commit these acts so they can be singled out (Orwellian).

Okay, who offered this solution? A little more background please.

10 posted on 09/24/2002 6:49:32 AM PDT by dpa5923
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
I heard this story. My immediate problem with the story is it had an accusatory tone toward the police, as though they deliberately ignored domestic abuse issues. Haven't they ever heard of allocation of resources? Last time I checked, there were several orders of magnitude more of OTHER kinds of crime, such as violent robbery, rape, shootings, etc., which ALSO need attention, and are easy to predict, because you know exactly where they are happening, just like any other crime in progress (as opposed to crime that 'might' happen).

I know what it's like to be stalked, and I wish police would enforce restraining orders when they are violated (I know this all too well, and I'm a man). But asking police to predict abusers in advance is just another way of giving up personal control to another government agency. It's not the government's fault that you chose a bad boyfriend. The police are not personal bodyguards.

Give these women guns. Even the playing field. The alternative solution just enforces a victim mentality, which empowers abusers.

11 posted on 09/24/2002 6:50:41 AM PDT by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: dpa5923
The police!
13 posted on 09/24/2002 7:05:05 AM PDT by 2banana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
I heard that story too.

I noted particularly the little detail they slipped in right at the beginning: that the woman in question had been in the abusive relationship at the age of 17, when she already had a two-year-old child. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

They explained how the police were losing a valuable opportunity to collect data when they were called to intervene in domestic violence incidents by not getting information such as (a) is this the first instance of abuse involving this perpetrator and (b) was alcohol involved (why not other drugs?). Two things occurred to me: won't virtually every woman say that the boyfriend/husband has repeatedly abused her, and isn't this an awful lot like profiling?

I also heard Bob Edwards engage in a colloqy with a correspondant from the UK in which he (Edwards) asked a question and got an answer that made absolutely no sense; it was just as if the "correspondant" read the wrong scripted answer to the scripted question.

Bob Edwards has been doing Morning Edition for a long time (at least 20 years). I think he is losing it. That's one of the problems for "non-commercial" NPR, that is so beautifully insulated from those nasty competitive pressures and the testosterone production they often engender. There is simply no way to get rid of deadwood, and a Bob Edwards or a Daniel Schorr can hang on literally until they are carried out feet first.

(steely)

14 posted on 09/24/2002 7:09:44 AM PDT by Steely Tom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Ol' Bonehead Danny Schorr

The funny thing is that NPR swears they are balanced! If you ask 'em who provides the balance for the full time Danny-boy Schorr, they snort~ "we have many guest commentators."

I can't think of one *conservative* full time talent that is on the payroll of NPR. Not one.

15 posted on 09/24/2002 7:16:26 AM PDT by Drango
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Takes 4 days to get a retsraining order.

There's a 7 day waiting period to buy a handgun.

Of course, you can always dial 911 and pray.

16 posted on 09/24/2002 7:21:18 AM PDT by biggerten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TrappedInLiberalHell
...asking police to predict abusers in advance is just another way of giving up personal control to another government agency......

Give these women guns. Even the playing field. The alternative solution just enforces a victim mentality, which empowers abusers.

However, you have to be very careful nowadays how you use the term "abuse".

The victim-feminists will use the terms "Abuse" and "Abuser" whenever they are having a verbal disagreement with a man just as easily at the folks at Democratic Underground will throw out the phrase "Radical Right-Wing Group" whenever they have a political disagreement with Free Republic.

It must be made perfectly clear that "Abuse" means, "He hurt me physically". It must be made perfectly clear that "Abuse" does not mean, "He hurt the feelings of my Inner Child....So, I shot him!"

17 posted on 09/24/2002 7:22:19 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
It must be made perfectly clear that "Abuse" means, "He hurt me physically". It must be made perfectly clear that "Abuse" does not mean, "He hurt the feelings of my Inner Child....So, I shot him!"

True. Of course, it's just as easy for men to shoot women as vice versa. As long as we apply a uniform standard for abuse, then guns are a great equalizer. Of course, on average, women would have to hit men harder than men hit women, in order to meet the standard of 'life-threatening'.

18 posted on 09/24/2002 7:25:01 AM PDT by TrappedInLiberalHell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
Anyone can own a press, nowadays--you probably have a printer attached to the computer you're using to read this message. The internet, indeed, is the poor man's soap box, with global reach. This is really the practical realization of the First Amendment ideal--we-the-people assaying to transcend our individual ignorance, inexperience, and folly by pooling our individual knowledge, insight, and wisdom. But the seperation of the wheat from the chaff is for each of us individually to discern.

Broadcasting, and the high-speed press which is its Public-Relations progenitor, create a seperate PR universe. In that PR universe wisdom, insight, and knowledge come from the elite as an accomplished fact; we-the-people are mere consumers of the wisdom of our betters. In that universe the First Amendment right to speak morphs into the FCC-proclaimed right to be quiet and receive wisdom from on high.

The difference between the First Amendment paradigm and the Public Relations paradigm is the difference between we-the-people as decision-making adults on the one hand, and on hand "the masses" as subjects to be worked upon by PR technique.

NPR, being government owned as well as government licensed, is the purest form of big media. But although the rest of broadcasting is privately owned it is equally government-licensed. Lacking any other definition of objectivity, broadcasting takes its cue from print big media. Print big media avoids flame wars by defining objectivity as consensus. And since faddishness and demagoguey are what sells papers the easiest, big media's "objective" consensus is a continual denial of the lessons of history. Journalism is far too busy hyping its objectivity to ever focus seriously on the tendencies which inhere in its own business model.

The dirty little secret of broadcasting is that its evanescent nature makes it ill-suited to serious consideration. Even more than print journalism, broadcasting is "of the moment;" even more than print journalism it is therefore faddish and demagogic. An enduring medium such as a book or a self-archiving web site is the only tool we-the-people have to scrutinize journalism and broadcasting.

The salient comparison between commercial broadcasting and NPR is not its funding difference but the fact that both posture as being in the public interest--and though both interest people generally, neither in fact is in the interest of preserving the Constitution.


19 posted on 09/24/2002 7:29:08 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alley cat
Hehehe! What if it turns out (as likely) that male members of a certain minority group will be discovered to be more prone to committing violence, will NPR insist on "random" actions, rather than "profiling". Sounds just like "security" at airports.
20 posted on 09/24/2002 7:30:07 AM PDT by Kermit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson