[Carry_Okie]

It seems this will be an all day affair...

Lucky you. I have a speaking engagement this weekend.

Business people are very creative at promoting their businesses. It's not for a "lack of creativity" that we would advertise on an NPR station, it's for customers.

It's for lack of creativity that he can't find a preferable and ethical alternative.

If they have a strong medium (whether or not I agree with their message) and a large demographic, they can expect advertisers. It's a simple rule of marketing. What they should neither expect nor receive is taxpayer funding. When that is finally pulled, they will either die on the vine or be self-supporting. When they are no longer the "voice of balance" that they claim to be now as supported by the government, they will have to answer to their listeners and advertisers. Right now, though, it's academic.

Ends don't justify means. Go read Aristotle's ETHICS and get back to me. Oh, that's right, Aristotle is academic.

For all you know this guy could support nationalized health care."

And you say I'm reaching?!

No, I'm demonstrating how little you have supporting your conclusions.

Let's look at what we know from the article and stop injecting our own values on him, shall we? He is a dentist. What do dentists do? They clean and repair teeth. For whom do they provide these services? Their clientele. How do they build their clientele? Advertising.

In case you didn't know, contributions to NPR are not advertising BY LAW. It is used as such, while still being called non-commercial. The IRS winks because PBS supports their agenda. That you would justify it because "everybody does it" is more of the twisted ethics I cited above. That it is commonplace is no excuse.

I have not reached in my assumptions, you have. You have ascribed to this man a full ideological point of view not found in the article. WHERE he chooses to advertise is based on finding customers, not ideology. If he only chose based on ideology, he would be a business idiot.

Upon which you clearly place a higher value than an ethical, moral, or political idiot.

Let's see... I can reach a large segment of the population AND I get a tax deduction... He's not the one who sounds like an idiot here. I agree with your take on the IRS but while these are the rules, he is free to use them.

Ends don't justify means. Go read Aristotle's ETHICS and get back to me. Contributions to NPR are not advertising BY LAW. (I'm repeating because your reading skills are clearly lacking.)

"You can't rationalize this by intent, because it is consequences that define accountability."

Do you know how communist you sound?

Projecting again and name-calling. Sigh, how lame. You just don't recognize integrity when you read it. By their fruits shall ye know them.

He's a business man who made a business decision.

Business decision. As if such things were isolated from ethics or politics. Nope, it depends upon politics. You would rather judge him based on a trumped up ideology you invented.

Trumped up? Oh really? In case you didn't know, contributions to NPR are not advertising BY LAW. That you would justify it because "everybody does it" is more of the twisted ethics I cited above. That it is commonplace is no excuse.

This guy is a hero. If he knew his ad would be rejected, then he set them up for a Constitutional challenge. If he's just a business man trying to make a buck in a tough market, then he's just a business man trying to make a buck in a tough market.

If that's your qualification for heroism, I feel truly sorry for you.

[clapping] I'm impressed (though not nearly as impressed with you as you seem to be).

Your sincerity is overwhelming, especially considering the performance of your "hero."

I was saying that you have impuned a good man who is either smart at marketing his business or a Constitutional Don Quixote by attributing your own biases and myopic vision to him. He deserved better.

Impugned, and I don't think he does. He deserved better from NPR. He didn't get it because he was a fool to expect it. See "realistic." Then see "waste of time." Then reconsider whether he's really such a good businessman.

Quixotic? No. Principled.

It's equally clear that you might have said the same of Messrs. Jefferson et al and been one of those who hid when the Revolution commenced. I have merely observed the MASSIVE scale of corruption in this country using political means to contort regulations or socialized risk to make a buck instead of winning in the marketplace on the merit of creative ideas and productive services. How is that communist? I did something about it because I think it worth risking a half million dollars (so far) to restore our government to its Constitutional footing, not just for me, but for my fellow citizens and my children. Call it foolish self-aggrandizement, call it anything you want; but I regard you as the fool for going along with the usual and customary use of the system and justifying it as you have. Why? Because, in the end, if you condone such behavior and act in similar vein, then you have supported it. You will have then chosen to profit by participation in the downfall of this nation's founding principles.

There are other things more valuable than that.

[pgyanke]

Sorry it took me a couple of days to get back to you... I've been traveling. This will be my last post to you on this subject as it's getting tedious. Besides, you won't look beyond the end of your nose so why should I waste time with you? I'm going to say this one more time and in one more way to help you (and any interested lurkers) understand the founding principles involved.

The problem with NPR isn't their message, like it or not. They are free to spew their bilge just as you are and, if they get an audience, they are free to sell minutes on their shows to businesses seeking their demographic. However, we know it isn't working this way. The problem with NPR is that they are funded by tax dollars. They do not have a right to have you and me fund their idiocy. Where you and I disagree the most is in this area... THEY HAVE FREE SPEECH TOO... they just don't have a right to take my money in support of their efforts. However, like all ideologues, rather than seeking to just pull their unconstitutional funding and let them compete in the marketplace of ideas, you seek to silence dissenting opinions. You asked in your post how your position sounds communist... THAT's how.

If their tax funding were pulled, they would have to be more balanced in their perspective if they intended to increase their income base. They would have to reach out to a larger audience of advertisers and listeners and would seek programming aimed at building their following. Hiding under the guise of "government approval" they are given an automatic credibility they haven't earned. Since they don't have to concern themselves with audience and advertisers in their message, they rant with a closed perspective. Like the newly proposed "liberal" radio talk show, I expect they would die on the vine in short order or remain open and bleed their constituency of funds without their government funding.

Let me a take an aside to deal with your definition of advertising. Is advertising only those means of expression officially recognized by the IRS? Of course not. When I go to a Chamber of Commerce event, play golf with clients and potential clients, give financial seminars or just stand on the street corner, I am advertising my business. Whether or not the IRS calls it advertising is immaterial... I am getting the word out on my business.

Anyone is a potential customer for my hero, the dentist. Yes, I see him as a hero. You scoffed at this but I will try to explain it better...

Scenario 1: Mr Dentist doesn't listen to NPR because he doesn't like their liberal slant. He knows, though, that they are a PUBLIC radio station. He knows a lot of people who do listen. He buys advertising (makes a contribution, in your book) to have these people hear about his business. While their mouths are numbed in his dental chair, he may take this opportunity to explain the evils of liberalism...maybe not but that doesn't matter. When NPR, a PUBLIC radio station turned down his ad on the basis of his religious message, he didn't go away quietly. He fought them on Constitutional grounds. He isn't an activist or a Constitutional lawyer, he is a dentist who is challenging this station for their bias. I call that heroism.

Scenario 2: He knows all about NPR and knows they won't accept his ad. He submits it anyway to foment the aforementioned Constitutional challenge. I call that heroism.

Scenario 3: He listens to and agrees with NPR's position on the issues. He decides to contribute to the cause. When his "buds" turn him down for his religious views, he's outraged and fights the very people with whom he has so much in common. I call that heroism.

No matter how you slice it, this dentist is a businessman who, in the course of going about his business, was challenged on his religious and patriotic expression. Rather than back down from the fight, he is taking it to NPR. I say again, he is fighting the good fight, a fight you should agree with (whether or not you think he should be in this position at all) and we Freepers should support him, not disparage his courage and "imagine" evils we know nothing about.

This isn't an attempt to say the ends justify the means in violation of Aristotle's principles. This is an attempt to explain to a closed-minded ideologue that he is attacking the wrong dog in this fight based on a narrow view more suitable to the likes of Stalin.