NPR and PBS Should Be Defunded: Here’s Why: 

This article makes an argument I’ve been making for many years: The government should not be using US taxpayer dollars to support organizations and institutions that are politically biased.

NPR and PBS are the two good examples. Their news has a distinctly leftist perspective, promoting left-wing propaganda narratives on such issues as the COVID-19 virus, the effectiveness of the vaccinations, and anything to do with Donald Trump. Their editorials and opinion pieces are consistently pro-Socialist and anti-US.

All that is fine if you are the NYT or The Washington Post, but when an institution that dispenses news and opinions gets tens of millions of dollars each year from the government, it behooves it to be fair and impartial in its reporting. Neither NPR nor PBS can pass that test. On top of that – and this is particularly irksome to me – their stories about business and finance are almost always simplistic, if not naïve. And if all that were not bad enough, both stations have the worst taste in culture, literature, and the arts.

Think about this…

* NPR and PBS receive substantial government funding despite being branded as independent public media. NPR receives about $100 million annually, primarily through member stations funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). PBS indirectly receives over $400 million in federal support, mostly through the CPB and direct congressional allocations.

* The CPB is funded by taxpayers but operates with limited oversight. It distributes about 70% of its federal funds to local radio and TV stations.

* NPR and PBS are demonstrably biased. NPR employees have donated to Democratic campaigns 87 times more than to Republican ones. High-profile departures from NPR (e.g., Uri Berliner) have criticized NPR’s editorial culture as an echo-chamber for leftist journalism. A 2023 Pew survey found that 63% of Republicans distrust NPR, and nearly 50% distrust PBS, signaling a growing partisan perception of these platforms.

Source: Suzy Weiss, The Free Press, “NPR and PBS Aren’t Entitled to Your Money,” May 26, 2025

When’s the Best Time to Tip the Concierge? 
And How Generous Should You Be? 

You arrive at your hotel. It’s as nice as you expected, with friendly receptionists and a knowledgeable-looking concierge. You are glad of that because you’ll be in town for almost a week and you’ve never been in this city before.

You know from experience that an attentive concierge is worth his weight in gold. The old question pops into your head. Should you talk to him now and slip him a big tip? Or do it later, after he’s helped you with something? And when you do tip him, how much?

The traditional protocol is to give the tip either after each act of service or at the end of the stay. Another idea, which you admit came to you from some less noble part of your soul, suggests that you should tip the man now. And make it a big, unforgettable tip.

Which makes more sense?

My inclination is to give a good tip up front. When I worked as a server in various restaurants, I was poor and eager for income, and so I would have preferred to be tipped first so I could expend my courtesies accordingly. Thus, when I’m the guest, I am inclined to give a good tip (even a very good tip) initially to increase the odds that I’ll get A+ service.

On the other hand, if I give the schmuck a great tip and don’t get that A+ service, I’ll be pissed at him and doubly pissed at myself.

If I were more enlightened, I’d probably give the tip upon leaving and give an amount that is considered appropriate for that type of hotel. That way, I’d be giving the concierge a chance to treat me, and everyone else, with that A+ service, which would be better for all the hotel guests and for him doubly because it would put him in the habit of not prejudging guests as they arrive (based on how they are dressed or whatever) and giving superior service to all.

Yes, that would probably be the right thing to do in terms of the universalizing my ethics. But I don’t think I’m going to be doing that. I’m not that evolved. I’m going to stick with my instincts and give the guy a big, fat tip as soon as I come in.

Paris Is So Advanced Now… So Au Courant! 

When I was first in Paris 50 years ago, everything about the city seemed antiquated. The subway system. The public telephones. The way that banks worked. Public transportation. Even the way you bought coffee and a croissant in the morning.

Today, buying coffee is very much the same. And that feels good. But much of the rest of it – everything technical, mechanical, electrical, etc. – seems more advanced than in the States. Airport transportation is super-quick and efficient. Hotel elevators somehow know what floor your room is on and take you there automatically. Bathrooms are newer and cleaner.

I’ve seen this happen before. With cellphones in Ireland and in Nicaragua. In the US, we have all the modern technology first, but then we must spend years having our gizmos upgraded as the state of technology advances. Other countries that are not so innovated don’t seem to mind waiting a few years before they adopt our technology – so when they start using it, they are using the most advanced version, while we are a few steps behind.

Babies Acting Up in Public Places 

When I was a child, I hardly noticed them. In my self-centered teens, I found them to be weirdly amusing objects of ridicule.

In my aspirational and ambitious twenties, I saw them as extremely annoying and unnecessary distractions and saw their parents as inconsiderate and incompetent.

During my thirties, K and I had and raised three babies of our own, and all that disgruntlement and disdain vanished. I developed a blissful ability to tune out entirely to their crying and screaming and go about my work productively.

That superpower stayed with me until my mid-sixties, when I became a grandparent. Since then, I am once again aware of and even alert to the antics of toddlers and babies. And I find everything they do to be adorable – from smiling to giggling to banshee-level screaming.

This Is Crazy! 

One of the things I researched in preparation for today’s “report card” on Trump’s first 100 days was how the American public was feeling about it. I had the impression, from what I had seen till then, that his numbers were all up – especially when the questions were about his recent executive orders and his subsequent work to make them happen.

I had what I thought was good data backing up my impressions. But when I went back to Google to check the newest polls, I found all of them to be very negative. The poll makers were saying that Trump’s generally favorable numbers had crashed. It didn’t seem possible. With the deadline for this issue nearing, I decided to leave the subject out of my report.

But today, I saw this. 

Do you believe this statement – a famous quote from Oscar Wilde – is true? 

“The moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman.”

My Opinion: That is intellectual rubbish and snobbery of the most naïve kind. Shakespeare, the greatest English writer in history, was keenly devoted to pleasing the public because his life and the life of his wife and children depended on his success. And he is just one of dozens I could point to in every field of art you can name. Mozart? Picasso? Fred Astaire?

My “Books-to-Read” Wish List: Recently Added 

In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us 

By Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee
Published March 11, 2025
392 pages

In In Covid’s Wake, political scientists Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee explore how governments, influenced by China’s strict lockdowns, veered from established pandemic plans during COVID-19. They contend that these measures lacked solid evidence, disproportionately affected vulnerable groups, and that dissenting opinions were often suppressed, leading to a decline in public trust. The authors advocate for a return to open-mindedness and transparency in future policymaking.

Why It’s on My List 

Three reasons:

1. After spending four years following and writing about the COVID phenomenon/fiasco, I’m inclined to at least glance at any new books on the subject.

2. When those books offer a fresh perspective – in this case, the authors are self-described “progressives” and gay rights activists – I’m doubly curious.

3. I’ve come across some strongly positive reviews for the book. Two examples:

“A gripping, devastating read… a piece of first-class investigative journalism.” – The Guardian

“Eye-opening… persuasively and passionately details what went wrong.” – Daniel Bell, Literary Review

Breaking Bad Habits, Starting Good Ones 

So, about my conversation with “Nigel” that I mentioned in today’s “Journal”…

Here is how I phrased my question: “Nigel, I have been attempting to break a bad habit I have of going to bed too late while, at the same time, creating the habit of waking up earlier. I had been waking up at about 9:00 am every day. My resolution was to wake up at 6:00 or 6:30. Since I made that resolution two weeks ago, I’ve had 100% success rate in forming this positive habit. But I’ve had almost no success in getting to bed and to sleep earlier. That made me think that there should be a fundamental difference in habit therapy between forming positive habits and breaking bad ones. What I’d like you to do is look into the published research and see if there are theories and protocols that distinguish between the two. Also, I’m looking for good terms to use to distinguish between them.”

And this is what “Nigel” said: “You’ve astutely observed a key distinction in behavior change. Forming positive habits and breaking bad ones involves different psychological processes and strategies.”

“He” then provided the following overview of the research and terminology that elucidate that difference. (I’ve edited it to eliminate some redundant bits.)

Forming Positive Habits 

Creating a new habit typically involves:

1. Behavioral Repetition: Consistently performing the desired behavior.
2. Stable Context Cues: Linking the behavior to specific cues (e.g., time, location) to trigger the habit automatically.
3. Rewards: Ensuring the behavior is rewarding, which reinforces its repetition.

This process can take approximately 66 days, depending on the behavior’s complexity and individual differences.

Breaking Bad Habits 

Disrupting an existing habit is more complex due to its automatic nature. Strategies include:

1. Cue Disruption: Altering or removing the environmental triggers that initiate the habit.
2. Environmental Reengineering: Modifying the environment to make the bad habit more difficult and the desired behavior easier.
3. Vigilant Monitoring: Increasing awareness of the habit to consciously inhibit it.

These approaches aim to weaken the automatic response by changing the context and increasing conscious control.

To differentiate the two processes, consider the following terms: 

* Habit Formation: The process of developing new, automatic behaviors through repetition and reinforcement.
* Habit Disruption: The process of breaking existing habits by interrupting the automatic cue-behavior-reward cycle.

These terms are commonly used in psychological literature to describe the respective processes.

Application to Your Sleep Routine 

Your success in waking up earlier aligns with effective habit formation:

* Consistent Wake Time: Reinforces the new behavior through repetition.
* Morning Routine: Acts as a stable context cue.
* Positive Outcomes: Experiencing benefits (e.g., increased productivity) serves as a reward.

Conversely, difficulty in going to bed earlier may stem from entrenched habits:

* Evening Cues: Activities like screen time may trigger delayed sleep.
* Rewarding Late-Night Activities: Engaging in enjoyable tasks can reinforce staying up late.

To address this, consider:

* Identifying Triggers: Recognize activities that delay bedtime.
* Altering the Environment: Create a bedtime routine that promotes relaxation and limits stimulating activities.
* Gradual Adjustment: Incrementally shift your bedtime earlier to allow adaptation.

CNN: Still suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome!

You’d think that after being embarrassed by their eight-year activist campaign promoting the then-unverified and now completely discredited Steele Dossier/Russia Collusion story (dreamed up and paid for by the Hillary Clinton Reelection campaign), CNN would have shifted its reporting on Donald Trump towards a more balanced view.

On Monday last, I caught a rerun of the program where their star pit bull, Dana Bash, had Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on to get his “thoughts” on US/Ukraine relations following the previous Friday’s uncomfortable spat between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Here is some of what Murphy said:

“The White House has become an arm of the Kremlin… the entire pretext for that meeting yesterday was an attempt to rewrite history to sign a deal with Putin that hands Putin Ukraine….

“That is disastrous for US national security. That means that China will be on the march. Putin may not stop. America may be at war with a nuclear power….

“Donald Trump wants us to have our closest relationships with despots all around the world, because that makes it easier for him to transition America into a kleptocratic oligarchy, where Elon Musk and Donald Trump rule and steal from the American people.”

A reaction the following Monday from the WSJ that captures my response perfectly:

“Reviewing [the spat], one can certainly find fault with a number of the comments – and not just from the US side. But to suggest that the Zelensky visit was staged by the White House to hand more power to the world’s dictators and risk nuclear war in order to help Mr. Trump destroy our republic so that Elon Musk can steal money from Medicaid is sheer lunacy.

“Mr. Murphy’s unhinged rantings were not even consistent on their own mad terms. If the Trump administration really were an arm of the Kremlin, why would Putin be orchestrating this grand plot to enrich Mr. Musk instead of keeping the money for himself?

“And anyway, who wastes time designing risky criminal schemes to enrich the world’s richest man?”

No, they didn’t get the message. Since they began airing their anti-Trump conspiracy theories in 2016, CNN’s viewership has done nothing but tumble. In February, they had their lowest-rated month in a decade, with viewership at 587,00, compared to 2.6 million for Fox News and 1.2 million for MSNBC.

One has to wonder: Have they even considered the possibility that the drastic falloff might be due to an increasingly large percentage of their viewers increasingly finding their reporting on the President to be unfair and untrustworthy?

Or, worse, that their TDS actually contributed to Trump’s strong victory in November?

I guess not.

The “Best Reviewed” Film of the Year?
So, Why Hadn’t I Heard of It?

Have you heard about it?

It’s called All We Imagine as Light.

And look at what the critics have been saying:

* “Flat-out wonderful, one of the finest of the year…. It’s shockingly beautiful.” – Manohla Dargis, The New York Times (Critic’s Pick)

* “One of the year’s great movies, in any form, style, or language.” – Justin Chang, The New Yorker

* “Astonishing. An extraordinary drama.” – Glenn Whipp, Los Angeles Times

* “This is sublime work. With a deceptively light touch, Kapadia’s film is a genuine ‘city symphony’ ode to tantalizing, heartbreaking Mumbai. It casts a spell.” – Michael Phillips, Chicago Tribune

* “The surprise masterpiece of 2024.” – David Fear, Rolling Stone

Plus, it was a winner at the…

* Cannes Film Festival (Grand Prix)
* Gotham Awards (Best International Feature)
* National Society of Film Critics (Best Director and Best Non-English-Language Film)

I’m not 100% sold, but given the accolades and prizes All We Imagine as Light has already garnered, I’m going to watch it and review it next month. Meanwhile, you can watch the trailer here.

Check Out This Year’s 
Oscar-Nominated Short Films 

Besides making an effort to watch all the Best Picture Academy Award nominees each year, K and I try to find a free afternoon to watch the nominees for Best Short Films – particularly the animated movies and documentaries.

In some very anal corner of my brain, short films have an advantage over feature films: In terms of ARTS (Aesthetic Return on Time Spent), they are almost guaranteed to yield high value ratios.

If you’d like to preview some (or all) of this year’s short film nominees before Oscar night (March 2), here’s your chance. I’ve assembled them below with links to their respective trailers (and in two cases, links to the films themselves).

And if you’d like to watch them on the big screen, they are typically released en bloc to select theaters across the country beginning mid-month.

The Animated Films 

Magic Candies
Click here.

Yuck! 
Click here.

In the Shadows of the Cypress
Click here.

Beautiful Men
Click here.

Wander to Wonder
Click here.

The Documentaries 

Death by Numbers
Click here.

I Am Ready, Warden
Click here.

Incident
No trailer available, but you can watch the whole thing here.

Instruments of a Beating Heart
No trailer available, but you can watch the whole thing here.

The Only Girl in the Orchestra 
Click here.

US Health Care: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to be Director of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been a major issue of concern for not only the Democrats and their media, but also for some prominent Republicans and, shockingly, The Wall Street Journal.

The main issue, if you believe the rhetoric, is the question of whether he has the experience, expertise, and knowledge to head up this massive governmental bureaucracy.

Those who oppose his nomination argue that his bias towards healthy living and natural medicine has devolved into a belief in all sorts of unproven and scary “conspiracy theories” – most notably his contention that vaccines have been oversold to Americans by Big Pharma, that some of them (like the COVID vaccine) are ineffective, and others (like the Hepatitis B vaccine) are dangerously overprescribed to infants.

Those who favor his nomination – such as yours truly – believe that health care in the US is not operating to promote healthy outcomes for Americans, but rather to increase profits for Big Pharma (the multibillion-dollar drug companies), Big Food (the multibillion-dollar grain and sugar industry), and Big Medicine (the multibillion-dollar corporate triad of hospitals, health insurance, and legal businesses supported by lobbyists, the NIH, the CDC, and other government bureaucracies), as well as the hundreds of officials in Washington who rake in big bucks each year in political contributions from all of the above.

Think I’m spouting a conspiracy theory?

Consider where the US health care system stands in relation to the rest of the world: the good, the bad, and the ugly…

The Good 

There are three “good” things that are often cited about the American health care system:

* The World Health Organization ranks the US #1 in the world for “responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient.”

* Americans have had  more access to new cancer fighting drugs than Canadians or Europeans because of the length of their approval processes. In some cases, according to the Fraser Institute, it took Canada more than 180 days longer to green light a new cancer treatment than in the US.

* The US leads the world in new medical innovations. A 2009 study by the Cato Institute, for example, showed that American scientists won the Nobel Prize in 33 out of the previous 40 years, whereas scientists from the entire rest of the world won it in only 25. (Often it was shared between Americans and non-Americans.) Additionally, of the top 27 drugs and devices, US physicians, companies, and scientists had a hand in developing 20 of them, whereas European physicians, companies, and scientists had a hand in only 14.

The Bad 

* Health care costs in the US are enormous. The country spent $3.3 trillion on health care in 2023 – more than any other country per capita ($11,582 per person) and as a percentage of GDP (17.7%).

* Almost two-thirds of that $3.3 trillion cost – 64% – is paid for by American tax dollars, and that amount is growing. Health care taxes are higher in the US than in any other country – even those with universal health care programs.

* Inflated pharmaceutical prices are another huge factor. Americans spend an average of $858 per person on prescription drugs, about twice as much as people in Australia.

The Ugly 

If the huge cost Americans pay for their health care – through taxes, health insurance fees, and out-of-pocket costs – resulted in longer and healthier lives, it could be justified. But that is not the case. The ugly truth is that by almost every metric, Americans are less heathy than most of the world, including many developing countries!

Don’t believe me? Take a look at this:

* The US has lower life expectancy at birth, higher death rates for treatable conditions, and higher maternal and infant mortality rates than other high-income countries.

* America’s infant mortality rate is higher than that of 47 other countries, including many much less developed countries and many countries with government-run health care systems.

* Nearly 75% of Americans are overweight or obese. Nearly 40% have prediabetes. America’s rate of drug overdose deaths far exceeds that of any other wealthy country, and has jumped 50% since 2019. (More than 107,000 Americans died of a drug overdose in 2023.)

Which brings me to the question…

So… why RFK Jr.? 

I’ve been publishing newsletters on health for nearly 40 years. When I began, I would have had the same negative impression of RFK Jr. that his detractors now have. After all, it’s the only logical conclusion you could have if you get your news and information about health and medicine from the mainstream media.

Back then, I thought that any ideas I heard that were contrary to the established orthodoxy of modern medicine were baseless beliefs held by fringe religious sects or other nutty groups.

But since then, I’ve probably read 10,000 scientific studies (mostly executive summaries, to be honest), worked with dozens of doctors and scientists (with a natural health bias, to be sure), and even published a few pamphlets on health and medical falsehoods supported by special interest groups (including one I wrote about the widely held belief that sun causes skin cancer – melanoma, the one that kills).

I am now convinced that there is a reason why the US spends more money on health care than any other country in the world, and yet Americans are consistently ranked at the bottom in most of the important measures of health and wellness.

Given what I now know, I am strongly prejudiced in favor of RFK Jr.’s appointment to head up HHS for the following reasons:

* His decades-long experience litigating against Big Pharma, Big Food, and Big Medicine. In a feat of logical absurdity, some of those opposing RFK Jr.’s nomination have tried to destroy his credibility by suggesting that this experience makes his integrity questionable. Huh? The man has made his living fighting the lies and corruption of the Health Industrial Complex, not profiting from it, as his detractors – including the Dems opposing him in Congress and the major liberal and conservative media – have done.

* As an advocate for public health against Big Pharma, Big Medicine, and Big Food, RFK Jr. knows more about the deceptive marketing and PR tactics that these mega-industries have been practicing over the last several decades than 98% of our DC representatives. He also knows from personal observation the damage that these industries have caused, both in terms of the cost of health care and the terrible results.

* In the four+ decades he’s been battling the bad guys, he’s focused on what the doctors and health experts I trust believe is the elephant in the room – the indisputable fact that the major causes of sickness and death in America – obesity, heart disease, cancer, and diabetes – have nothing to do with viruses.

Let’s look at the congresspeople currently opposing RFK Jr.’s nomination. Here’s a list of the politicians who received the largest total political donations from Big Pharma last year:

Since RFK Jr. does not profit from promoting the half-truths and outright lies of the Health Industrial Complex and their stooges, as head of HHS he will be able to make policy decisions that are not dictated by ad fees or political donations.

But I think his main attribute is that, like many other Trump’s nominees, RFK Jr. is a Beltway outsider, which means that he has no loyalty to the tens of thousands of bureaucrats in DC that make their money by perpetuating our failed health care system. He won’t have any hesitation about getting rid of droves of them, which would be a huge step forward in making health care cheaper and infinitely better for all Americans.

Here he is providing his own bona fides for the job.