The most convincing argument for US government funding of NPR has faded away over the decades since the media organization’s creation in the pre-internet and even quite limited cable television age. Nowadays, there is easy access to news and entertainment sources aplenty at the click of the mouse or remote control. There is no arguable need for Uncle Sam to provide a helping hand to a select media organization.

Fundamentally, though, the US government supporting NPR has been wrong from the beginning. Providing news and entertainment to Americans is an activity many steps removed from the few powers the US Constitution sets forward as delegated to the US government. Further, it is inconsistent with the tenor of the First Amendment for the US government that is prohibited from making any law abridging the freedom of the press to be selectively providing funding for one media organization, thus giving it a leg up on the competition.

Relevant for the Trump administration and Republicans in the US House of Representatives and Senate as well would be that NPR, since the 2016 presidential election, has placed a target on Trump’s back. Attacking Trump relentlessly has been pursued across NPR programs for the past eight years. How is it acceptable for the US government to be funding a media organization that has as part of its editorial policy the belittling and demonizing of this man who for most of this time period was either serving as president or running for president? Election interference anyone? Hopefully, some Democratic Congress members would join in condemning the unfairness of the situation even though their presidential candidates were the beneficiaries.

On April 9, longtime NPR employee Uri Berliner went public with his insights on how “an open-minded spirit no longer exists within NPR” and how instead there is a “distilled worldview of a very small segment of the U.S. population.” He also discussed how NPR engaged in “efforts to damage or topple Trump’s presidency.” If, like most Americans, you listen little or not at all to NPR, Berliner’s article, which you can read here, is a good introduction to some of the intense bias you have missed out on hearing.

To reach two trillion in savings, Musk and Trump would certainly find some spending cuts difficult. Eliminating US government support for NPR, in contrast, seems like something that should be an easy choice.

As reported Saturday by Timour Azhari and Ahmed Rasheed at Reuters, multiple sources have confirmed the reaching of an agreement between the US and Iraq governments for the withdrawal of US and “coalition” military forces from Iraq by the end of 2026. This withdrawal has been long demanded by the Iraq government. Azhari and Rasheed, though, added this caveat: “The U.S. and Iraq are also seeking to establish a new advisory relationship that could see some U.S. troops remain in Iraq after the drawdown.”

Iraq has been on the receiving end of US military subjugation efforts, aided by “coalition” governments, for decades. In 1991, the US military invaded Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. Though US military ground forces then withdrew from the country, US sanctions and bombings of the country brought continued death and destruction for about twelve years. Come 2003, The US military invaded Iraq again, this time overthrowing the national government and establishing an ongoing military presence that has varied in its size and the extent of its actions over the ensuing years.

Though there was much alarming talk from US government officials and people in media, at no time in this over thirty years of US military action against and occupation of Iraq did the Iraq government or the people of Iraq pose a threat to America and Americans. The US military actions against Iraq were about conquest and domination, not defense.

Hopefully, the US troops will vacate their military installations and leave Iraq. And, hopefully, we will hear soon about the same course being followed in other countries as well.

Given this situation, it is refreshing to hear from a doctor such as Peterson Pierre who brings rationality and judgement to the matter of childhood shots. This is a big contrast to doctors who just declare that parents should fall in line with keeping their children in compliance with the schedule.

In an episode earlier this month of Pierre’s thoughtful Daily Dose series concerning medical matters, Pierre offered a take different from what many parents will hear from their children’s doctors about shots on the childhood vaccine schedule. After addressing some of the overhyped benefits and overlooked risks of shots, Pierre urges parents to refrain from “blindly following” their pediatricians’ recommendations regarding shots. Watch the episode here:

Pierre in this episode and others of his show serves as an example of a doctor who thinks critically about medical issues and offers independent analysis focused on advancing good health instead of just reciting government and pharmaceutical companies’ pronouncements. Pierre’s short episodes dealing with a variety of medical topics give viewers a starting place for investigation, and probably leave many of them wishing that he were their or their children’s doctor.