Democrats & Liberals Archives

Why

Rushian Hilarity? Maybe you find him funny Mr. Klavan, but everytime I hear the fellow, he’s putting down people like me. Am I supposed to be some sort of masochist? “Yes sir, I’m socialist, just like you say. Please, sir, may I have another?” Some people need to figure out that the gallon of vinegar won’t work any better if you add a gallon of sulfuric acid. The Right has forgotten it’s honeyed voices.

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.||

No, I actually have a couple times. He's not some genteel gentlemen occasionally prone to an outburst. When people tune into him, they are quickly disabused of any idea that he is actually different from what he's portrayed. Those soundbites? If you actually hear his program? They're the rule. You're just so used to it, you see the controversial parts as politically incorrect jokes. Or things to be agreed with. Not everybody has to make that assessment.

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

So I have to listen to him constantly, irregardless of what my reactions are to his rhetoric the first, second, and thousandth time? As a print author, I'm sure you know that an audience is a privilege, not a right. Somebody buys your book or checks it out from the library (which I have, in the interests of full disclosure.), and if they find it terrible or brilliant, that effects whether they seek out more of your work.

Why should Rush be treated any differently? I know he's the beneficiary of a long policy that's allowed his broadcaster to essentially stack the deck with conservatives just like him, so he has a pretty devoted audience that's come to see the AM Radio dial as a beacon of Democracy. But it's not most of America. regardless of how he and you would like it to be .

The problem is, your behavior has set an upper limit on your audience. Let me give you and example:

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

This is supposed to endear us to Rush Limbaugh? Or more precisely, to you, as we read your column asking us to listen to him? Do you understand that you're in the petitioner's position here, that your argument's success depends on more than just brute force browbeating?

I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today.

Now here's the question: did you, by chance, think to quote the insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise witticisms of this man you're obviously a fan of? Surely in your familiariity, you could recall something he said and pass it on to us. Otherwise, we're having to take your word for it, regarding a rather subjective matter. When there's no accounting for taste, the burden of proof is on you, mister, to provide us with the quotes, the philosophy, and other supporting information that would help us to come to your conclusion.

The mainstream media (a.k.a. the Matrix) don't want you to listen to Limbaugh because they're afraid he'll wake you up and set you free of their worldview. You don't want to listen to him because you're afraid of the same thing.

One of the reasons I began blogging is that I felt the mainstream media was not talking enough about the important facts, about events and circumstances surrounding the Iraq war. I wasn't looking for a world view. I was trying to find out the truth, the hard truth, rather than continue to marinate in my ignorance. My worldview, actually was optimistic. When I started (and you can check this site's archives to confirm this) I was optimistic, in that I thought the war could be still won, if we only broke from the policy Bush and his folks were pushing. You might suppose, as Rush likely did, that people like me were simply anti-war, but things were more complicated than that.

But one thing I felt then, and feel now is that ultimate, people's feeling are a product of their environment as much as their personal stance on things. There will be some people I can sway with a rational offering of the facts that I can't with other kinds of rhetoric. I'm not perfect in this regard, but my instinct has always been, if I'm challenge a broadly held assumption, that I'm going to need back up.

Rush Limbaugh caters to a specific audience. He know this. He loves getting them riled up. He riles you up, apparently. But what Republicans have lost, thanks to people like him, is a sense of the world beyond that talk radio echo chamber, where everybody repeats the same talking points, makes the same assumptions. It never fails to amaze me the speed with which the same arguments pop up simultaneously all over the Right Wing Media, nor how quickly I can find out the truth of the matter.

It's really sad how often I check on their talking points to find that that there are holes in them. Take this EU President folks are talking about. Republicans are cheering his anti-stimulus views, but why does he say Europe doesn't need so much stimulus?

"The welfare states of Europe act as 'automatic stabilisers', sustaining consumer spending even in a slump," he wrote.

"This means that Europe does not need such a large fiscal stimulus compared with the US, which does not have such a system of social support."

This the problem with pundits like Rush, who pass on these kinds of arguments all the time: they are quick to react, to pounce on anything to prove their points, to reinforce your worldview. But being so quick often comes at the cost of looking closer at things, of becoming blind to the contexts and the caveats that come up in real world opinions. The European powers feel comfortable letting jobs and productivity go down in the deflationary-phase economy because they've got the social safety net to keep the money flowing. Never mind what this does to their revenues or their debt load, it's what they're used to, and what they're comfortable doing. So, ironically enough, the favor of the Republican party falls upon somebody they'd consider an outright Marxist, whose message, rather than upholding the free market, smugly steps around it as it lies on the sidewalk. HIs message is that Europe doesn't need to intervene to stimulate the economy because it subsidizes it already. This is an ironic choice of hero for a party that targeted entitlements and economic safety net spending as the first things to go in Obama's stimulus bill.

The Republicans, believing they know the truth, don't go in search of it. When the truth differs from the rhetoric, the distance between the two makes the Republicans all the weaker, as an aggressive, internet savvy generation of Democrats arrives on the scene, Democrats who don't need authority figures of any kind, just good information, which they don't wait around for.

Why don't the Republicans gather their courage, and separate themselves from their warm cocoon of politically friendly media? Why do the rest of us need to join you in the warm embrace of Limbaugh? Why don't you venture out into the world of cold hard facts, and start dealing with those?

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2009 7:32 AM
Comments
Comment #279213

Wow!!!

Perhaps because they are so enmeshed in their status quo cocoon they can’t break free?

Did that idiot really say he was able to think as an individual, because he was conservative. Apparently he could not think of the definition for the word ‘conservative’. What a hack…er…ditto head.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 30, 2009 10:41 AM
Comment #279216

“Why do the rest of us need to join you in the warm embrace of Limbaugh?”

We don’t Stephen. I listened to The Limbaugh in the 80’s and on occasion today. He hasn’t changed enough to keep me listening and his message is as corrupted now as it was then. The only redeeming quality I find is it keeps the talk radio conservatives half informed and it is fun, when they spout their nonsense in my direction, to pop the balloon of misinformation with simple facts and questions. The shallowness of their knowledge is, even with my own lack of in depth knowledge, a non sequitur and what they choose to believe. I say we need The Limbaugh around if only to engage those that otherwise may not be engaged politically. He starts the conversation, foolishly and half correct most of the time, if nothing else and thereby gives one a chance to educate the misinformed. Having 2 brothers-in-law
a step son and a son-in-law who listen to him in varying degrees I give him credit in starting many a discussion at my house.

“Why don’t you venture out into the world of cold hard facts, and start dealing with those?”

Talk radio conservatives and cold hard facts in the same sentence, how funny. The answer to me is obvious, it is hard to think things out why else would anyone let The Limbaugh do their thinking for them?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2009 10:59 AM
Comment #279227

Stephen,

Why don’t the Republicans gather their courage, and separate themselves from their warm cocoon of politically friendly media? Why do the rest of us need to join you in the warm embrace of Limbaugh? Why don’t you venture out into the world of cold hard facts, and start dealing with those?

Conservatives deal with those all the time. When I bring up the facts I gather in the process without Limbaugh’s help you act like you had to run to Media Matters to find out what you thought in response. When you can make a response like this one” to my most recent article you are not addressing the issues of fundamental importance in governance. You are just doing what Rush often does, filibustering.

You act as though liberal talk radio was substantially more civilized than you claim Rush is. It is not. There is, however, a distinct difference between liberal and conservative radio. Conservative radio really does discuss something deeper than the vitriol and disdain. There are discussions of the fundamentals of institutional checks and balances to which you seem clueless. There are discussions of philosophical foundations of American governance, such as who owns me, and the specifics of why the Supreme Court’s politization has made the Judiciary into the most dangerous branch of government… and there is always input from listeners, which in conservative talk radio are people who are not parroting the party line, but often elarging on it an introducing elements to the coversation the host had not considered (though this happens less often on Rush’s very tightly controlled show).

I have NEVER EVEN ONCE heard a caller to a liberal talk show make a cogent, unexpected, point in spite of the fact I HAVE heard liberals make good points on conservative shows.

I separate myself from my warm cocoon every time I prepare an article here. It is still fun to listen to Rush.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at March 30, 2009 1:08 PM
Comment #279229

“You act as though liberal talk radio was substantially more civilized than you claim Rush is. It is not.”

For the most part I agree Lee. Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann are the exception I have found. I don’t know of any conservative talk radio personalities that are in the same league as them or for that matter have some substance to their show as opposed to the constant name calling.

“There is, however, a distinct difference between liberal and conservative radio. Conservative radio really does discuss something deeper than the vitriol and disdain.”

Can you name one or two conservative radio shows, Lee, that are above the vitriol and disdain?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2009 1:16 PM
Comment #279242

Lee Jamison-
Filibustering you? No. Your point was philosophical, regarding the nature of morality in government, and I responded in kind.

Let me give you a cold hard fact here: out of nine justices currently on the court, only two were appointed by a Democratic President. Both were put there by Clinton. Other than that, there hasn’t been a Democratic appointee in over forty years. The Federal Courts are now filled with Republican appointees in the majority.

Yet Republicans like yourself complain about its politicization- not to say that it’s too Republican, no, to say it’s too liberal. The courts are all too liberal you say.

Yet they’ve been made more Conservative, more Republican, than those courts have been in ages. What’s going on here? I’ll tell you: litmus tests. Or, put another way, what a justice decides becomes more important than how and by what law things are decided.

Or, put yet another way, you’re gauging what the courts decide by your own personal wishlists of desired decisions.

The Rule of law tells us that the opposite must be true, that rather than conform to a political agenda, justice must be blind to such wishes. Sodomy laws, if I’m not mistaken, were struck down on the grounds that nobody bothered to enforce those laws equally for both Gays and Straights. Maybe it’s not what you wanted, but if it’s a legally sound decision, your idea of what’s good and proper doesn’t enter into things. Kelo made a lot of people mad on both sides of the aisle. but was the legal reasoning wrong?

Maybe the most dangerous politicizing is the rage and hatred that Republicans are inciting against the rule of law, the casual disrespect for limitations and common principles that might bind the party, or contradict the philosophy and the agenda. Buzzwords like “Judicial Activism” and “politicization” get flung around, and the real facts of the balance of politics in that branch go uncommented on/ The question becomes whether it will all be enough until the Republicans get their way on every decision. But nobody gets that, in a functioning Democracy, where the rule of party has not superseded the rule of law.

The party has become organized around a permanent philosophical, partisan battle, and not even the worst of times does it seem like many Republicans are willing to lay down their ideological arms and simply do what they can for the country. Everything gets defined in terms of the politics.

And its how you guys lost. The cluster of failures in the Bush era were no coincidence, but neither were they intentional. They were a product of a culture that was often more intent on proving liberals wrong and protecting conservative politicians and programs from criticism or accountability, than they were on making sure things were done right, and kept right.

What do you think was happening all the time Republicans were covering for Rumsfeld, apologizing for the Bush policy?

All that added up to something in the end: the end of America’s patience with further Republican policy. But even here, the Republicans are not taking the hint, in no small part because the pundits and the politicians don’t want them to get it.

We have to get out of our partisan shells sometimes, vulnerable as that may make us, in order to see if our messages are getting through, to see if those messages are legitimate in the first place. We have to see whether or not our policies are working, doing good, because people will judge us more in the end on success and failure than they will on good intentions and principles.

If we close out the rest of the world, if we try and act as if our opinions are all that matters, if we reflexively defend people and ideas without looking at them fresh ourselves, we will build a prison both for ourselves, and our political fortunes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2009 3:47 PM
Comment #279245

Republicans, Republicans, Republicans, Rush is an a—Hole along with some of the liberal commentators. When you lump conservatives with Rush, you are disgracing conservatism and I know there are some DEMOCRATS who are conservatives so can we add them to the Republican, Republican rant of yours and associate those DEMOCRATS with Rush.

Posted by: KAP at March 30, 2009 5:40 PM
Comment #279249

you know whats really funny. when geithner was asked during the hearings where in the const. was the authority for congress to grant him all these new powers he seeks, he looked like a deer in headlights, because he didn’t have an answer. the truth is that authority doesn’t exist and he knows it. mean while we’re over here in the blue column stuck on rush and hanity, while rome burns. what a joke.

Posted by: dbs at March 30, 2009 6:32 PM
Comment #279253

>when geithner was asked during the hearings where in the const. was the authority for congress to grant him all these new powers he seeks, he looked like a deer in headlights, because he didn’t have an answer.
Posted by: dbs at March 30, 2009 06:32 PM

I watched much of that hearing, and frankly I think we watched two different ones.

Congresswoman Bachman asked Geitner what in the Constitution gave him the authority to do these things. His eyes, indeed, resembled that deer in the headlights, as he was trying to cipher what she was asking…she asked the same question again and in the same way, only this time with a bite of contempt. Geitner finally figured out what she wanted, and his answer was that he got his authority from her and her fellow law makers…that was not good enough for the Congresswoman, and she insisted that he provide a cite in the Constitution for the decisions he was making. He finally said the Constitution gave Congress the authority, and Congress gave it to him.

Which one of the two was the actual ‘deer in the headlights’?//

Posted by: Marysdude at March 30, 2009 7:23 PM
Comment #279258

dbs-
What’s funny is that Michelle Bachmann’s actually delirious enough to believe that people in Obama’s government are pushing for a worldwide currency to replace the dollar.

The FDIC has been doing controlled demolition on insolvent banks for years now. At the very least, Congress has jurisdiction on this matter because it handles credit, currency, and can regulate interstate commerce. Bachmann’s fighting a rearguard action on a battle Republicans lost decades ago.

Besides, these guys are economists, not lawyers. Should doctors speaking for the FDA be required to give the constitutional justification of their department?

You talk about fiddling while Rome burns. Well, tell me, then, would you prefer long term commitments to support dead banks with tax payer dollars, banks that won’t lend like they’re supposed to, or do you favor just going in there and cleaning them out, and selling the good stuff that’s left to a private investor?

While you discuss the constitutional merits of this measure, you’re neglecting the consequences of your party’s often self contradictory contrarianism. you guys could help speed up the process of getting this economy back up on its feet, but you’d rather have philosophical debates and pop quizes about constitutionality outside of a court of law.

This latest entry, while not the serious, probing examination of an issue the last one was, nonetheless touches on an important matter: The way Republicans have shut themselves off from seeing themselves as others see them. Unwilling to compromise, all too willing to do all it takes to win, all too willing to assign monumental important to even trivial political disputes, the Republicans are basically playing college debate team, while the rest of us try to weld together the wreckage of a financial system that they mismanaged in their philosophical excess.

The Republicans are stalling for time we don’t have.

KAP-
Republicans and conservatives have allowed people like Rush, O’Reilly, and Hannity to be the prominent faces of the movement. They’ve refused to be civil in the name of fighting off political correctness, in the name of not conforming to what they see as liberal-imposed standards of respect for others.

Most of the damage Republicans have been dealt, they dealt to themselves. There are many times when people like myself just had to report on things as they were, to get people shocked, shaking their heads at the corruption, the incompetence, and the overreach of power.

What people like Klavan fail to realize is that nobody’s entitled to high regard from others. Rush and his like have failed to earn it, and so people don’t stick around just to get the next blast in their face of his hot air.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 30, 2009 8:06 PM
Comment #279260

S.D.
If all you have to worry about is what Rush, Hannity, and O’Riely talk about and rant and rave about I feel sorry for you. I agree Republicans have made many mistakes, but in my time I have seen quite a few Democrat mistakes. S.D. when you get my age you don’t worry about the media and the bull sh__ they put out. You take politicians at what they do not what they say, because what they say is not always what they’re going to do.

Posted by: KAP at March 30, 2009 8:16 PM
Comment #279266

Stephen:

I would probably return to you with a question. Why do you give him so much power? Obama mentions him directly? WOW!!

I was so shocked at the power the Obama administration gave to Rush.

I listen from time to time, just as much as I listen to the left. I sorta listen to see who is entertaining and who is boring. The most boring talk show host? By far Sean Hannity.

It’s sort of like when on the left sit coms etc, when it was cool to tell everyone you were gay. As a listener, I watch to be entertained. I didn’t want to know the Ellen D. was Lesbian. Didn’t care, didn’t want to know.

You put too much wait on Rush. I will say that the right is far more entertaining than the left. They are just plain better on air than the left.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 30, 2009 9:54 PM
Comment #279271

“The most boring talk show host? By far Sean Hannity.” I completely agree.

But I do find myself searching out Rush more and more, I’m in my car screwing up the environment and working most days. Obama’s vision must be stopped and there is no point in being polite about that statement. Obama is no man to be compromised with. 47% of the country voted agianst him and he found many new uniformed voters to make up the difference. Doesn’t make the dude right. The gun companies can’t keep up with demand, I just bought my first weapon…better safe than sorry.

Posted by: mike at March 30, 2009 11:54 PM
Comment #279275

I agree with some of the above writings.

Why are we talking about a talk show host when the President just fired the head of General motors today without even consulting Congress?

Does anyone see a constitutional problem here?

Posted by: Craig Holmes at March 31, 2009 12:24 AM
Comment #279276

Craig,
No, I see no problem. GM borrowed $13 billion from the government. That is a lot. They want even more. Obama (supposedly) requested that he resigned, and he resigned. He could have refused to leave. Of course, the government could have responded by refusing to loan more money.

The problem is that GM will still retain much of the management that drove them into the ground in the first place. Meanwhile, despite gross incompetence which resulted in the stock price of GM dropping 96% under his leadership, the CEO is eligible to leave with a retirement package in excess of $20 million.

Do you see a problem here?

Posted by: phx8 at March 31, 2009 12:44 AM
Comment #279278

“Why are we talking about a talk show host when the President just fired the head of General motors today without even consulting Congress?”

I’m guessing you know the answer, but it’s so they can keep a bogey man alive after Bush (or is it bogety). So then they don’t have to answer for this insane direction they are leading us. “Don’t mind me look at Rush”.

Absolutely pathetic behavior for a United States President. When will we wake up?

Posted by: mike at March 31, 2009 1:21 AM
Comment #279283

A Democratic President did not put Rush in charge of the Republican party…Republicans did that all by themselves. Steele is now trying to gain back some ground he lost when he apologized to Rushiepoo, but it may be too little too late. When your own party biggies don’t have the nerve to take ol’ blabbermouth on…well…

All Obama did was point out how weak the Republican agenda was, when a radio talk show host could reign supreme in the ‘Grand Old Party’. Who else could he point to? Steele…Shelby…Gingrich…McCain…Palin…the Louisiana orator…???

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 6:06 AM
Comment #279287

Consistent listener’s to Rush are not uniformly racist or conservative. They are, however, idiots.

So called conservative and liberal(although those seem pretty rare in Texas) locals that use the airwaves to incite people to goose their ratings have destroyed AM radio in my opinion.


NPR is the only national talk radio that has any actual intellectual conversations that I have ever heard.

Posted by: gergle at March 31, 2009 7:06 AM
Comment #279292

Yeah…NPR actually makes sense every once in a while. At least it is not staffed with blowhard a**holes. But, NPR is losing airwaves to so-called ‘Christian Radio’ in almost all markets. So, we won’t even have that for halfway intelligent listening much longer.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 8:51 AM
Comment #279293

SD
I suppose there are other things to discuss. I did read an interesting take on Limbaugh’s style. It was observed that he and the like are ALWAYS outraged. That makes them appear to have the high moral ground no matter what nonsense they are spouting. This is a tactic often employed by nunerious televangelist.

Posted by: bills at March 31, 2009 9:26 AM
Comment #279294

I can’t say there wasn’t some degree of just impulsiveness in choosing this as a subject.

But I guess the choice came down to this: Klavan seems to think that the problem is, nobody truly listens to Rush. That he’s been misrepresented. That Liberals and others who hate him are just afraid of the truth, or too closed-minded to meet the challenge of Rush’s beautiful mind.

There’s a certain well-armored self-confidence there that I would not be inclined to merit as reasonable. Rush shares it, and so do many Republicans, unfortunately. I did not imagine, almost four year on from the Republican’s fall, that people would still be misreading the results.

There seems to be this kind of denial going on, one that unfortunately seems to metastasize from the spirit of political resistance, which is understandable, to the spirit of partisan obstructionism, which in these times is difficult to understand.

I just have to wonder what makes Republicans think they can sell laissez faire capitalism now, of all times. What would lead them to believe that their path back to majority will come so quick after they’ve lost two elections in a row. It’s like the gambler thinking that the next time’s the charm, because you can’t stay unlucky forever.

In my own theoretical terms, I would say that the best that the Republicans are going to do at this point is finish the formation of their own version of the far left they’ve long despised. Only, there seems to be a chance that they’re going to take a large part of their own party with them into that nutty extremism. I don’t think the Republicans have the critical mass to do much else. Very few people, faced with the stark consequences of the Republican’s errors, are going to be all that eager to take their side once more. Obama’s not everybody’s ideal, but his liberalism is closer to people’s common sense at this point than the Republican’s conservatism.

What worries me is the continued political irrationality, the Republicans deciding that making themselves useful means trying to lay the groundwork in the polls, via a barrage of political flakkery and spin, to retake the government in the next couple elections.

Honestly, I think the Republicans would do better if they worked detail by detail, and helped develop policy with the Democrats in a constructive, cooperative manner. They would do more to better suit the new political order to the needs of their constituents, and to work towards the general welfare of the country.

The fact that we haven’t yet seen a Republican who is willing to buck the special interests of the party, Rush included, and break with them without crawling back to apologize, doesn’t bode well for conservatism in this country.

I’m a moderate at heart, but what I see even from conservatives in my party isn’t moderation. It’s a clinging to habits that no longer make sense in the current political climate. These people aren’t working to take the edges off of radical policy, but are instead trying to impose roadblocks on items and candidates at an inappropriate time, or worse, failing to heed the morals of a very recent, very harsh lesson. They’re more interested, it seems, in guarding their power, guarding their interests, than responding to the real world.

In my book, being responsive to the real world, and responsible about how you deal with it is a hallmark of moderation. What makes something radical and extremist is the blatant disregard for consequence in one’s actions, in the belief that what you seek will make up for all the things you do.

Perhaps in one sense, their politics were moderate, these conservative Democrats, but only in the sense that they weren’t as radical as those they emulated. But what they allowed to happen was a radical realignment of the rules and practices of our economy, a realignment, that sad to say has had tragic and destructive consequences.

Clinging to that old order, in my mind, is not moderation. We’re going to do stupid and counterproductive things if we listen to this siren song of conservative purism and the old, Clinton brand of Liberal centrism. We have to find moderation in fact, not merely in spirit.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 31, 2009 9:28 AM
Comment #279307

Just a couple of examples of Rushie’s non racist orations:

Klavan is pretending to be publishing an honest account “from liberals who took the bait” next week. I have a good feeling that this won’t be a very honest accounting of Limbaugh’s history of objectionable cakehole bleats. Before you even send Klavan such Limbaughian classics as “Take the bone out of your nose!” or “Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?” or “James Earl Ray deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor,” let me head you off by saying that this guy is ABSOLUTELY going to weasel out of explaining past instances, so don’t bother. But, if you find yourself listening to Rush this week, and you send Klavan an example of Limbaugh saying something “racist, hateful, or stupid,” just CC me, and I’ll make sure your comments are accounted for.

From:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/30/scritti-politti-march-30_n_180944.html

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 12:41 PM
Comment #279308

MD complains; “But, NPR is losing airwaves to so-called ‘Christian Radio’ in almost all markets. So, we won’t even have that for halfway intelligent listening much longer.”

I wonder why it is “so-called”? Is it Christian Radio or something else? And, I wonder why NPR is loosing audience to them. Are they clinging to their bible and guns? If they are so out of step with popular thinking why are their numbers growing?

bills writes; “I did read an interesting take on Limbaugh’s style. It was observed that he and the like are ALWAYS outraged. That makes them appear to have the high moral ground no matter what nonsense they are spouting. This is a tactic often employed by nunerious televangelist.”

bills, have you never listened to a politician speaking on C-span…many are outraged and yet, certainly don’t have the high moral ground.

M. Daugherty writes; “We have to find moderation in fact, not merely in spirit.”

Is “moderation” the new name for liberal socialism? Do you really believe all this spending by the government, not directly aimed at ending the financial crisis, is moderate? Is the desire to take over our national health care system by government moderate? Is a desire to have half of our population exempt from paying taxes moderate? Is intentionally increasing the cost of energy for everyone, rich and poor, moderate? Is having more than 20% of our GDP gobbled up by taxes moderate?

I would call all these actions extreme, not moderate. I would like to know by what yardstick you are measuring moderation.

Posted by: Jim M at March 31, 2009 12:48 PM
Comment #279312

>MD complains; “But, NPR is losing airwaves to so-called ‘Christian Radio’ in almost all markets. So, we won’t even have that for halfway intelligent listening much longer.”

It was a statement, not a complaint, and the reason for it is no entity has more money to buy airwaves than the church. NPR is losing air because they cannot compete on that footing. And, now it will likely lose more, because there is less and less money available for public donations. Again, not a complaint, merely an observation.

NPR has been a bastion of intelligence and art against a backdrop of superstition and ignorance. Ignorance wins when numbers of ignorant people increase…it’s just the way the ball bounces, and all of America loses because of a bouncing ball…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 1:26 PM
Comment #279315

MD writes humorously…”NPR has been a bastion of intelligence and art against a backdrop of superstition and ignorance. Ignorance wins when numbers of ignorant people increase…” And, “no entity has more money to buy airwaves than the church. NPR is losing air because they cannot compete on that footing.”

I wonder if MD could provide evidence of his second statement? And, just who is “The Church”?

To reference; NPR as a bastion of intelligence, is quite a stretch in my opinion. I like some of their programing and despise some of their political leanings. To call “opinion” intelligence is in the mind of the listener…is it not?

Never one who would consider himself biased, opinionated, pompous or moderate, MD implies that “The Church” is superstitious and ignorant. Obviously the 80+ percent of Americans that believe in God don’t count for much in MD’s world of fantasy which appears to be based upon the religion of liberal atheist socialism.

Posted by: Jim M at March 31, 2009 1:53 PM
Comment #279316

I make the statement…you give it numbers. We make quite a team. I was right about the numbers of ignorant growing…you say it’s more than 80% now…wow! Who’da thunk it…;)

The in depth reports, on newsworthy events, by NPR reporters has always been a pleasure to me. And, like with the demise of in depth reporting by many newspapers, I think missing those by NPR will be a net loss to America. We will be left with the Limbaughs, and an MSM that is more interested in entertainment than news. I guess the internet can fill in some, but it is more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. As a liberal, I did not notice NPR’s alleged liberal bias, so I missed out on that part.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 2:05 PM
Comment #279318

PS:

Thanks for setting the record straight on my many virtues: >biased, opinionated, pompous or moderate

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 2:08 PM
Comment #279319

PPS:

You got all that in in one sentence, and in one fell swoop…you’re good, kiddo…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 2:09 PM
Comment #279321

biased…I’m a liberal…you are a conservative…so, I am biased, but you are not?

opinionated…I have opinions that I share with others…you have opinions that you share with others…so, I am opinionated, but you are not?

pompous…I use words that require more that four letters…you use words that require more than four letters…so, I am pompous, and you are not?

not moderate…I lean further to the left than moderation would require, and am proud of it…you lean further right than moderation would require, and are proud of it…so, I am not moderate, and you are?

What’s your point? Me bad…you good…right?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 2:21 PM
Comment #279322

>And, just who is “The Church”?
Posted by: Jim M at March 31, 2009 01:53 PM

“The Church”, is organized religion. That den of iniquity, called “the church”…and other things, by biased, opinionated, pompous, immoderate atheists like me.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 2:26 PM
Comment #279331

“The Church”, is organized religion. That den of iniquity, called “the church”…and other things, by biased, opinionated, pompous, immoderate atheists like me.
Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 02:26 PM

Thanks for the confirmation. Do you feel better now?

Posted by: Jim M at March 31, 2009 5:23 PM
Comment #279332

Do you?

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 5:33 PM
Comment #279333

Well yes MD, I feel great and thanks for asking.

Posted by: Jim M at March 31, 2009 5:40 PM
Comment #279339

“Sniping, Jim M, is invigorating for a while, but soon becomes boring. Unless you have something constructive to contribute, please refrain”, said the pompous ass, in his biased fashion, with immoderate opinion.

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 7:09 PM
Comment #279343

Jim M-
Is liberal socialism the new name for moderation?

Is 20% immoderate? Yes. And I hope we reduce it as fast as possible. The best way to reduce it is to make sure the economy gets back up on its feet.

Are we increasing the cost of energy? Carbon based energy. the rest we’re making cheaper. It’s called a real energy policy.

Are we exempting half the population from taxes? No. Just giving them a little help. Why didn’t I ever hear these kinds of complaints from you about the Bush tax cuts?

As for healthcare? Obama’s not going for total government care, but even if he did, it will be better than what we currently have. Problems in access to healthcare have plagued people I’ve known Is it moderate to have a healthcare system that doesn’t improve most people’s health?

Apparently, moderation doesn’t include our systems working like they should. It doesn’t include focusing stimulus and what tax cuts we give out at those who could actually use the money. It doesn’t include solving problems, rather than running around with our hair on fire.

Oh, by the way: I hear that your party’s new tax cut to the rich is going to end up costing an addiitional 300 billion dollars.

Moderation indeed. What makes your policy more moderate than ours? Is there something magicall you’ve added to it?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at March 31, 2009 8:39 PM
Comment #279344

“Ignorance wins when numbers of ignorant people increase…it’s just the way the ball bounces, and all of America loses because of a bouncing ball…”

well..thanks for expaining to me why obama won. kinda figured as much, but this was the extra proof i needed.

Posted by: dbs at March 31, 2009 8:42 PM
Comment #279350

Proof??? Another bounce…oh, well…

Posted by: Marysdude at March 31, 2009 10:36 PM
Comment #279368

dbs, others-
Good luck. You’ve got your work cut out for you if you think you can call people ignorant and then persuade them that you’re right.

Generally, the religious stations have more capital investment available from those who believe religious stations are in their interest than the NPR stations from those who think in those terms. Does this mean one’s inherently superior to the other? No, no more than a downturn in the religious stations would indicate that they are inferior.

Never underestimate the power of committed folks with money. But don’t underestimate the opinions and contributions of those without it. A Christian should understand that it is not the opinions of peers that makes one righteous, and the liberals who support NPR should not use the religious station’s good fortune as an excuse for the failure of liberals to support the institutions they appreciate. Nobody should read some sort of divine judgment in there. After all, the moneyed folks didn’t exactly do well this past year.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2009 10:26 AM
Comment #279373

stephen

i didn’t make the ball bouncing statement. i just used it to show how it could be used to benifit either argument. IMO it’s actually a very childish remark.

“Generally, the religious stations have more capital investment available from those who believe religious stations are in their interest than the NPR stations from those who think in those terms.”

religious stations get thier money from donations made willingly. on the other hand NPR is publicly funded. that in itself says volumes about NPR.

“Does this mean one’s inherently superior to the other? No, no more than a downturn in the religious stations would indicate that they are inferior.”

your right it means one has more listeners, and while you could say that it is not inferior in content, it is inferior when it comes to being comercially viable. there is not a large enough market to entice the sponsorship needed to sustain its existence. so in one sense it may not be inferior, but in another even more important sense it is.

Posted by: dbs at April 1, 2009 11:49 AM
Comment #279376

dbs,

“religious stations get thier money from donations made willingly. on the other hand NPR is publicly funded. that in itself says volumes about NPR.”

Most of the funding from “religious stations” comes from the tithing of it’s listeners, and from clever salesmanship.

NPR has quarterly fund drives that raise about a third of it’s money, from people that are constant listeners (my wife and I are in this category).
It also receives a third from corporate sponsorship.
The other third of NPR’s funding comes from “public funding”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio

“About 2% of NPR’s funding comes from bidding on government grants and programs, chiefly the Corporation for Public Broadcasting;”

So what was that again about the perceived “value” of NPR?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 1, 2009 12:32 PM
Comment #279377

M. Daugherty writes; “Is 20% immoderate? Yes. And I hope we reduce it as fast as possible. The best way to reduce it is to make sure the economy gets back up on its feet.”

It is difficult to understand how on one hand we all desire our economy to recover as quickly as possible with government spending and on the other hand have folks such as M. Daugherty support huge new social spending plans that have nothing at all to do with economic recovery.

To defend all the pork contained in the budget, to continue to fund useless government programs and those with redundancy, and to defend taking huge amounts from private spending for public largess is insane.

Jane and Joe Public know that now is not a time for lavish personal spending but are expected to support the same if done by government because the bill won’t come due immediately. Pure nonsense.

Posted by: Jim M at April 1, 2009 12:34 PM
Comment #279388

dbs-
Commercial viability is a poor measure of the cultural value of something. Look at all the art that gets sold on the modern art market. You think most of that stuff has real cultural value? Sure, people will pay a lot for what’s in fashion, but that doesn’t mean its altother valuable in any other sense.

Also: take a look on the dial: does commercial viability make Rock and popular music of other kinds more valuable that Christian music?

Commercial viability seems to me to be a rationalizing argument, rather than a rational one.

I listen to three stations when I drive around: First is a mix station, with pop music aimed at my generation’s demographic. the other is an alternative station, with a lot of the hard rock.

The third is NPR. I actually like listening to that more, for the most part, because I don’t encounter some of the dumb songs that make we want to switch the radio. I like listening to their news programs. I actually find out things.

But sometimes I just want to rock out.

The thing I would caution people like yourself about is valuing things merely by market standards. The Market, in many ways, works by accidents, with interest exploding in one section of the population or another. It doesn’t take a large number of people to do it, though. A million-selling record sounds like a lot, but America is a country of over 300 million. It seems to me that people have used the Market as an excuse to drain a lot of the meaningful content out, on the grounds that people don’t like that stuff.

But I think things are more complex than that, and the debasement of our society has come of confusing brushfire fads with long term audience appreciation. Many entertainment businesse have seen diminished returns, even as they flood the market with products which are nearly all marketed to a T.

I don’t think there is anything necessarily wrong with having radio stations and TV stations where people could give a damn less about marketing, where public interest take precedence over human interest, where octumom is not the main subject for hours on end.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2009 2:59 PM
Comment #279389

stephen

“Commercial viability is a poor measure of the cultural value of something. Look at all the art that gets sold on the modern art market.”

i don’t agree. if enough people find something worthwhile in listening to a radio station, whether that be humor, information etc. it will thrive because it has something to offer that our culture finds value in. the same holds true for the modern art market. if there was no viable market for it, it would be worthless. the value of something is only what we as a society are willing to put on it.

“I listen to three stations when I drive around: First is a mix station, with pop music aimed at my generation’s demographic. the other is an alternative station, with a lot of the hard rock.”

yes but these stations exist because people listen to them in enough numbers to support thier operation. when that ceases to be the case they will no longer exist, or they may change format. this happens all the time. when i was a kid most of the music on the radio was on AM. as FM became more popular, and had better sound these AM stations transitioned to talk because they no longer had any value as a music format. how many stations can you dial in on the radio that play 40s music? there is a very small ever decreasing group of people who listen to it regularly.


“But sometimes I just want to rock out.”

so do i.

” and the debasement of our society has come of confusing brushfire fads with long term audience appreciation.”

and as these fads fade, so will the market that once made them viable.

Posted by: dbs at April 1, 2009 3:57 PM
Comment #279418

dbs-
It should occur to you that there is a very top down element to your scheme of things.

At home, I don’t listen to radio stations. I listen to an internet radio station. With a station like that, you can actually choose your own individual tastes, not have somebody program it for your (though you do have the option of going for certain channels that play mainly that)

With yesterday’s content generation, maybe it was more advantageous just to see what was popular and play it. But now people are seeking things out on their own accord. You can suggest, but people often know what they’re looking for.

There are several groups I wouldn’t have even known of, and several cool songs I wouldn’t have encountered, if the computer hadn’t more or less taken my tastes and run with them.

As people discover cool stuff, it’s bound to wash back into the culture. It might be a song from the forties, it might be the style of work from the seventies. I’ve heard people talk about the long tail model of sales, where instead of counting on a big spike in the first release, you go for a long term following, as people become aware of material. Ironically, we’re going back somewhat to the word of mouth and personal-experience oriented model of marketing, only this time, the planes of intersection aren’t based around communities, but distributed across the world.

So in an important sense, it’s becoming more important to be a discovery than a commodity.

One last thing, and let me make an observation: you seem to be positing some sort of theory of inherent value- what rules, wins. But I think things are more complicated than that. Sometimes a piece doesn’t hit the country when its in the right mood, or people dismiss it early on. Austin Powers only took off after its initial release. I had the privilege, though, of seeing it for myself the first time, during its first run. I knew it was something special. Same thing for Fight Club, and The Matrix. There’s a charm in being a discoverer, rather than just a consumer.

It’s getting to the point where random access, is meeting on-demand, online distribution. You can Watch a number of movies online already, a number of series, too. Just think for a moment what this might mean for a marketer. What might it be like for somebody to make a suggestion to see a movie, or to read about a movie, and be able to go back to your computer and just download, or stream it?

I don’t think the market is as simple as you believe. I think there are layers of value and appeal that today’s mass media isn’t addressing properly. They’re trying to appeal to people at a subhuman level, with flashy graphic and sensational appeals. But what if people have gotten smarter than that? Or worse, what if people have gotten smarter than that, and they’re looking for that something smarter elsewhere?

You get into a situation where the more you try to apply such “surefire” solutions, the more you end up just alienating your audience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2009 10:02 PM
Comment #279423

SD,

“you seem to be positing some sort of theory of inherent value- what rules, wins.”

It might be possible that what dbs might be thinking is that what sells rules/wins.
It’s that whole “free market” thing again.

BTW if you’re interested in progressive rock you might try

http://www.deliciousagony.com/

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 2, 2009 12:33 AM
Comment #279433

Rush Limbaugh demonstrates his class and intelligence. All must bow before his wit and Wisodom.

(April Fools Day)

But there’s an extra fool for today!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2009 7:34 AM
Comment #279438

rocky

“It might be possible that what dbs might be thinking is that what sells rules/wins.
It’s that whole “free market” thing again.”

why should my tax dollars be used to help support a broadcasting enterprise that can’t survive in its own? if what you say is true and 2/3 of the funds used to operate it come from private donations, and corporate sponsors ( ie someone sees value in it ) then it shouldn’t be a problem securing all the funds that way. that would mean that there’s enough people that see value in it to keep it running.

when it comes to a commercial enterprise yes ” what sells rules “. if peolple see value in something they will patronise it thus supporting its existence. why is this a problem for you?

seems you’re hung up on demonizing the free market system( a boogie man ). the truth is when rules are in place to keep everyone honest, and we don’t allow politicians to minipulate those rules for thier own interest, the free market works pretty damn well. seems a lot of our troubles as of late would not be, if our buddies in congress, and the white house had allowed those rules to remain. there is IMO plenty of blame to be shared by BOTH parties. to continue this asinine finger pointing, and placing all the blame on conservatives is retarded.

Posted by: dbs at April 2, 2009 10:53 AM
Comment #279442

Actually, the percentage for the Radio branch is only about 7% public funding. It is somewhat more for the TV side. But again, like cowboys, buffalo hunters, and Republicans, perhaps it is time for NPR to shuffle off the stage…I expect those in-depth news features were on their way out anyway, what with less operational funding.

NPR losing airwaves and money, United Press International folded, the Associated Press has to be close to bankruptcy, since newspapers are dropping like crazy. I wonder where solid, reliable investigative reporting will come from in the future…Faux News??? Drudge Report??? Well if so, it will be imaginative at least…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 2, 2009 12:09 PM
Comment #279443

dbs-
They have to know about it first to value it. I would have loved to have seen the kind of reporting done on things coming from normal news networks in the middle of this decade that I saw on PBS’s Frontline. But I was able to see it on PBS.

The point of public television is to provide alternatives to a profit-oriented path of programming. When I was growing up, I hardly saw any educational programming outside of PBS. Should kids like me have been denied the chance to see such things, in favor of a junk-food pop culture with no higher goal than keeping eyes glued to sets? There is great value to the programming I watched and still watch on PBS. That it wasn’t commercial value, at least in the eyes of people at the time, is just too bad.

I grew on its account. I didn’t feel the need to question that kind of cultural enrichment, nor to abhor popular culture for its sake either. I had the self-confidence not to need to prove myself a cultural snob in either direction, glorying in my level or lack of cultural sophistication.

Why can’t Republicans admit that there’s some value to having a broader playing field, rather than insisting that everything be a plebiscite of the market?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 2, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #279457

Keep ‘em barefoot and pregnant and down on the farm…nothing up-lifting or educational for the unwashed masses…if they don’t have bread, let ‘em eat cake…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 2, 2009 3:24 PM
Comment #279477

dbs,

“that would mean that there’s enough people that see value in it to keep it running.”

Can we all assume that the word “value is the new secret word?

Because you see no value in public broadcasting do you feel that everyone else feels the same way?

Conservatives have spent decades trying to do away with the one thing that actually has “value” in this country.
The one thing that the government helps support that cannot be bought out by the Christian right or the far left.
The one thing that corporations help support but have no say in.

I find it hard to believe that you could possibly begrudge the pennies taken from your tax dollars that help support public broadcasting.

The information, news, education, and yes entertainment that is provided by your local PBS, and NPR stations far exceeds the dollar “value” spent on it.

Or perhaps it’s because they don’t broadcast “quality reality programming” like American Idol, or Dancing with the stars, or Survivor, or even 24.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 2, 2009 7:14 PM
Comment #279483

rocky

do you believe the programming at npr could stand on its own with out tax $? if enough people agree with you then it doesn’t need my tax money, and that is my point. it would survive on its own, and would be able to sell advertising time because of its listenership.

“Can we all assume that the word “value is the new secret word?”

excuse me for using the word value to much. its funny i some how thought you’de take this angle, and low and behold, you did. the word value has a broad meaning. it could mean people find it entertaining, informative, and many other things. in other words people who happened to tune in would find something they liked, or found useful.

The information, news, education, and yes entertainment that is provided by your local PBS, and NPR stations far exceeds the dollar “value” spent on it.


then why not make it self sufficient? sounds like the business opportunity of a lifetime. oh.. woops i said a dirty word.

“Or perhaps it’s because they don’t broadcast “quality reality programming” like American Idol, or Dancing with the stars, or Survivor, or even 24.”

i don’t watch that crap rocky, i have no use for it, but appearantly enough do or it wouldn’t be on. if people quit watching it, and the advertisers pull out it’s history.

you seem to have a problem with allowing the general populace to decide what they want, and don’t want, and that makes no sense to me.

Posted by: dbs at April 2, 2009 10:20 PM
Comment #279486

dbs,

“excuse me for using the word value to much.”

It seems that everybody is using the word value too much. I’ve seen it dozens of times on this site alone in the last 2 weeks.

Surely if you don’t want to watch or listen to what public TV and radio have to offer by all means don’t watch it.

Public Broadcasting isn’t designed to stand on it’s own, it’s designed to offer that which no other network, or station offers.
The Jim Lehrer News Hour actually does the news. Without any worries about ratings there are no fluff pieces, or filler. There is no “news” show anywhere like it.

dbs, perhaps you folks on the right may be afraid of substance.
Perhaps you don’t realize that your time is worth money, and that “free” broadcasting” wastes nearly 14 minutes of your time an hour. That’s nearly an hour wasted a day for the average American TV watcher alone.
Don’t get me started on the talk radio advertising.

PBS and NPR are for the intellectually curious, perhaps you see no value in that.

If PBS, and NPR are allowed to go the way of the Dodo, America will be the lesser for it.

BTW, intellectual curiosity is not a vice.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 2, 2009 11:43 PM
Comment #279493

rocky

“Surely if you don’t want to watch or listen to what public TV and radio have to offer by all means don’t watch it.”

you’re right, and i don’t want to pay for it either. you like it you pay for it.

“PBS and NPR are for the intellectually curious, perhaps you see no value in that.”

you’re right rocky i’m to ignorant to see the point in paying for something i don’t find personal value in.

Posted by: dbs at April 3, 2009 12:30 AM
Comment #279508

dbs,

“and i don’t want to pay for it either. you like it you pay for it.”

So let’s see, that $5-$10 a year you are forced to pay for PBS so that others might watch it might deprive you of;
1 lunch,
or a couple of six packs,
or 2 gallons of milk,
or 5 candy bars,
or 3 gallons of gas,
or 3-4 days of cable TV,
or if you saved the money for 50 years you could buy a fairly good computer,
or hell, if you think about it, let’s figure that the 45% of voters in the last election that voted for McCain wanted to cancel the funding for PBS, and put all of those $5-$10 dollars together, in 5 years we could buy 1 B-2 bomber,

or given the senario above in 2 or 3,000 years we could pay off the US Government debt that was left by Bush for Obama to deal with.

Look, PBS helps pre-school children learn to read, it provides entertainment free of sexual innuendo. Perhaps again you see no value in that.

We’re either all in this together, or we’re not.

Apparently, you choose not, and you should probably keep your $5-$10 dollars.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 3, 2009 11:23 AM
Comment #279532

rocky

you don’t get it. it’s MY money even if it’s 5 cents. and you making me out to be some horrible person because i argue that point won’t change anything. it’s my right to choose what charitable causes i donate my money to, not yours or anyone elses. those PBS donations after all are tax deductable aren’t they? lets see i can donate to PBS and write off that contribution, and the taxes i’m forced to pay are also donated to PBS. maybe i should be able to claim that $5 to $10 as a tax deduction. you don’t see the irony here.

taking the attitude that you somehow have the moral high ground here, is nonsense.

Posted by: dbs at April 3, 2009 4:46 PM
Comment #279538

dbs,

“taking the attitude that you somehow have the moral high ground here, is nonsense.”

That we disagree is unfortunate, that you feel I have belittled you more so.

I view PBS/NPR as a betterment for society, something that should not be required to stand on it’s own, something that shouldn’t have to compete against networks that wouldn’t bother to fill the void left by it’s passing, should it pass.

You see public broadcasting only as a drain to your wallet, something that should be forced to compete in the “free” market.

I don’t seek the “moral high ground” here, I seek to challenge the right to understand how petty their arguments are against something that does actual good in this country for so little cost.

$420 million dollars a year is less than .005% of the entire budget, and less than .5% of what we have spent each year in Iraq.

You’re right it is your $5 or $10, and I am truly sorry you feel that you are forced to pay for something you seem incapable of seeing the value of.
If the right gets it’s way something good in America will be lost forever, and all Americans will be worse off for it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 3, 2009 7:22 PM
Comment #279583

Rocky,

The net horror of the demise of NPR and PBS is that it is not the ‘right’ that shoots it down. The ‘right’ may listen to it, and not donate, but so does the left. Only about ten percent of the regular listeners and viewers actually pay to do so.

The onset of so-called Christain broadcasting into the lower spectrum FM frequencies only exacerbates an already growing problem.

Government funding has shrunk over the years Republicans have had control of purse strings, but begging and pledge drives by those two entities has not made up the difference.

I decry those on the right who decry paying a paltry few pennies to help educate and uplift America and Americans, but…so be it…it IS their right to do so. What a bunch of selfish pr***s. But, even if they paid the taxes willingly, public broadcasting would still fail.

Our world is less caring, because we apparently wish it so…

Posted by: Marysdude at April 4, 2009 10:51 PM
Comment #279595

“What a bunch of selfish pr***s.”

nice. some may disagree with you about using tax money to fund public radio and this is what you have to say. so are you calling me a selfish pr**k?

Posted by: dbs at April 5, 2009 11:29 AM
Comment #279670

yep thats what i thought….crickets…..

Posted by: dbs at April 7, 2009 12:20 AM
Comment #280027

Here’s what Randi Rhodes always says, “When they show you who they are, believe them.”
Years ago Rush had a T.V. show and on this show he was throwing gourmet food at his audience. If ever there was an expression of contempt, this had to be it. And guess what the defenders would say? That’s right: context. What context right wingers? What’s your definition of “context?” What if there really were such a thing as truth serum and lie detector machines functioned perfectly?
Rush is no dummy. He knows how to manipulate to a tee. If his listeners and callers could read his thought bubbles there’s no doubt they would feel like they’ve been hit between the eyes with a two by four.
Rush has nothing but absolute contempt for the followers of right wing propaganda and he knows which side his bread is buttered on. There’s no way on Earth he can prove otherwise.

Posted by: Stephen Hines at April 11, 2009 3:05 PM
Post a comment