Radio-active: Littlestuff's Fairness Doctrine.

AA couple of my reader friends have gently chided me for constantly attacking leftists. They suggest that there are some on my side of the political spectrum who could be critiqued. So, as the weak and compliant sap, I offer to you my views about four giants in conservative talk radio. I have chosen Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Mark Levin as the largely unwilling recipients of my remarks. There are others to whom I listen, but not frequently enough to warrant informed criticism.
El Rushbo

Rush is the king of conservative talk radio. He has been syndicated since 1988 and is heard on more than 600 radio stations in the United States. My first introduction to MahaRushie was in 1990. A psychologist friend thought that I might enjoy Rush's bombastic style of talk and entertainment. He was right. I have been a somewhat faithful listener for the last nineteen plus years. There is no doubt that Rush is a conservative. He cherishes the history and stated principles of our republic. In earlier years, his devotion to our country's basic fundementals was most apparent when he discussed his father and grandfather and their influences on his values and beliefs.

Although the liberals characterize Rush as "the nominal head of the Republican Party," his cheerleading for the GOP has been somewhat muted lately, and he has become straightforwardly conservative. Rush is clearly a professional broadcaster who owns an agile mind and a biting sense of humor. He is often on the vanguard of pragmatic conservative thought, and illustrates "the absurd with absurdity. (paraphrase)" His incessant ridicule of liberals and their half-baked ideas, drives leftists to sputtering fury.

There are a couple of things that Rush does that I find somewhat offputting. First, he often takes credit for predicting liberal actions (implosions or powergrabs) when the evidence for such a claim is sketchy. He retrieves an audio soundbite from sometime in the past that vaguely implies that the present action was predicted by him. To his credit, he does forsee many liberal moves, but that is as much a function of the leftist nature as it is the far-seeing wisdom of Rush. This little flaw is not a show killer for me, but is annoying.

The second issue that I have with Rush is not necessarily his fault. In fact to a degree, I share the weakness. Appropriating the ideas and insights of others without attribution. I am not referring to plagarism. On several occasions I have heard callers to Rush's show express a gem of an idea or nugget of a phrase, and later in the show or subsequent shows, Rush assumes ownership of the glorious tidbit. The reason I submit that this confiscation may not be Rush's fault is that I encounter similar situations myself. As a writer, I am often searching for metaphors, examples or the proper word to adequately express my thoughts. I assume that I have inadvertently used the tools that have been developed by others. Because I am a voracious reader, I am frequently encountering the work of others, ... and perhaps integrating their efforts into my own. As a frequent listener of the Rush Limbaugh show, I occassionally wince when I hear him declare something that a previous caller had stated. It's a small matter...insignificant, but this is a critique.

  Sean

People have remarked that Hannity is a really nice guy. I don't doubt that he is, but because of his penchant for taking an issue or a phrase and beating it to smithereens, he seems to have the persona of a ticked-off pitbull or a perpetually barking Jack Russell terrier with a bad attitude. To his credit Sean's Freedom Concerts and his efforts for the troops are superb standards. He does an amazing amount of good for the movement, but does it repetitively.

Glenn

Glenn Beck is the new hot thing. Since his relocation from Headline News to the Fox News Channel, he has been on fire. Most of issues he addresses are usually right on the money though he tends to exagerate for effect. Sometimes he overemphasizes the importance of seemingly innocuous statements as he reaches to arrive at a nefarious conclusion. In his defense let me observe that even paranoids can have enemies, and while Glenn may seem to construct mountains from molehill material, his big picture is often on target. Another critique I have regarding Glenn's work is that his intensity flat out tires me (pun intended). When his television gig has ended, I am exhausted. A final complaint that I have with Beck is something that entertainers and programers do to hold the audience. Teasing...excessive teasing...not just when going into a break ("when we come back"), but week-long teases, month-long teasers, and year-long, too. Here's a paraphrase: "Americaaa, we have to change what we're doing. Next month at the Final Stop Nursing Home I will announce my plan for a phoenix-like renewal of our country." For Heaven's sake, Glenn, if you have the plan already, give it to us. If you don't have the plan, do not set us up for the Grand Fizzle.


The Great One, Mark Levin

Mark is an attorney who has a great grasp of the Constitution. He forcefully denounces the unrestrained growth of government. I do not get to hear Mark as often as I do the others because his show is scheduled during the evening time in my market and is frequently preempted by sports programming. Nevertheless, while I find Mark to be refreshing and informative, I detect a current of jealousy or disdain for Beck during his show. I don't know what the basis for his dislike may be, but I assume that he hoards some resentment towards Glenn because Mark may believe that Beck is rather unschooled and buffoonish. He's possibly upset that Beck's books are top sellers, and Mark may believe his to be more accurate, more thorough and more substantial. Just guessing. Levin's attitude, as I perceive it, makes him appear as somewhat of a whiner. He does know his stuff and is a top-notch host.


So, my moderate/lefty friends should be satisfied. I have taken some shots at the big four of conservative radio. I still listen. I still learn. These warriors are a vast improvement over an all night Larry King on Mutual, or a Jim Bohanon (Jimbo's OK, but middle of the road) on Westwood, any dolt on Air America (is it still on?) or any dulcet toned, raised pinkie PBS news reader...if all things are considered. They are all working for a stronger, better America. They all love the United States and the values she has historically embraced. I shall continue to listen until everybody agrees with Rush.

The Biggest Loser

An AP story today (Thursday) reports that U. S. District Judge Stanwood Duval ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers is largely responsible for the post-Katrina flooding in New Orleans. This ruling is notable for a number of reasons. Referring to the Corps maintainence practices as "monumental negligence," Duval awarded more than seven-hundred thousand dollars ($700,000) to seven plaintiffs. He found that the primary cause for the massive destruction on New Orleans' west side was the Army's Corp failure to maintain the levee system.

Duval's agressive ruling has opened the floodgates (sorry!) for nearly 100,000 other individuals, businesses and others to seek recovery of their documented economic losses from the federal government. The potential awards could be in the billions of dollars, but the government is expected to appeal in an effort to justify its action (or inaction) under the umbrella of 'limited liability.' Or, to describe it more correctly...limited accountability. Whatever the resolution after the appeal, we, the citizens, will take it on the chin.

If Duval's ruling is upheld, then the taxpayers will be on the hook for billions of dollars in damages to restore the decimated properties in New Orleans. How will we pay? The only way available is to borrow more money and increase the deficit, or raise taxes to generate the funds. The repercussions do not end with the Delta. What if the National Weather Service errs when predicting the path of another storm? Will the federal government be held liable? What if ethanol subsidies fail to support the growers and processors at a level that will make them viable? Will the government be obligated to make up the difference? And on...and on...and on.

Because the government usually manages to avoid direct accountability, the ruling is likely to be overturned upon appeal. Good news, right? A successful appeal could save taxpayers trillions of dollars from the New Orleans' case and potential future litigation. The massive downside, however, would be that government accountability is non-existent. Citizens would have no recourse when they are harmed by negligent government action...or indifference.

So, how does this ruling and this case affect what is going on today. If we were operating (pun intended) under a government-controlled health care system, then if Duval's ruling hold, the over-the-top cost of malpractice protection would have to be included in the estimated costs. How is that structure much of an improvement? The trial lawyers (blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing, liberal-supporting sleazebags) will not be eliminated in the model because of their political activism and contributions. A recent poll suggested that up 45 per cent of practicing physicians would leave medicine in the U.S. if the "public option" were enacted. Even if a large portion of those respondents were to reconsider, the exodus of the remainder could put a severe strain on the health-care delivery system. At any rate, it seems plausible that high quality care may be jeopardized, and increasing the likelihood of more care-related litigation (the trial lawyer full employment act of 2009).

If the appeal is successful, then isn't it comforting to know that our government run healthcare system would have no accountable obligation. What an exciting prospect: Surgeon A cutting open your gut, handling your vital organs, placing them back and sewing you up, and if she screws up....Oh, well. Better luck next time, if you survive. Just image what the doctrine of "no accountability" would mean for other government tasks. Air traffic controllers...Homeland Security...FBI. To a large degree, government workers are immune from being held strictly accountable for their decisions and their errors. A "fall guy" is identified and either demoted or dismissed. A legal finding that holds the government, and by extension...government employees, exempt from liability would strengthen and codify the current system of whitewashing.

The Army Corp of Engineers will probably argue (with some merit) that billions of dollars for levee improvments had been budgeted by Congress in recent years, and much of the money was siphoned off by Louisianna state, city and parish politicians for other purposes. The Corp, therefore, was unable to fullfil its obligation to restore and maintain the levees. I agree with this line of argument. It illustrates massive incompetence and venality at every level of government.

Personally, I want Judge Duval's ruling to stand. If it does, then my friends and I will sue the living crap out each and every department, agency and directorate that does not perfectly execute its mandate. For decades the liberals have used the courts to bypass the Constitution and a reasonable legislative process. It's time to turn the tables and litigate all levels of government to their knees. 

Taking shots...

When contemplating what to write, I often have several topics brewing. I have decided, therefore, to integrate this feature into the blog rotation. These are topics that I haven't yet developed but want to toss out for you to ponder. Some of them will be one-liners, and others may merit a paragraph. Here goes:

Long shots:

1. Paying off the National debt.
2. Getting the massive nose of the federal government camel out of the tent.
3. Finding sensible progressives. Diogenes would fail at this task.
4. Taxing our way to prosperity. This would be a "no shot" except that ultra high taxation does tend to enrich some people at the seat of power.


Low shots:

1. The media attitude toward Sarah Palin...and other conservatives, libertarians, objectivists, christians and capitalists.
2. Progressive (liberal or marxist) views of the free market.
3. President Obama's bowing before foreign heads of state. He bows really low. One pundit suggested that he did it because he could see his own reflection on his shoes.
4. Hysterical "climate change" lackeys attempting to disrupt and dislodge every aspect of our daily lives. As an individualist, I think that I'll coin a new term "SUVidual."


No shot:

1.President Obama's image on Mt. Rushmore.
2. President Hillary Clinton.
3. Any Democrat-controlled urban center--see Detroit.
4. The Cleveland Browns.
5. Pauly Shore winning the Oscar.


Parting shots: (these could get ugly--beware).

1. Don't get too close to Speaker Pelosi...if her skin snaps, you could get hurt.
2. Look for Joe Biden's new autobiography in the "fiction" section.
3. Congressional elections are next year: let's not allow 95% "jobs saved."
4. Do the multitude of Czars appointed by the administration count as "jobs created?"


Favorite shots:

1. Lebron's fade-away from 25 feet.
2. Tea parties...citizen involvement.
3. My grandchildren.
4. Good scotch.

How's the weather?

Al Gore and his cohorts have burrs up their butts because they are alarmed about global climate change (formerly global warming). Where I sit here in Northwest Ohio, we call climate change..."seasons." I absolutely love climate change. Without it my perfect little plot of paradise would be covered by tons of ice and snow. Because of climate change, the glacier receded, and the Great Black Swamp was formed. My fantastic little farmette is located in what once was the Black Swamp. Another benefit for me was that as the ice melted, the Great Lakes remained. I now enjoy having Lake Erie a mere twenty-five miles from my little haven of happiness.

Perhaps there were some drawbacks associated with the melting of my local glacier. Some polar bears may have perished or were forced to hustle their fuzzy tails north. If the glacier had never receded, then Michigan and Ohio would not have had the high levels of unemployment that they are experiencing today. We wouldn't have Toledo or Detroit (hmmm   good, bad...bad, good...hmmm). Because we now longer have the massive clump of ice here, mosquitos are annoyingly present. And so are fast food restaurants.

My little plot of land wouldn't be accessible today if it weren't for some dirty Central American idustrialist who indiscriminately poluted the air while reaping filthy profits. Oh wait...there were no industrialists back then...dirty or otherwise. Maybe some insensitive tribesmen caused global warming because they excessively struck their flints or rubbed their sticks too fast. That's it. That's the ticket. That explains manmade global warming in earlier epochs. Or maybe, just maybe, the sun had something to do with it then...and now.

Personally, climate change has been a good thing. I find it ironic when many of those who raise the alarm about climate change proclaim that it will ultimately destroy most of humankind, but they willingly endorse the killing of unborn babies. Save the group, but discard the individual. So, tell me which of the following scenarios you would prefer: 1.) To live for a few months in your mother's womb, feel the beat of her heart, hear her voice and move when she moves, then to be ripped limb from limb and discarded in a dumpster, or
2.) To spend four score years loving, laughing, some pain, some sorrow while having to cope with a theoretical two-tenths of a degree increase in earthly temperature? Maybe your child or grandchild or great, great, great, great grandchild will fix the problem...if it really exists.

Listen to your local weatherperson for a few days. Many of them provide historical data for each calendar day. You might hear something like this, "The coldest recorded November 16th in Northwest Ohio was in 1892 when the mercury hovered at minus 3 degrees. The hottest eleven-sixteen on record was 1942 when the temperature reached a eighty-seven degrees." This example is not real, but does illustrate that on any given historical day, there were highs and lows. And maybe they are getting progessively warmer in a general sense, but not in a particular day-by-day measurement.

So think what you wish, I'm happy that my little patch no longer requires that I build an igloo for shelter. 

What to do about Sarah: the unabridged version.

As Sarah Palin begins her intergalactic tour (I describe it this way because leftists believe she is from another planet), I submit my thesis on why she is loathed or feared by so many on the left...including faux conservative, David Brooks. There are, I believe, two words that can be viewed as foundational when attempting to describe this phenomenon. They are grace and dysfunction. Lefties often cite the personal or public failings of conservatives as proof of their hypocrisy, thus rendering the conservative unworthy of the Public's trust. The progressives attack every flaw( whether real, perceived or false)  as evidence that the conservative has forfeited her/his credibility and trustworthiness.

As a Christian, Sarah and others who share her faith, understands that we are all fallen. We are incapable because of our fallen nature of living up to a standard that is worthy of our Lord. Because the Lord wants to spend eternity with us, He went to the cross, paid the penalty for our sins and arose from the grave to give us a new life, a new beginning that is free from eternal condemnation. As believers we live under his grace. Our failings, our shortcomings while real, are erased from the book of judgement. Because of this gift of grace, believers can move forward with confidence and assurance as long as we attempt to honor Him and understand that it is His mercy that allows us to go on.

Progressives, on the other hand, generally assume that the doctrine of grace is the province of rubes, rednecks, hillbillies and other such undesirables. Many leftists celebrate and encourage dysfunction  (e.g. lifestyle choices) while vociferously proclaiming that no one is worthy enough to judge the aberrant behaviors. In some respects they are correct. The only judge with authority and standing is God. The Lord has, however, given us His Word as a guidepost and a comfort to guide our walk. Lefties usually dismiss the validity of the word and whine about its mean-spirited judgementalism. Meanwhile, the progressive agenda seeks via legislation and the courts to legitimize every deviant behavior...while condemning and ostracizing those conservatives and believers who have fallen into the mire. This is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Liberals, progressives and others of their ilk seem to feel threatened by anyone who lives under the glow of grace. They reactively condemn, demean and seek to destroy those who enjoy the fruits of belief. Believers understand that dysfunctional deviant behavior is wrong, but it is a result of our fallen nature. Believers embrace the gift of mercy and grace, while progressives slap the face of God.

Unrelenting Change: my two cents worth.

When I was youngster, I wanted to become a veternarian. There were a couple of problems, however. I couldn't bear watching animals suffer, and there are fewer schools of Veternary Medicine than there are medical schools. I lacked the requisite academic discipline to achieve entry into vet school. Things change. I ultimately landed in the world of words...broadcasting, politics, teaching and writing. Now I worry about spelling "parvovirus" rather than treating it.

Change is inevitable. Two sayings come to mind: Burns' "best laid plans...sometimes go astray" and "you can't stay were you are, you're either going forward or slipping behind." They both suggest that no matter what we do or how we plan, we cannot avoid change. As I age, I become more aware that change is pervasive. I now carry a cell phone after resisting for years. Oh, I still find it somewhat annoying, but because of some medical problems in the past, I know my family feels more at ease due to my having "9-1-1" easily accessible on my belt. There have been other changes over the years that I have sought to avoid, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. I remember the halcyon days of the '50's (nineteens, not eighteens)...those "Ozzie and Harriet" times, living on a farm near a small village. My teens and early twenties were lived during the turbulent sixties and seventies. Change has been a constant in my life.

Nearly twenty years ago I preached a sermon about the Apostle Peter. He was a tough-skinned, calloused handed fisherman with little schooling and limited sophistication. He was summoned by the Son to follow Him and learn at His feet for three years. At a time of great trial he failed...not once, or twice but three times, but Peter went on to nurture a movement and died a gruesome death while clinging to what he knew was true. Today, some twenty two centuries later billions of believers have venerated his name and his memory. Now there's some change for you.

Some changes are obviously good, and others are downright destructive. Perhaps it's the oldster in me who believes that the soft core porn that passes for primetime television is bad. Maybe my fossilized attitudes cause me to regret that younger generations appear to be unfamiliar with the Bible and United States' history. Perhaps I have a distorted perception when I suspect that many of my fellow citizens have unrealistic ideas about rights without understanding that one must earn respect and privileges. Maybe I have assumed my role as a cranky curmudgeon without my having qualified for it.

In the final analysis, though, I reserve the right to celebrate the change that I believe to be good, to tolerate that change that I suspect is meaningless, and to excoriate the change that I find poisonous. And....I reserve the option to change my mind about anything and everything.