Conservative/Liberal Talk Radio

Conservative/Liberal Talk Radio:
Entertainment, Hearsay, or Charade
Saturday, September 17, 2005

My friend, Joe, sent me the e-mail printed in full below the end of my comments. Several issues are addressed but I respond more to the point of the legitimacy of news sources. In the e-mail Neal Boortz gives a blistering response to Sam Marie Engle’s letter claiming society has failed the poor, undesirables, and in a general lack of moral goodness.
My Comments:
With regard to the comments of SAM MARIE ENGLE who Boortz responded to her letter to editor of The Atlanta Constitution about the New Orleans’ poor, I do not have the answer. It’s not a black or white problem; it’s a societal problem in the haves and have-nots, the educated and uneducated, and maybe the privileged and unprivileged. I can’t judge on the lack of moral goodness; however, it’s a problem that must be acknowledged before solutions can be brought to bear. Motivation, hope and compassion; education, education, education; opportunity, opportunity, opportunity! Martin Luther King’s statement may still have great implication: "True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring."
Political Radio: I have a tendency to stay away from the incendiary language such as is used too often by the likes of Neal Boortz and Rush Limbaugh. I would do the same with any liberal screamer, such as Al Franken. Although, I do listen in occasionally, just to hear what they are saying, except Al Franken or another liberal is not aired in my local area. (Actually, after researching I find two AM stations in NC that carries the Air America network, Ashville and Chapel Hill. Further, one can listen on line). Now, that I disclaim self-righteous extremist is not to say there is not some measure of truth from either side. But the onslaught of negative and belittling accusations do not give credence to serious debate of the important issues. That’s the same reason I don’t read Maureen Dowd’s op-ed of the NY Times. Too often these critics (too kind a word) paint everything in “black or white” with a broad brush that for example: If you are a Democrat you are automatically a far-left liberal who wants to tax endlessly and give away the store. Or, if you’re a Republican, you’re a far-right conservative who wants to cut all taxes and provide zilch social help to the poor. Of course, we know there are those that fit these descriptions within their respective party. To use such excessive politically skewed savvy is a disservice to our social order. Sincere, honest and forthright debate has to be fundamental for moderate Democrats, Republicans and like-minded representative voices. Only then can this country regain a sense of civility necessary to honestly face our serious problems. I believe one such example of this civility is the Republican senator (I believe Brownback?) who expressed grave concern for the direction of our country in his emotionally delivered statement at the Roberts hearing this week. Subsequently, he was interviewed by Lou Dobbs. The senator has great concern for the problems of this country, like how are we to deal with the ever-growing-national deficit, http://brownback.senate.gov/. See his “National Debt Time Clock” tick away, now close to 8-trillion dollars.
It is the design of these fire-starting commentators and their produces to raise the ire of their listening audiences. Without that element they probably would not survive the airwaves. Herein lies the great broken-bridge of our nation’s civility; all these enraged voices continue to harden polarizations. It’s my belief that these contemptible-vents are in large part responsible for many good people on both sides being rendered useless to use coherent-thought-processes in making right judgments. It is political expediency for these and other political-hacks that continue to drive these forces that divide our society.
Balanced and fair news in print and TV broadcast is offered, and it’s not all on Fox. But on commercial radio I can’t think of any just now that cover the national issues. I’m not trying to influence anyone as to where they should get their news. Only to make the point of the type setting in which I believe I get a balanced report: Programs that critique the merits and delivery are CNN’s Reliable Sources – Howard Kurtz - http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/kurtz.howard.html and Fox’s News Watch - Eric Burns – and panel http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143573,00.html. More to the news rather than a critiquing of it: Fox’s Brit Hume and panel http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112935,00.html; CNN’s Lou Dobbs, guest and panel http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/. Of course there are many others: Tim Russet, Ted Koppel, and Bob Sheafer, not to exclude others. All are accused of some bias, depending on the accuser’s perspective. All do make mistakes, but I believe all also try to be fair and balanced. Rather than one commentator’s single view, I prefer a panel of opposing views because face-to-face brings out more honest opinions and diligence to be fair and respectful, even though they are at opposite ideologies.

Some months ago I found it interesting that on Fox’s (Some would call it the most conservative network.) News Watch - three of the four panel members named The New York Times (NYT) and Washington Post as the most reliable print for fair and balanced news. Interesting, because these papers are so often disparage for their liberal bias. Every opportunity the former President George H. Bush gets he pours scorn on the NYT. And maybe it’s somewhat justified because of the op-ed writer, Maureen Dowd.

In response to the New Orleans recovery, I believe, all levels of government must share blame in the shamed recovery ineptness. Otherwise, what I have said from the beginning, what was missing was a high-ranking military general to coordinate and direct the vast resources that we know are (or should be) be available for such a magnitude of national catastrophe (whether natural or WMD enemy inflicted). And this goes probably more to the responsibility of our congress for designation of who’s in charge, besides the president, at such a critical time.

Just as I was writing this I noticed Lou Dobbs interviewing a man who told about the contrast between the Katrina recovery and the San Francisco Earthquake of April 18th, 1906. Didn’t get his name, but his main point being that there was a FREDERICK FUNSTON BRIG. -GEN. U. S. A. who took charge, even in the absence of immediate communication with President Teddy Roosevelt. Dobbs’ guest reported Funston had troops on site shortly and in due time10% of all U. S. troops, by which he save lives, controlled looting, used dynamite to break fire lines, help feed the people, and had all the nation’s available tents for portable housing within just a few days. With even less communication in those days, the following morning (mind you at 4:00 am) in Washington DC congress met to take action for relief. He said, “The difference today is bureaucracy.” Read about how the army worked to save San Francisco: http://www.sfmuseum.org/1906/cosmo.html

It is quite interesting what Michael Brown is having to say after his resignation, as quoted in the article of Sept. 15th NYT’s Ex-FEMA Chief Tells of Frustration and Chaos.

As usual I welcome your thoughts on any of these issues.

Cornell Cox
‘’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’
Neal Boortz responds to a letter to the editor of The Atlanta Constitution.
Monied America lacks moral goodness [bugmenot]
Congratulations, monied America: You wanted your gated communities to keep out the poor, to protect yourselves from crime, to separate yourselves from undesirables. You took the high roads and built your gated communities on them so you would stay dry and clean while the stormwaters of filth and despair flooded their neighborhoods. You did it. You kept out the poor, you concentrated the crime in the poor neighborhoods, effectively ensuring those neighborhoods would remain poor and broken. You separated yourselves from the undesirables. And then you left them, to die in attics and on rooftops and in the streets and in the disgusting halls of commerce and sports. The richest nation in the world is the most destitute when it comes to true moral goodness. God could not bless this America at all. SAM MARIE ENGLE

Neal's response:

OK ... we're going to give Engle a pass for misspelling "moneyed" and for her failure to realize that "storm waters" are two words. It goes with the territory. And just what territory might that be, you ask? Well, from reading her screed, haven't you already guessed that Sam Marie Engle stalks the halls of academia? Engle is the director of something called the Kenneth Cole Fellowship in Community Building and Social Change and is the senior program associate in the Office of University-Community Partnerships at Emory University. Emory. That says a lot.Now let's deal with Engle's rant.
Obviously Engle has a problem with achievement. In a word, she harbors great resentment toward those who have gone the extra mile to achieve success and wealth. Somehow she has convinced herself that the problems that afflicted the poor in New Orleans were due to the existence of gated communities and the presence of the evil rich. If there had been no wealthy neighborhoods in New Orleans the poor, somehow, wouldn't have suffered.Engle also finds great fault with the idea that people would go to extra lengths to protect themselves from crime. How hideously insensitive of the rich! How very un-American! No doubt were we to locate Ms. Engle's automobile wherever it is parked while she is out there community-building, we would find it to be unlocked; ditto for her home. After all, Engle certainly wouldn't want to do anything to protect herself from crime, would she? That would be a certain indicator of a complete lack of moral goodness on her part. Furthermore, when Engle finally moves on to her well-deserved retirement (and it can't be soon enough) I'm certain that she is going to build her retirement home in a flood zone rather than seek higher and safer ground. After all, if a flood were to occur Ms. Engle wouldn't want to be accused by anyone of actually using her wealth and power of choice wisely in selecting a building location. It's all about demonstrating moral goodness, and you can't demonstrate moral goodness making wise and safe choices in your personal life.Actually, Engle's letter to the AJC editor is a literary achievement seldom matched in our age. How one woman can get so many things wrong with so few words is something that philosophers and scholars in logic will be studying for years to come.Shall we do a little picking apart? Engle feels that the evil rich "kept out the poor" from their high-and-dry gated communities. Sorry, Sam, the poor weren't "kept out" of those gated communities; they just failed to make the decisions in life that would have gained them access. The rich did nothing to them. They did it to themselves. It wasn't the evil rich who decided that the poor would ignore the educational opportunities available to all in America, rich and poor alike. Rich people don't teach poor young blacks that learning is a "white thing." It wasn't some rich family living in their gated community that decided that a poor woman was going to have a child she could not afford to raise at 18, then another at 20 and a third at 21. It wasn't "monied America" that made the choice for the poor that living on the taxpayer's teat was a far more desirable way of life than developing a work ethic and putting it to use in our opportunity-rich free market economy.And here's something else for you to ponder as you light those votives under your Che Guevara poster, Ms. Engle: It won't be the poor who rebuild those New Orleans neighborhoods, and it won't be the poor who come back to the Big Easy to invest and to provide the job opportunities that some, but certainly not all, of the poor might seek.Also, Ms. Engle, can you tell us just how those wicked rich people managed to "concentrate(d) the crime in the poor neighborhoods"? Is it because they take precautions to keep the crime out of their neighborhoods? Well, excuse the hell out of them! How dare they sit there in their fancy homes and not accept willingly their fair share of crime? Maybe we need some new kind of bussing program. That can be your next letter to the editor, Ms. Engle; a demand that some court order the bussing of petty thieves, burglars, rapists and murderers to gated communities so that the rich can enjoy the benefits of the culture of predatory crime together with the poor. The culture of the law-abiding should be forced to mingle with the culture of the lawless, don't you think? Isn't that part and parcel of the liberal mantra of multiculturalism? And now, Ms. Engle, I need to take the gloves off for a moment, you supercilious jerk. How dare you say that "you left them, to die in attics and on rooftops and in the streets and in the disgusting halls of commerce and sports?" You sure told us a lot about yourself with that sentence, didn't you? Commerce is disgusting? This is the label you attach to the one economic system that has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in the history of civilization? Disgusting? But then, you work in the academic world, don't you? One wonders if you have a job skill that could earn you a comfortable living in the private sectors. My guess would be that you do not."Left them to die?" What in the hell are you talking about? When police and firefighters, the fantastic first-responders we all rely on, went in to rescue the stranded they were fired on by roving gangs of thugs from the poor neighborhoods you so love – and this started happening on day one. Nurses and doctors (who very well may have lived in gated communities) stayed on duty in their hospitals moving their patients to ever-high floors as the looters and predators worked their way up from below. Helicopters trying to evacuate patients from hospitals and from the Super Dome were fired upon. Left them to die? These people were risking death to rescue the poor, and you write that the poor were left to die? Then you say that "the richest nation in the world is the most destitute when it comes to true moral goodness." You mindless, hate-filled leftist, anti-capitalist gasbag. Katrina has brought forth the greatest show of American generosity since 9/11. Many believe that the charitable contributions of Americans will far surpass that of four years ago. From the very day that Katrina hit New Orleans people of means from across the country were writing checks, making pledges and taking action. The total giving to date is nearing $800 million, and will most likely surpass one billion dollars within a week's time. This is the America, an America of compassion and giving, that you say God would not bless. Oddly enough, though, I do want to thank you for your letter to the editor, Ms. Engle. You have done more to demonstrate the moral decadence of the left with your pompous diatribe then I could hope to do with five years of talking about your type on the radio.Please keep writing your anti-individualist rants. You're the best thing the right has going out there.AND MOST AMERICANS CAN'T SEE THROUGH THIS?
Now ... think back. Who were the first people to the microphones to start assigning blame for the Katrina disaster. That answer would be Democrats. And who were the Democrats blaming? Anyone Republican, that's who. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin were virtually immune to any criticisms from Democrats in Washington.
Now here's the best part. The Democrats manage to sharply divide the country with their finger pointing, and then they come up for a solution to that division. (Oh this is rich.) The left's solution to the divide that they caused with their hysterical finger-pointing is for George Bush to (1) appoint a Supreme Court Justice who is "mainstream" (as defined by Democrats) so that the appointment won't cause any rancor on Capitol Hill; and (2) abandon any plans for making the tax cuts permanent or for the repeal of the death tax.
Wonderful -- just wonderful. These Democrats bring this country to turmoil with their "blame Bush" hysterics, then tell Bush that the way to bring the country back together again is to raise taxes and appoint a liberal to the Supreme Court. What gall.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Response to Conservative/Liberal Radio
9-30-05
Cornell,
I read the forward you sent out regarding the ongoing battle of the media libs and conservatives with much interest. The conservatives indeed do have an agenda and are not ashamed to spell it out. Liberals for the most part have difficulty in putting forward their actual viewpoints, i.e. the desire to reduce liberties claiming that it is for the common good to follow their dictates.
Today's liberals cannot enter into logical discussions to backup their political goals. Most will not tolerate reasonable disagreement with their positions. Some will go off on non-linear tangents and emotional appeals to make their arguments. A few will go on a personal attack of their opposition.
Conservatives make the effort to expalin their positions in rational terms. To be sure, some can be abrasive and sarcastic-- this is a methodology to break through the cynicism of the masses that these media pundits rely upon for ratings. It's a tough audience out there and it takes a measure of 'schtick' to build and hold that audience. Consider that those such as Limbaugh, Boortz, Hennety, et al, could not remain on the air without commercial support.
Is this not voice of the people being the voice of g-d? Or is this all just more grist for the millstone of public consumption?
Regards, Jeff
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Cornell’s response to Jeff:
Friday, September 30, 2005
Jeff, thanks for your response.
You make some interesting points.
As I begin this response, I include an excerpt from my this-morning devotion, written by Lloyd John Ogilvie, a former chaplain of the US Senate – because it’s an enlightening lead-in to the problem we discuss:
· “Marriages are crippled, families are hurt, friendships are destroyed, companies are unproductive, cities are blighted by unresolved social problems, and government is often debilitated by people who become party to acrimonious discord because of loyalty to their parties rather than what’s best for the nation.” (This theme is resounded again in a current article written today.)
First, I prefer not to put things into a political context (liberal or conservative for that matter), even though conservative/liberal-talk radios are political arms. The meanings of the words: liberal and conservative (LC) have been misrepresented and ill defined. To be a liberal has become a stigmatization. To be a conservative no longer has the connotation (meaning) of the traditional conservative of years past. If you could pull out all the extremist elements (normally lumped in one or the other) and how you suggest they react (Both sides indulge in personal attacks. Have you heard of Ann Coulter?), then there could be an honest, rational discussion.
You are right about liberals not having a cohesive voice, for there is no one to lead.
It’s the fanatical rhetoric taunted on the LC-talk shows that lumps each other to be the norm of their respective parties. Of recent the so-called conservative voice for agenda and message has become discombobulated, because many of the traditional conservatives have backed away, speaking out in disagreement with the administration. There are progressive liberals and conservatives of the traditional values that we in either stream may proudly identify with or respectfully disagree. These truly responsible progressive leaders must be our advocates in practice and persuasion to bring back rational thought-processes for civility in politics and governance. The practice and persuasion must first be born of a respectful character in the masses, lead by citizens who demand better from their representatives or others who may callously erode ethics in governmental and political processes.
The ballyhoo of radio-talk shows, irresponsible political hacks, and other extremist --- to some extent, are a reflection of the character of America’s citizenry. Yes, the airwaves support what we listen to, regardless of content. That’s the reality of commercialism.
On a brighter note two US House Representatives, good decent men, a Republican and a Democrat, have recognized the degeneration of respectfulness within the US House of Representatives and are trying to do something about it. I salute them for their efforts through the Center Aisle Caucus.
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/speech/il15_johnson/021605center.html
· Washington, D.C. - U.S. Reps. Steve Israel (D-Long Island, NY) and Tim Johnson (R-Urbana, IL) announced the formation of the Center Aisle Caucus today alongside Former Speaker of the House Thomas Foley (D-WA) and former House Republican Leader Bob Michel (R-IL). The Center Aisle Caucus will be an inter-party group of House Members committed to working cooperatively to promote mutual respect and discourage personal attacks and achieving a more respectful and civil climate for conducting the nation’s business.
Government and politics need more level-headed voices, who refrain from biased-political instincts --- rather to serve the common good of all people, like David Gergen. http://www.davidgergen.com/ Gergen has worked for Republican and Democrat administrations. More Chuck Hagels (R) would serve our country with great honor.
David Brooks gave an excellent summation on the mark when he says politicians need Deaniac hyper-partisanship to organize hatred around our top leaders; it’s this hate-mongering-type partisanship that keeps breeding an infectious disease. LC-Talk-radio disease!
· http://select.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/opinion/29brooks.html?th&emc=th (also in full print in today’s editorial section of N&O) Excerpt:
· “Will we learn from DeLay's fall about the self-destructive nature of the team mentality? Of course not. The Democrats have drawn the 10-years-out-of-date conclusion that in order to win, they need to be just like Tom DeLay. They need to rigidly hew to orthodoxy. They need Deaniac hyperpartisanship. They need to organize their hatreds around Bush the way the Republicans did around Clinton.”
One may listen to LC-talk radio with an understanding of its biased content. It is raw politics, used too many times to distort truth. A steady diet could lead to nausea or, in the worst, a bedeviled inflated bloviation. Neither adds to the good of civil discourse. If things improve it will begin with you and me. Will we have the decency to exercise prudence in respectfulness and demand the same from those who purport to represent us?
I’m not sure what you meant by your question: Is this not voice of the people being the voice of g-d?
Best wishes,
Cornell
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Response:

Thanks Cornell,Good article. Do you read any comments on BBC? I like to see what theother countries are saying. For the most part, the foreign media haveignored entirely the role Faith Based organizations are playing in therecovery. I think they fail to understand the great role churches, thesalvation army, and other organizations play in helping these people. God Bless,JW