Sunday Night Wrap Up

Allan Hunt is a radio talk show host who says that it's not about right or left but it's about right or wrong. His show has a Christian slant. Tonight, before launching a telephone forum on the second half of his show for discussion of some celebrity's marital infidelity, he talked about national politics and economics. He said that President Obama should fire Rohm Emanuel and get a business friendly adviser. Really, aren't we way past that sort of discussion? Mr. Hunt believes that BHO could revitalize his ratings and the economy by coming out strongly with some pro-business proposals. He thinks he should start with ideas like low taxes, less regulation, and cessation of his verbal attacks. Wouldn't that be nice? This is like suggesting to the President of Iran that he could improve international relations by reversing his stance against Israel. Mr. Hunt is either naive or trying to be sarcastic. However, he is a good example of a commentator who is starting to see the light. He can see the obvious economic absurdities of trillion dollar 'stimulus' spending and borrowing but he still doesn't see that BHO is at best a devoted socialist and at worse an pawn for international communism.

Michael Medved is a local radio personality who tends to give liberal callers at lot of air time. He tries in vain to reason with many who pretend to be conservatives who only want to point out a few faults that they just cannot go along with. It should be obvious to Mr. Medved what they are doing: advancing their propaganda and trying to chip away at the expanding conservative advances. They usually start out with a false premise, which Mr. Medved doesn't adequately challenge but instead addresses their fake issues. The other day he finally got totally irate regarding a plan of King county, the State of Washington, and Seattle to build more light rail. Not only would this be immensely expensive, take at least ten years, and expand a system that hardly anybody uses already, but it would also completely disrupt the one east-west freeway in the Seattle area that does not have chronic traffic jams. Local planers figure if they can screw-up traffic enough, people will finally start using their multibillion dollar trains. Mr. Medved was extremely incensed with the unmitigated stupidity of the plan which he says helps no one but those building it [editorial note: and the politicians on the take]. He probably commutes via that freeway. Fortunately, this uncompromising indignation lately has extended to his discussion of national issues also.

Billy Cunningham, who has a national talk show on Sunday's does not need any encouragement. Kieth Overbite has for the sixth time awarded him the worse person on earth award, or some such thing. Mr. Cunningham goes a little overboard treating this like his sixth Medal of Honor. It's more of a distinguished service cross. Mr. Cunningham keeps the pressure up on several neglected fronts, the 'Obama birth' cover-up for example. There is definitely a lot of details about the Precedent's past that are being covered-up. We just do not know exactly what. The press should make them come clean They won't of course, which brings us to the mrc.org site (Media Research Center). Mr. Cunningham (aka, The Great American) referred interested listeners to that site for the latest Obamaphilic and Limbaughphobic quotations from our wise, objective media gurus.

Lastly, Glenn Beck Weekend is aired on Sunday. (That's why you see so many people with earphones in Church.) Glenn pulls no punches. He may irk Mark Levin (and me) with his remarks about Republicans being as bad as Democrats, but it is clear where his sentiments are. He does not like what is happening to our great nation and he feels certain there is much more of the same coming. "Feels" is the key word for Glenn. Although he has perhaps the best mind and instincts of any commentator, his feelings are more often than not what he discusses. He feels foreboding. With history and common sense as a guide, who can argue with him? However, Glenn's fight is not against BHO, for it transcends mundane politics. He does not struggle against flesh and blood but against the powers of darkness. I hope he has on the full armour required for that fight. Humor may be his best gift and weapon. (It was through oversight that he was not included in the list of radio commentators earlier in this blog; he deserves a high place on the list.)

Air America Bites the Dust

Liberal radio talk network, Air America, has gone out of business. The reason for this according to radio show host Michael Savage, is that America is tired of hearing over and over the same liberal drivel. Savage describes the typical tone of their discussion as"...snide and sneering..." toward the traditional views and attitudes that makes America and Americans great. On one of their programs a few months ago, a conservative caller questioned the liberal view that government can and should provide free health care to everyone in the country. After the two hosts asked him a few questions about his background, they proceeded to psychoanalyze him. They seemed to believe that to question liberal policies, one had to have a mental disorder. They were quite understanding of this poor soul who, because of his early travails, had developed a psychological disorder that caused him to be insensitive. They made no attempt to address the issue he had raised. (Does the phrase "effete impudent snob" come to mind?)

Recently, all media outlets have experienced business difficulties. Many liberal print news outlets have gone out of business. Conservatives have explained that not only is there internet competition, but the public no longer blindly support the liberal editorial policies of most newspapers and magazines. This is only partially true. Many reading and thinking individuals in this country, unfortunately, do support liberal editorial policies. However, most commentators neglect the explanation of supply and demand. If the country is divided 50-50 between liberal and conservative, then there should be about that distribution of attitudes in the media. However, the division seems to be about 95% liberal medial outlets and 5% conservative. If the same commentary and spin on the news is available on the television news outlets for instance, then why should the liberals bother with getting it from the liberal newspapers? In other words, there is an over supply of liberal media. The conservatives have only Fox television, talk radio, and a handful of newspapers. (Even Fox news, in this writers view, accepts many of the liberal assumptions of the lamestream media.)

Besides on the traditional editorial page, most liberal outlets put a slant on every aspect of the news. They still talk about Obama changes as 'reform.' Commentators on the right may call them measured and cynical tactics to bring about socialistic control, but they do not claim to be unbiased disseminators of objective facts. There are also entertainment shows that satirize both the left and the right (with the same 95-5% split). How often does AKA Liebowitz (John Stewart), Colbert, or Overbite-Countdown to No Ratings satirize the left? With so many and varied liberal mouthpieces, many are bound to be nonviable economically, especially if they depend upon advertising from a highly depressed business sector. The movement to have taxpayer funds support failing news outlets only serves to embolden newspapers in their liberal leanings. Government support would only discourage them from giving a voice to both sides of the issues. In spite of the US Constitution, government funds for newspapers seems just fine to most liberals. (Give me a break.)

It's not Just the Ecomomy Stupid

Economic factors may not be the most important aspects of our lives, but they do form the basis of most of our interactions. Through work and exchange, we come into contact with others. The spiritual dimensions of life, although the most enduring and valuable, are usually private things. This has been the sensible American way of thinking and mode of behavior. One reason westerners have a reputation for reticence is that our society is highly heterogeneous. We have so many peoples of so many view points and beliefs, that it is often the best policy to avoid disputes by keeping most of our views to ourselves. But sometimes we are pushed too far.

Journalist, Brit Hume was moved by the spectacle of Tiger Wood's vast extramarital exploits to actually recommended Christianity for him. He thought that it would be superior to Wood's apparently professed beliefs in Buddhism. Of course the leftist journalist have been pontificating against Hume See USA Today's story: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2010/01/tiger-woods-brit-hume-jesus-buddhism-evangelist/1 Today, His Excellency the Great One, Mark Levin, discussed the tedious and arrogant remarks by Keith Overbite of Countdown to No Ratings. (Note: I do not believe that this is the real name of Mr. Overbite's program but as I have never watched it, I only know Mr. Levin's sobriquet.) Apparently, Mr. Overbite took offense with Mr. Hume's remarks, which he viewed as a slight to Buddhism. Furthermore, as a leftist, Mr. Overbite has a deep seated grudge against Christianity. As for myself, even though my Catholic beliefs sometimes verge on the Ultramontainism of my forefathers, I am not motivated to proselytize. In defense of Mr. Hume's doing so I would point out the following:

Buddhists have the belief, not so different from Christians, that we must experience the consequences of our actions (and even the actions of our forebearers), whether now or in the future. Enlightenment cannot come until the karma of our past deeds has been erases. Buddhist masters have variously held that this is not easy, in fact well nigh impossible. (Of course Christians would say that once enlightened, you still aren't necessarily saved.) If this karmic load can be eased by our good deeds and thoughts, then this is not such an unchristian belief. In fact, Christianity goes a step further in it's view that only by the grace of God can we be saved (or enlightened) because man cannot alone overcome the burden of sin (karma). And it is reasonable for even a Buddhist to see the ultimate and sublime grace that would proceed from the blood sacrifice of God's only son, Jesus, who died so that sins could be forgiven (and we could become enlightened).

What I had started out to write was that if appeals to conventional morality and religion can turn some of the population against the current socialist (and atheist) regime, I say pour it on thick. The same for national defense issues. It seems that the public at large can understand the shortcomings of the Obamaites in military and antiterrorism matters better that it can comprehend BHO's economics folly. I am glad to see the left attacked on all fronts. If it causes more people to join the Party of No, I'm all for it.