As a thoughtful and careful film viewer, I’m certain that Roger Ebert would notice a conspicuous continuity error in a movie, so at first I was surprised that he didn’t notice the glaring inconsistency in his own column (“Stern belongs on radio just as much as Rush,” Chicago Sun-Times, April 16, 2004). In paragraph two, Mr. Ebert states “Unlike millions of Americans I do not listen to Rush Limbaugh on the radio,” yet only a few paragraphs later he speaks of Mr. Limbaugh’s on-air “campaigns to throw the book at drug addicts.” The juxtaposition of these two statements is like a movie scene in which a character has a flashback and recalls situations that he never witnessed, you know, like Richard Clarke. How exactly does he know?
As I said, at first I was taken aback at this blatant mistake, until, that is, I re-read the column. That’s when I realized that Mr. Ebert analyzes the current FCC crackdown through the prism of his leftwing ideology, and therefore that it is based on a series of hackneyed clichés, myths and other misinformation. Let me set him straight.
Mr. Ebert states that “the right wing, secure in its own right to offend now wants to punish Stern to the point where he may be forced off the air.” As a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I can assure Mr. Ebert that we do not want Mr. Stern removed from the public airwaves. In fact, both Rush Limbaugh and I have so stated repeatedly on the air. I share Mr. Ebert’s opinion that “[t]he whole nation cannot be held hostage so that everything on the radio is suitable for 9 year-olds.” Trying to take away people’s money and freedom because we need to “protect the children?” I don’t think so. That’s a liberal gambit, and an annoying one at that.
I can’t blame Mr. Ebert for not following this latest FCC foolishness as closely as those of us in radio. Had he been doing so, he would realize that it has NOTHING to do with President Bush’s desire to silence that great public policy wonk Howard Stern, his enthusiastic embrace of the victim role notwithstanding. The FCC received over 200,000 e-mails within 3 weeks of Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl ‘wardrobe malfunction’ complaining about its failure to control indecency on the public airwaves. It’s that simple. All the tin-foil hat club conspiracy theories featuring President Bush and his rich Texas friends working in concert with intellectually-stunted religious fanatics that the left find so compelling, and the rest of us find hilarious, don’t change that.
Up until very recently, the left believed that ‘indecency’ was a problem caused by one of their favorite bogeymen—let’s all say it together—MEDIA CONSOLIDATION. The evil suits at the behemoth Clear Channel were so out of touch with local communities that they were constantly assaulting local listeners with material that was indecent by local standards. When the liberals thought that media consolidation was the reason, they were more than willing to limit ‘freedom of speech’ to get back at business. Note the following from the salon.com article “Howard Stern Unplugged” by obvious left-leaning Eric Boehlert,
“The jock claims Bush has sold out to the religious right and ordered the FCC to crack down on broadcasters to appease his political base. He saves many of his most stinging barbs these days for Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose fundamentalist critique of popular culture puts Stern in mind of the black-robed jihadis Americ is fighting in the Middle East.
“Yet the politics of indecency are not so simple. For years, it has been the tow Democractic FCC commissioners, Michael Cops and Jonathan Adelstein, whopressed for tougher indecency fines, while Powell, a liberatarian-leaning Republican, adopted a more hands-off, let-the-marketplace-decide approach to the problem. During the fierce debate last wummer about whether the F CC should allow even further media consolidation—a trend that Powell supports—the Democratic commissioners argued that rampant consolidation had already led to raunchier programming, particularly in radio, where corporate owners rarely operate locally and often aren’t sensitive to community standards.”
Now, all of a sudden, their villain has changed and they are outraged. Here we go again with the feigned moral outrage.
When writing about politics, Mr. Ebert often finds himself like Leonardo DeCaprio’s character in “Titanic,” that is, in over his head.
As I said, at first I was taken aback at this blatant mistake, until, that is, I re-read the column. That’s when I realized that Mr. Ebert analyzes the current FCC crackdown through the prism of his leftwing ideology, and therefore that it is based on a series of hackneyed clichés, myths and other misinformation. Let me set him straight.
Mr. Ebert states that “the right wing, secure in its own right to offend now wants to punish Stern to the point where he may be forced off the air.” As a proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I can assure Mr. Ebert that we do not want Mr. Stern removed from the public airwaves. In fact, both Rush Limbaugh and I have so stated repeatedly on the air. I share Mr. Ebert’s opinion that “[t]he whole nation cannot be held hostage so that everything on the radio is suitable for 9 year-olds.” Trying to take away people’s money and freedom because we need to “protect the children?” I don’t think so. That’s a liberal gambit, and an annoying one at that.
I can’t blame Mr. Ebert for not following this latest FCC foolishness as closely as those of us in radio. Had he been doing so, he would realize that it has NOTHING to do with President Bush’s desire to silence that great public policy wonk Howard Stern, his enthusiastic embrace of the victim role notwithstanding. The FCC received over 200,000 e-mails within 3 weeks of Janet Jackson’s Super Bowl ‘wardrobe malfunction’ complaining about its failure to control indecency on the public airwaves. It’s that simple. All the tin-foil hat club conspiracy theories featuring President Bush and his rich Texas friends working in concert with intellectually-stunted religious fanatics that the left find so compelling, and the rest of us find hilarious, don’t change that.
Up until very recently, the left believed that ‘indecency’ was a problem caused by one of their favorite bogeymen—let’s all say it together—MEDIA CONSOLIDATION. The evil suits at the behemoth Clear Channel were so out of touch with local communities that they were constantly assaulting local listeners with material that was indecent by local standards. When the liberals thought that media consolidation was the reason, they were more than willing to limit ‘freedom of speech’ to get back at business. Note the following from the salon.com article “Howard Stern Unplugged” by obvious left-leaning Eric Boehlert,
“The jock claims Bush has sold out to the religious right and ordered the FCC to crack down on broadcasters to appease his political base. He saves many of his most stinging barbs these days for Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose fundamentalist critique of popular culture puts Stern in mind of the black-robed jihadis Americ is fighting in the Middle East.
“Yet the politics of indecency are not so simple. For years, it has been the tow Democractic FCC commissioners, Michael Cops and Jonathan Adelstein, whopressed for tougher indecency fines, while Powell, a liberatarian-leaning Republican, adopted a more hands-off, let-the-marketplace-decide approach to the problem. During the fierce debate last wummer about whether the F CC should allow even further media consolidation—a trend that Powell supports—the Democratic commissioners argued that rampant consolidation had already led to raunchier programming, particularly in radio, where corporate owners rarely operate locally and often aren’t sensitive to community standards.”
Now, all of a sudden, their villain has changed and they are outraged. Here we go again with the feigned moral outrage.
When writing about politics, Mr. Ebert often finds himself like Leonardo DeCaprio’s character in “Titanic,” that is, in over his head.
Recently a listener sent me a list of fifty bullet points that she got from a democrat and asked me how I would respond to each one. This list is supposed to remind everyone of all the reasons why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, or should I say, in keeping with the general tone and point of view behind this drivel, does not deserve to be elected for the first time. We all know he ‘stole the election,’ right?
As you will clearly see, I wouldn't need to respond to each one because the first six are so revealing of the fact that it would be a waste of time. No one could seriously believe that he could use facts and logic to reach this person. He or she is obviously overcome by an irrational, emotionally-driven hatred of the current president, and that is impervious to logic or facts.
Just read over the first 6 and you’ll see what I mean. Each of the following statements refers to President Bush.
"I attacked and took over 2 countries."
So, we shouldn't have responded to Sept. 11 by going to Afghanistan and destroying the Taliban's terrorist haven? Why do I suspect that this same friend is ready to canonize Richard Clarke for his recent suggestion that the Bush administration didn't do that soon enough (pre-9/11)? In the case of the other country, Iraq, we were enforcing the resolutions of the liberals' precious U.N.
"I spent the U.S. surplus and bankrupted the US Treasury."
The U.S. Treasury is not bankrupt. The 'surplus' was a paper surplus, and like all economic projections, just that. Do you think our democrat friend could pass Econ 101? I don't.
"I shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history (not
easy!)."
That's like saying you shattered your family's record for monthly expenses for housing. Your grandparents may have paid $50 a month for rent. You pay $1000. Grandpa made $1000 a year. You make $50,000. The issue isn't the amount of the deficit. The issue is the amount of government spending in relation to the gross domestic product. Back to economics class, Sparky.
"I set an economic record for the most personal bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period."
It isn't the president that I see on daytime tv pitching the idea to deadbeats and other no accounts who are home at that time--I don't count--I work at home--:-)--that they can be relieved of their credit card debts by making one simple phone call. It's sleazeball lawyers.
"I set all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the stock
market."
The President did that personally? Wow, he IS powerful! How exactly did that benefit him politically and why did he do that? Won't that hurt all his 'rich' friends in 'corporate America'?
"I am the first president in decades to execute a federal prisoner."
Does he/she mean Timothy McVeigh? Are we supposed to shed tears for a guy who murdered 157 innocent people? This statement is an'obvious' criticism only to those who unconditionally oppose the death penalty. That is a legitimate issue for discussion. It's not, as this person obviously assumes, an automatic reason to demonize someone and consider him unqualified to be president.
I've waded around in this dungheap of stupidity long enough. Many of the other bullet points recite the same threadbare and false allegations about the president that are basic tenets of this crowd (“Bush was AWOL, Bush is a cokehead). Others are downright hilarious, unless you’re already wearing the tin-foil hat For example, Bush withdrew from the “World Court of Law,” which this poor ignoramus must think is the name of the International Criminal Court. Or Bush established a ‘secret shadow government.’ Does this mean Jesse Jackson, who used to refer to himself as the ‘shadow senator from Washington, D.C., is a real senator someplace? My personal favorite, though, is the charge that “the first president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors access during the 2002 US elections.” Who knew that we had U.N. inspectors here to supervise all our other elections? I guess we should have had them look into that 1960 presidential election, particularly the results in Cook County, no?
This sort of polemic has great appeal for those who find the works of Michael Moore and Al Franken intellectually rigorous and very persuasive; in other words, members of the religious left. Their ideology has deluded them into believing half-truths, myths, rumours or outright lies. The rest of us can find an amusing insight into the product of their fevered brains and a few laughs, but not much else.