Insensitivity and Argumentation

Yes,... well,... I didn't go through sensitivity training at UW Madison.  The University started that requirement during my time there, but it was only mandatory for incoming freshmen, one of which I was not. So I have an excuse; I was never taught, by the correct governmental entity, how to be a sensitive, caring person.

"Where is she heading with this post?" you may ask.

It just dawned on me this morning, that because of the recent tragedy in Tucson, it may seem inconsiderate of me to post two gun related posts on these particular days.  And that may be true.

One might make such an argument.  In all honesty, I did not make the correlation until after the posts were done.  That said, I can't exactly come to apologize for them, or my timing of them, either.  And here's why.

Gun rights did not cause this tragedy.

My enjoyment of the safe and legal use of firearms did not cause this tragedy.

And Steve Lee's music certainly did not cause this tragedy.

Jarod Laughner caused this tragedy.  Blame his mental illness if you want.  Blame his "handler",  the mysterious missing person, if you want.

But as much as I am saddened by the shooting; as much as I feel for those injured and for the families of the dead, you can't blame me or my views.

I pray for the comfort and healing of all involved.

I pray for the healing of our national conversation.

But perhaps my timing of the most recent post might even be put to some good purpose.  The video clip I included portrays well the difference between articulated arguments and angry, attack speech.  It seems to be a popular analysis, that somehow the angry tone of our cultural conversation is to blame for Jarod Laugner's reprehensible behavior.  I don't think anyone ought to make that link, until he has, or until something can be found in his life and writings, that might connect the two .

I'm finding conversation after conversation on the main Stream Media (MSM), on Conservative Talk Radio (CTR), and on the blogosphere either implying (or defending against those implications) that somehow CTR and its said affiliate, the TEA party movement, caused Jarod Laughner to try to kill Gabrielle Giffords.  (And as an aside, why is she consistently seen as the target, anyway?  Has everyone in the media forgotten that a Federal Judge was shot dead.  How do we know he was not the intended target?  But that's another conversation.)

Last I checked, reports were that Jarod Laughner was not political.  There was no indication he listened to talk radio.  He does not claim to be a TEA party patriot.  He does not appear to be aligned with what some might want to call the "extreme" right.  So don't blame us.

Please, no matter upon which side you find yourself politically, or if you prefer to not have a side, as you listen to or read your choice of current events coverage, please remember that there is a difference between senseless name calling or personal attack speech, and a well articulated argument.  An effective argument will include facts on which you will be able to check.  It will include history that is documented.  It will tie its premises together into a logical conclusion.  It is designed to teach or persuade.  Senseless name calling or personal attack speech, are sometimes linked to facts that cannot be checked, or that upon further checking don't hold up.  Sometimes those facts are valid, but they are strung together in a way that is not logically conclusive.  Often attack speech is phrased in such a way to compel the reader or listener feel a certain emotion strongly.  Often it makes a listener or reader feel smug satisfaction.  Mostly, it is just noise.

Our country is at a time of strongly differing opinions.  But difference does not have to be violent.  Discussion does not have to be fighting.  Well made arguments can build consensus.  But only if we listen and think.

And only if we perceive the noise for what it is.

Information, Too Much, Not Enough, Left Leaning, Biased Right.....Frustration!

I've written before about some of my frustrations with the growing options in conservative media.  Yes, I consider myself politically conservative.  Yes, it ought to be obvious to anyone who cares to think about it objectively that the Mainstream Media is biased left.  Yes, the growing variety of neutral news sources or even those biased toward the right (when it is openly so) is a good thing.  Options are good.  Variety of voices and opinions are good. 

But that doesn't mean I don't get frustrated sometimes with the quality of news coming out of the right leaning sources.  And anyone who claims that we "Right Wing Extremists" are just sheep following blindly, if you ever took the time to ask, you'd find we "extremists" do have our own opinions.  We like to do our research and check up on what we read and hear.  Our thoughts and frustrations and opinions sometimes differ markedly with those of our news sources.  This post is one lowly example.

Wow, that's a bit of statement insurance, is it not?

The subject of my current frustration is the seeming obsession with the cost and opulence of President Obama's current Asia trip.  Every station I turned to when I was in the car for a little while yesterday afternoon was full of it.  Several links on my husband's news readers were filled with it.

OK, I understand that we're talking about a huge amount of money.  Yes, our nation is struggling economically here at home and some might find this money badly spent.

But in none of the news sources did I see or hear a comparison to what previous presidents have spent.  Nor did I see or hear specifics of what Mr. President or his security detail ought to have cut out or changed.

I'm going to pull some examples from this Daily Mail article.  Yes I do realize it's a British source.  Regardless of the source, these are the kinds of complaints I heard and saw everywhere yesterday and this morning, and they are handily in one location for me to cite.

Probably not since the days of the Pharaohs or the more ludicrous Roman Emperors has a head of state travelled in such pomp and expensive grandeur as the President of the United States of America.

This is the opening paragraph.  Kind of sets the tone for the article.  But it makes it sound as though the Obama's are living the high life.  Perhaps they are, but I don't see specifics of that in the article.

The paragraph immediately following the above reads,

While lesser mortals – the Pope, Queen Elizabeth and so on – are usually happy to let their hosts handle most of the security and transport arrangements when they venture beyond their home shores, the United States creates a mini-America on the move to ensure that nothing is left to chance.

Should we begrudge our president his security.  Or lessen it since we're in tough economic times?  Is it even the president's choice to have this style of security arrangements?  Is it out of the ordinary compared to the arrangements of previous presidents?  Should we choose the security measures we demand for our president based upon the arrangements made for dignitaries of other countries?

The article continues by describing the "near tank" quality of the limo the president will ride in, his use of Air Force One, its luxury accommodations and its expense to operate.  Again, we provide all our presidents with these same measures, don't we?  If we don't like it, we can go through democratic processes to gradually change the standards.

Or maybe we don't provide these same things for all our presidents, but if not, then tell us how it's different.

There is, apparently, a squadron of naval ships patrolling off shore.  A fleet of 45 armored limos (half decoys), and a collection of dogs trained to sniff for explosives.

The president has reserved the entire Taj Mahal Palace hotel.  Again, security measures were cited, since the hotel was the target of an attack in 2008 by Pakistani militants.

The author of the Daily Mail article goes into great detail describing how the US security forces decided to secure the President's visit to the Ghandi museum using an above ground bomb proof tunnel (nearly a kilometer in length) to get him inside safely.  The entrance to the museum is within shot of a sky scraper and within a highly populated area that make the area difficult to secure.

The article describes some of the cost figures being bandied about.  I heard one talk radio personality scoff that the White House will not release the exact cost details.  He couldn't accept the idea that a detailed listing of security measures might compromise the security being sought.

Please, if this is out of the ordinary for American presidential security in a post-9/11 world, please tell me how it's different.  Tell me what specifics might be unnecessary so I can come to an opinion of my own.  Don't just complain.  And please do not imply that the the expense of the trip is presidential luxury instead of his safety.   If there are unreasonable luxuries the Obamas have chosen, then tell me that.  Don't list security details as examples of opulence.

The article then continues with a lengthy description of President Obama's business goals for the trip.  Since I'm not really up on international business, you'll have to read this part yourselves.  I've heard President Obama repetitively criticized for not doing presidential things.  For not addressing the economy enough or doing enough to help American business.  The goals described in this article and the manner the president is trying to achieve them seem reasonable.

To sum this up, I don't agree with President Obama on many policy issues.  I do think he behaves in a manner, and has in the past written in a manner, consistent with Marxist philosophy.  I do think most of the things he has striven for so far in his presidency will hurt America in the long run.  I do agree that in international situations, he generally seems to have his "America tail" between his legs.  He does not speak up for the good America represents, and he even seems ashamed of us internationally and almost grovelling in his manner.

That said, he is our elected official.  Our President.  We do live in dangerous days.  I wouldn't want his security compromised.  Within my limited understanding of international business, I can imagine that the goals discussed in the cited article are worthy and might help our economy.

I don't know how President Obama's security measures and their costs compare with those of previous presidents.  And really, only the second President Bush ought to be used for comparison.  Things need to be different in the post-9/11 world.

There may very well be valid concerns about the cost of the trip, the extent of the security measures, the opulence of the accommodations, even the business goals. 

I'd like to be given some information on those fronts.  From my conservative news sources, within the limited amount of time I was able to listen and read, I only heard and saw complaints of the cost.  I didn't even hear details of things the commentators thought were wrong.  I didn't hear anything about the business goals the president hopes to achieve.

I only heard complaints.  And scoffing.  And criticism.  That doesn't help me to form an opinion.  It just makes me mad.

And it disappoints me.  And embarrasses me.

If we conservatives want our ideals to flourish and if we believe them worthy of being passed on, we better make sure we have the information we need.  If we want to avoid the accusations of the left regarding our bitterness and shallowness, we had better not fall into the habits of the left, of merely complaining and criticizing and using emotive language designed to rile up an audience.

We are smarter than that.  We need to demand better of our news sources.

A Public Radio Synopsis: Some fun, some not so much.

I don't often listen to the radio around home.  I have trouble with the extra noise in my life.  But when I'm in the car, I do like to listen.  Especially if I have a car full of kids, I am much more able to tune out the backseat commotion, if I have the radio to concentrate on.

Generally, I listen to conservative talk radio.  But on weekends, or on the winter evenings after the sun goes down and our AM stations power down for the dark hours, I listen to public radio.  Usually I listen to the news/ talk public radio, but I will also very occasionally listen to the music stations.

I had to go into town this evening.  On the way there, I heard mark Levin interview Sharron Angle, the Senate candidate who is running against Senator Harry Ried in Nevada. I've heard much about her, but this is the first I've heard her interviewed.  She seemed very knowledgeable on the subjects and very fluid in her communications.  She had a pleasant speaking voice and seemed able to laugh at some of the difficulties her opponent has thrown in her path.

On my homeward trip, it was already dark (6:30, grr.  I know, in two weeks it will be an hour worse, then by the winter solstace, it will be worse yet again, double grr).  I was unable to get reception on any of my normal stations.  I first tuned into an AM Canadian station.  I didn't catch any of the names or even the station, but the topic was Canada's being awarded the Dodo award at the biodiversity conference in Japan.  The Dodo award is "named after the dodo bird, the quintessential symbol of biodiversity loss."  One of Canada's sins...they allegedly hold too rigid a position on the use and promotion of biofuels.  Apparently African nations are concerned that after all these years of developing agriculture in their countries, they will have to use their land for fuel rather than much needed food.  There is also concern that global trading of carbon emission will also take crop land out of food production.

Imagine being concerned about something like that.  What's feeding the people compared to biodiversity, anyway?  This is so symptomatic of this crowd.  Mother earth and plants and animals above humans.  At first glance, I'm glad the developing nations are rebelling against it.

I should add that although the station, being Canadian, only mentioned Canada as the Dodo recipient, the EU also shared that honor.   It almost seems backward to me.  I mean, the award is supposed to be given to the nation or group that hinders the efforts at biodiversity.  But the biodiversity nazi countries who seem to want to cram it down everyone's throat are getting the awards.  If anyone can explain this conundrum, please do.  Perhaps there is more to it than meets the eye.


After this cheery interview, I switched to MPR station 102.7 FM.  I tuned into Lisa Mullins and her PRI show, The World.  More cheery news.  Apparently Afghan President Hamid Karzai has been speaking out of both sides of his mouth.  Our American soldiers are putting their lives on the line, our National budget is funding the expense of rooting out Taliban forces from Karzai's country, and American dollars are helping him to develop his country and economy.  Meanwhile, he is also taking money from Tehran to support the Taliban.

But now we get fun.  Sony will no longer be manufacturing its Walkman.   This little blurp is great to listen to, if only for the retro music they pipe in behind the interview to get us all in our Walkman mode.  Great fun.  Unfortunately the clip on the website doesn't include the final music which was a song I haven't even thought of for years and cannot even now remember.  It was a good one, too.  As my kids would say, "Oh, snap!"

 Then came an interesting discussion of Isreal's growing ultra-orthodox Jewish community and the burden this community is putting on Israel national economy since the men don't work, but study Torah all day.  It reminds me of Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof.  He wanted to sit at the city gates and advise people on spiritual matters.  But Tevye was not wealthy, so he had to provide for his wife and daughters.

Talk Radio Primer and Tom Coburn

Yes, I listen to conservative talk radio. Not often, since I'm a busy mom and it's just not a top priority. But I do like to listen to something political while driving. It's one of my little indulgences.

Am I a wacko? I certainly don't think so. Nor do I think most of the talk show hosts are wackos or as they are called these days in the Main Stream Media, wingnuts. You know, nuts from the right wing.

But I admit the various hosts can be abrasive and they may even seem mean spirited. But it is a shtick. You know, like Saturday Night Live or Conan O'Brien. They have this thing they do to entertain the listeners or viewers.

I started listening to Rush Limbaugh about 20 years ago already. Never regularly, but often enough to both appreciate his unique style and also to get irritated when he goes beyond my idea of good taste or propriety.

I also read the two books he wrote in the 90s and so I understand why he does what he does. Two points stuck with me that I think can apply to most conservative talk radio. His show must entertain. If it didn't, he would not gain the following he needs to get the advertisers who pay for his show to continue.

In other words, if there were more people in his listening areas who would listen to an academic lecture each afternoon for three hours, that is what he'd have to do. But truth be told, the typical American listening audience likes a bit of abrasiveness and the acerbic host.

The second thing that I remember him writing about, and that he periodically restates during his show, is that he tries to illustrate the absurd by being absurd. So a listener must take the things he says with a grain of salt and use what some might call his extremism to understand the point he's trying to make.

Each host has their own style and personality quirks that lead to varying degrees of success. And for each, the longer one listens, the more enjoyable the hosts is. Because they each have their personal shtick, the show is more enjoyable as one understands the style. I can't claim to know all the nationally syndicated hosts, but here are some strong and weak points of the hosts with which I am most familiar.

Laura Ingraham's show is often more societal than political. She has made a focus of discussing things of concern to families and people of faith, particularly her Catholic faith. Her pop culture references are closer to my experience than the other hosts. She can be acerbic. She is very knowledgeable. She has a wide variety of guests. And some fun little themes throughout her show. She worked in the Reagan administration as, I believe, a speechwriter. Later she was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Rush Limbaugh I've talked about.

Glenn Beck, I'm not sure of yet. He is sometimes very, very funny. I enjoy the video clips I've seen from his TV show. Like Laura Ingraham, he has a co-host who pipes in now and then and often these interchanges are pretty humorous. But I haven't quite gotten my brain around what he tries to do with his radio show.

Sean Hannity, like Laura Ingraham, is also a practicing Catholic and that comes through in his show. Although less focused on society than politics compared to Laura Ingraham, he does tend to be a bit more interested in the moral character of our nation.

For instance, he has talked quite a bit about Tiger Woods and his infidelities. But he always tries to put the focus on the fact that Mr. Woods is a cultural hero. Our nation's children look up to Mr. Woods and therefor his mistakes and their consequences for all involved also need to be made clear.

Mr. Hannity is often more compassionate with those callers he might get irritated at than some of the other hosts. But not always.

As far as Sean Hannity's political commentary, it is a bit less informative than some of the other hosts. I don't seem to get as many fresh insights or ideas from him. But his show is fun none the less.

Michael Savage I just can't take. I don't know why. He is very knowledgeable. He is a former microbiologist and dietitian or some such, and that interest comes through. But his shtick is just over the edge of my taste.

Lars Larson I really enjoy, but don't get to listen too often. Most of the year, because of limited daylight hours, reception of our local AM station does not reach our home during his broadcast time. I don't have a quantifiable description of his style, but he seems pleasant and well informed and polite to callers.

Now onto Mark Levin. I really love Mark Levin's writing. He is so methodical in how he presents information. He clearly articulates his points and helpfully references his sources.

Mr. Levin is really a genius. If I recall correctly, he was a child prodigy who spent his youth at museums studying constitutional history. He finished law school at a somewhat young age. He held several advisory positions in the Reagan administration, eventually serving as Chief of Staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese. At this time, he was still at an age when many are finishing up their education, but he was already a respected constitutional scholar.

But on his radio show I get so angry at the way he carries on and on and on. I know. It is just his shtick. But it is tiresome, and I can't help thinking that more people would read his wonderful books and listen to his show and therefore benefit from his immense knowledge and insight if he was not such a ranter on the radio.

That said, of all the nationally syndicated hosts I listen to, he probably offers the freshest takes and most informative political analysis. If one can wait through the tirades.

Which brings me to the second point of this blog post. I have made a habit of highlighting the generally excellent work Senator Tom Coburn has done on behalf of America. So I was understandably chagrined when I flipped on my radio the other day and heard Mark Levin lambasting Senator Coburn. What on earth?

So here's the scoop for those who might also be curious.

Apparently, last weekend, at a town hall meeting, Senator Coburn encouraged TEA party goers and others to be civil in their discourse. To offer thoughtful and well articulated arguments and not stoop to emotional attacks. Senator Coburn alleged FOX news engaged in some fallacious reporting. He encouraged everyone to listen to several news sources in order to be more ready to give our conservative answers.

Some people felt several of his comments were not within the proper stand for a true conservative to take. Some people felt he was unfairly ripping FOX news. Some people took his words as a insult to TEA party and town hall attendees as as if they were too dumb to figure this out themselves. Hear the audio clips and read a collection of his allegedly questionable comments here.

Mark Levin's concerns are here in a short audio clip. The full audio is available at his website. I don't have the exact minutes, but I think the part I heard was probably close to 5:15 (CST) on Thursday.

Tom Coburn's response can be found at The Daily Caller and also at Random Political Thoughts and News. Although these two takes are very similar, they have different but complimentary commentary.

(Update 4/11: I'm a little embarrassed as the above two links are to the exact same article. I must have lost in cyberworld the one I intended to link, because it's nowhere to be found this evening.)

So what is my take on this whole thing? I suppose were I to choose a side in this one, I would go with Senator Coburn. I think he's just a nice guy trying to be fair minded and encourage others to do their homework.

Here in Minnesota we are blessed with (or suffer from) what is known as Minnesota nice. And I don't think that phenomenon is exclusive to Minnesota. It is a heartland thing. I don't believe that people on either coast, but especially the East Coast truly understand that concept. We're polite. We don't like to yell. We allow others to go ahead of us in the check out line. We don't honk at intersections or yell service workers.

I think Senator Coburn was just showing some Oklahoma nice.

I can't find any information on whether FOX truly misrepresented the parts of the healthcare bill that Senator Coburn alleged. I'd like to read an analysis of that if anyone knows of it. I know any news agency can make errors, but twisting truth is an ugly thing on either side of the political isle. When it happens, it ought to be addressed and admitted and the truth told. And those who point it out ought not to be accused of joining the enemy or being weak spirited.