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.
Showing posts with label Mark Levin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Levin. Show all posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Monday, October 19, 2009
Mark Levin Interview
For any other Mark Levin fans out there, I stumbled upon this interview with him in the Talk Radio trade journal, Talkers.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Manipulating Statistics and Other Peeves
Have you heard the figure being tossed about that there are 50 million uninsured people in America?
The idea that our government wants to nationalize the healthcare industry angers me on so many fronts. I don't even know where to begin. Let me try to be clear. In my frustration that may not be an easy task.
First, national healthcare does not work.
Where does it end? And who is going to pay for it? Obviously the tax payers.
And guess what. The pool of people otherwise known as the American tax payer is getting smaller and smaller. With the new tax policies going into effect, more voting Americans than not will pay no national income tax. Do I mean that I wish for more taxes? Not at all. But think about the implications. Those who don't pay any income tax often receive that great big annual bonus known as the Earned Income Credit. I know because we fall into this category. What this means is that each April or May, I get a big chunk of money from the federal government that came out of someone else's pocket. (Do I send it back? I guess I am not that noble. But I do experience pangs of conscience.)
What I am getting at is that for the first time in American history, more people will be receiving for free all the variety of government services available. Be it the traditional welfare type programs such as food stamps, WIC, housing assistance; government financial gifts such as tuition grants or the Earned Income Credit; or the many services our government offers or helps offer to all citizens such as protection from enemies, education and infrastructure. Who is going to be left to vote against such continued federal government growth if everyone is on the dole? Pity the poor souls, again the ever decreasing number of them, who pay for all this.
The third reason I get irate thinking about the healthcare industry is that those discussing these policy changes manipulate the numbers in order to secure more support for their programs. I hate being a statistic used by someone to support something I don't believe in. My family has in recent years been uninsured for short periods of time. We did this by choice. We chose not to purchase health insurance. I'll save that logic for another post. But when I hear politicians claiming that they need to step in because people are uninsured, I get my hackles up.
From Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny
So when you hear the figure 50 million uninsured Americans, be skeptical. Be very skeptical.
There is a final reason why I don't like the discussions surrounding the healthcare crisis in America. Never are the two reasons that seem to me most obvious given adequate hearing: the soaring costs physicians have to pay for malpractice insurance and the great quality of medical care to which we Americans have become accustomed.
This may sound harsh, but when we are ready to stop suing our medical practitioners, when we are ready to stop going to the doctor for every little thing, when we are ready to die instead of using the wide variety of expensive cures that are available, we can complain about the high costs.
The idea that our government wants to nationalize the healthcare industry angers me on so many fronts. I don't even know where to begin. Let me try to be clear. In my frustration that may not be an easy task.
First, national healthcare does not work.
- Ask all the doctors who have come to America from Canada or England to practice medicine because they were no longer allowed to practice medicine according to their own standards of good care.
- Ask all the patients in those and other countries who have to wait years for treatment. Or who are denied treatment because it is deemed too costly.
- Ask those who come to America at great personal expense because here they can get the treatments they need.
- Or consider the State of Oregon whose state run medical program has not payed for treatments that are not on their "approved list" but will foot the bill for physician assisted suicide. Read more about these cases here and here and here. Asounding.
Where does it end? And who is going to pay for it? Obviously the tax payers.
And guess what. The pool of people otherwise known as the American tax payer is getting smaller and smaller. With the new tax policies going into effect, more voting Americans than not will pay no national income tax. Do I mean that I wish for more taxes? Not at all. But think about the implications. Those who don't pay any income tax often receive that great big annual bonus known as the Earned Income Credit. I know because we fall into this category. What this means is that each April or May, I get a big chunk of money from the federal government that came out of someone else's pocket. (Do I send it back? I guess I am not that noble. But I do experience pangs of conscience.)
What I am getting at is that for the first time in American history, more people will be receiving for free all the variety of government services available. Be it the traditional welfare type programs such as food stamps, WIC, housing assistance; government financial gifts such as tuition grants or the Earned Income Credit; or the many services our government offers or helps offer to all citizens such as protection from enemies, education and infrastructure. Who is going to be left to vote against such continued federal government growth if everyone is on the dole? Pity the poor souls, again the ever decreasing number of them, who pay for all this.
The third reason I get irate thinking about the healthcare industry is that those discussing these policy changes manipulate the numbers in order to secure more support for their programs. I hate being a statistic used by someone to support something I don't believe in. My family has in recent years been uninsured for short periods of time. We did this by choice. We chose not to purchase health insurance. I'll save that logic for another post. But when I hear politicians claiming that they need to step in because people are uninsured, I get my hackles up.
From Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny
In 2006, the Census Bureau reported that there were 46.6 million people without health insurance. About 9.5 million were not American citizens. Another 17 million lived in households with incomes exceeding $50,000 a year and could, presumably, purchase their own health care coverage. Eighteen million of the 46.6 million were between the ages of eighteen and thirty-four, most of whom were in good health and not necessarily in need of health-care coverage or chose not to purchase it. Moreover, only 30 percent of the nonelderly population who became uninsured in a given year remained uninsured for more than twelve months. Almost 50 percent regained their health coverage within four months. The 47 million "uninsured" figure used by Pelosi and others is widely inaccurate.(In his book, Mr. Levin includes references for the above statistics. Also, to hear him speak on this subject, check out yesterday's Mark Levin Show.)
So when you hear the figure 50 million uninsured Americans, be skeptical. Be very skeptical.
There is a final reason why I don't like the discussions surrounding the healthcare crisis in America. Never are the two reasons that seem to me most obvious given adequate hearing: the soaring costs physicians have to pay for malpractice insurance and the great quality of medical care to which we Americans have become accustomed.
This may sound harsh, but when we are ready to stop suing our medical practitioners, when we are ready to stop going to the doctor for every little thing, when we are ready to die instead of using the wide variety of expensive cures that are available, we can complain about the high costs.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Levin Defines Conservatism
As any responsible writer will, Mr. Levin, within the first several pages of Liberty and Tyranny spends some time defining his use of the word "conservatism". Levin traces the philosophy of modern conservative to, along with the philosophers mentioned in my last post, Edmond Burke, a British statesman and thinker. Burke believed in the "interconnection of liberty, free markets, religion, tradition, and authority."
The Founding Fathers believed, and according to Levin so do modern conservatives, in God-given natural rights. That's a whole other discussion. In what sense do we have have God-given rights? But for the sake of an intact summary of Levin's definition, I'll post separately on that at a later time.
Levin continues his definition by noting a conservative's recognition of a harmony of interests. This is a phrase used by Adam Smith to refer to the "spontaneous order" I wrote of in my last post. The idea is that societal rules have gradually evolved to promote peaceful and productive co-existence. Levin includes three other terms that describe this, terms he continues to use throughout his book: ordered liberty, social contract and civil society.
Within this civil society, according to Levin, a conservative acknowledges and operates under certain assumptions.
The right to pursue the acquisition of private property is also a necessary corollary of liberty. An individual's property "represents the fruit of his own intellectual or physical labor." Usurping one's right to private property "enslaves him to another".
A civil society must also ascribe to a rule of law which is "just, known, and predictable, and applied equally albeit imperfectly." Such rule of law serves as "a check against the arbitrary use and, hence, abuse of power."
Levin summarizes his definition of modern conservatism, "the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement."
All the above italics are Levin's.
The Founding Fathers believed, and according to Levin so do modern conservatives, in God-given natural rights. That's a whole other discussion. In what sense do we have have God-given rights? But for the sake of an intact summary of Levin's definition, I'll post separately on that at a later time.
Levin continues his definition by noting a conservative's recognition of a harmony of interests. This is a phrase used by Adam Smith to refer to the "spontaneous order" I wrote of in my last post. The idea is that societal rules have gradually evolved to promote peaceful and productive co-existence. Levin includes three other terms that describe this, terms he continues to use throughout his book: ordered liberty, social contract and civil society.
Within this civil society, according to Levin, a conservative acknowledges and operates under certain assumptions.
The individual... is a unique, spiritual being with a soul and a conscience. He is free to discover his own potential and pursue his own legitimate interests, tempered, however, by a moral order that has its foundation in faith and guides his life and all human life through the prudent exercise of judgment.An individual within a civil society, Levin continues, has a duty to respect the idea that the above mentioned rights also apply to other individuals. One may not behave in such a way as to trespass upon these rights of others.
The right to pursue the acquisition of private property is also a necessary corollary of liberty. An individual's property "represents the fruit of his own intellectual or physical labor." Usurping one's right to private property "enslaves him to another".
A civil society must also ascribe to a rule of law which is "just, known, and predictable, and applied equally albeit imperfectly." Such rule of law serves as "a check against the arbitrary use and, hence, abuse of power."
Levin summarizes his definition of modern conservatism, "the civil society has as its highest purpose its preservation and improvement."
All the above italics are Levin's.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
What I Thought I Knew, but Don't
On the second page of Liberty and Tyranny, Mark Levin summarizes the primary influences that effected the ideas of the Founding Fathers. He mentions Adam Smith and spontaneous order; Charles Montesquieu and separation of powers; and John Locke and natural rights.
I am always amazed at how little I know. I consider myself a fairly well-rounded individual. I had the blessings a good solid elementary education; a good college prep high school curriculum; and two years worth of college classes in political history. When I dropped out of college I also made a pact with myself to always read and learn. So I've continued to read about political philosophy since that is a subject I really enjoy. But alas, there is always more to learn. Much more.
I always associated Adam Smith with free market capitalism and the invisible hand. But I didn't even know what spontaneous order was until I pulled up a couple of web sites. And I've even read the section on Adam Smith in The Worldly Philosophers within the last few years. I see there is a free online Cliff's notes for that book. Perhaps I should bookmark it, so that next time I pick it up I can remember what I'm supposed to get out of it.
Then we continue on to Charles Montesquieu. I have this vague familiarity associated with his name. But I really had no clue who this guy was until I looked him up. Thank goodness for Wikipedia. I know it's not a recommended research tool, but still, it gave me enough info to realize that yes, in fact, I did learn about Montesquieu at some point. Boy, this brain stuff is hard work at this point in my life. I always thought James Madison cooked up the separation of powers all on his own. I even read a young adult biography of Madison recently and don't remember a reference to Montesquieu. I'll have to go back and check on that. But then, maybe the book was not that detailed. After all, I guess the reason I read my kids' books is because I don't have the extra memory available for too much detail. Those memory bytes are filled with with the flotsom of life in a twelve person household.
Now John Locke I do remember. I even remember him from grade school. Don't ask me why. I remember having a discussion with my teacher about the difference between natural law from a Biblical definition, the law written in our hearts; and the Locke's use of the word to refer to the ethical code that can be extrapolated through reason. I didn't really get this at the time, however. Perhaps my teacher did not, either. I also associate with Locke the term social contract, which, to show off my new knowledge, is the "spontaneous order" into which society evolves when people surrender a part of their freedoms to a governing body for the purpose of promoting the common good.
But Locke's ideas of Natural Rights...now here is where I start to get my hackles up. I have a hard time with the way our framers used the term rights. As a Christian, I don't really think we have any rights. We have gifts from God, privileges, blessings...but rights?
Because I am not as astute and well read on this as I'd like to be, I kind of have to trust others on this. I've argued/discussed this with many people whose opinions I respect. The closest I can come to making the word rights fit into a Biblical framework is the way my husband explained it. According to him, Locke (and further along Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence) used the term rights to refer to those things which we have through the flip side of the commandments. For instance, we get our right to life from the fifth commandment; the right to a stable marriage from the sixth; from the seventh, the right to possessions and so on.
I've read a bit more on this lately and I think the word used in ethics for this sort of flip side rights is secondary rights. Probably there is someone who can (maybe needs to?) clarify this for me. I am not sure I go for it, but I let myself function in kind of a suspended belief for the purpose of discussing these things. Pastor Jesse Jacobsen has written on this same subject on his blog, The Plucked Chicken. He's had several posts in which natural law is mentioned, but this one I linked I think goes into the most detail.
So now, after writing this post and reading a whole bunch of on-line stuff in order to write it, I feel smarter. Whether it will stick with me for the long haul or not, I don't know. But it's always fun to feel smarter for as long as it lasts, right?
I am always amazed at how little I know. I consider myself a fairly well-rounded individual. I had the blessings a good solid elementary education; a good college prep high school curriculum; and two years worth of college classes in political history. When I dropped out of college I also made a pact with myself to always read and learn. So I've continued to read about political philosophy since that is a subject I really enjoy. But alas, there is always more to learn. Much more.
I always associated Adam Smith with free market capitalism and the invisible hand. But I didn't even know what spontaneous order was until I pulled up a couple of web sites. And I've even read the section on Adam Smith in The Worldly Philosophers within the last few years. I see there is a free online Cliff's notes for that book. Perhaps I should bookmark it, so that next time I pick it up I can remember what I'm supposed to get out of it.
Then we continue on to Charles Montesquieu. I have this vague familiarity associated with his name. But I really had no clue who this guy was until I looked him up. Thank goodness for Wikipedia. I know it's not a recommended research tool, but still, it gave me enough info to realize that yes, in fact, I did learn about Montesquieu at some point. Boy, this brain stuff is hard work at this point in my life. I always thought James Madison cooked up the separation of powers all on his own. I even read a young adult biography of Madison recently and don't remember a reference to Montesquieu. I'll have to go back and check on that. But then, maybe the book was not that detailed. After all, I guess the reason I read my kids' books is because I don't have the extra memory available for too much detail. Those memory bytes are filled with with the flotsom of life in a twelve person household.
Now John Locke I do remember. I even remember him from grade school. Don't ask me why. I remember having a discussion with my teacher about the difference between natural law from a Biblical definition, the law written in our hearts; and the Locke's use of the word to refer to the ethical code that can be extrapolated through reason. I didn't really get this at the time, however. Perhaps my teacher did not, either. I also associate with Locke the term social contract, which, to show off my new knowledge, is the "spontaneous order" into which society evolves when people surrender a part of their freedoms to a governing body for the purpose of promoting the common good.
But Locke's ideas of Natural Rights...now here is where I start to get my hackles up. I have a hard time with the way our framers used the term rights. As a Christian, I don't really think we have any rights. We have gifts from God, privileges, blessings...but rights?
Because I am not as astute and well read on this as I'd like to be, I kind of have to trust others on this. I've argued/discussed this with many people whose opinions I respect. The closest I can come to making the word rights fit into a Biblical framework is the way my husband explained it. According to him, Locke (and further along Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence) used the term rights to refer to those things which we have through the flip side of the commandments. For instance, we get our right to life from the fifth commandment; the right to a stable marriage from the sixth; from the seventh, the right to possessions and so on.
I've read a bit more on this lately and I think the word used in ethics for this sort of flip side rights is secondary rights. Probably there is someone who can (maybe needs to?) clarify this for me. I am not sure I go for it, but I let myself function in kind of a suspended belief for the purpose of discussing these things. Pastor Jesse Jacobsen has written on this same subject on his blog, The Plucked Chicken. He's had several posts in which natural law is mentioned, but this one I linked I think goes into the most detail.
So now, after writing this post and reading a whole bunch of on-line stuff in order to write it, I feel smarter. Whether it will stick with me for the long haul or not, I don't know. But it's always fun to feel smarter for as long as it lasts, right?
New Series of Blog Posts
I have been reading Mark Levin's new book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. Yes, Levin is a conservative talk radio personality. Yes, he is a bit obnoxious on the air. OK, sometimes more than a bit. I know that sometimes that is enough to discourage a person from reading a certain author's writing.
But here's the thing, besides being a sometimes very obnoxious radio host, Mr. Levin is a constitutional history scholar. I read his book, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, several years ago. That book is a summary of the primary court cases the rulings of which have fundamentally changed our county. How can a person write on this topic and still hold the interest of the regular guys? I don't, know, but in Men in Black, he certainly held mine. So many things made sense to me that I had previously wondered about.
I am not very far into Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. But I keep having these thoughts that I want to bounce off someone. So as I have these thoughts, I will try to post them. I'd like to hear what anyone else has to say. So please read and comment as I do this series.
But here's the thing, besides being a sometimes very obnoxious radio host, Mr. Levin is a constitutional history scholar. I read his book, Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America, several years ago. That book is a summary of the primary court cases the rulings of which have fundamentally changed our county. How can a person write on this topic and still hold the interest of the regular guys? I don't, know, but in Men in Black, he certainly held mine. So many things made sense to me that I had previously wondered about.
I am not very far into Levin's Liberty and Tyranny. But I keep having these thoughts that I want to bounce off someone. So as I have these thoughts, I will try to post them. I'd like to hear what anyone else has to say. So please read and comment as I do this series.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)