Zigory

A couple of other thoughts: It is especially important to support Limbaugh and the other right-wing Talk Radio programs now, when the Obama administration is trying to bring back some form of Fairness Doctrine or enforced rules of diversity in programming which would have the effect of cancelling many or all of these alternatives to the liberal media and thereby limiting freedom of speech. See Limbaugh's own comments: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5111.guest.html http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5112.guest.html Secondly, in regard to listening before making a judgment: In a 1978 Q and A, Ayn Rand said that despite disliking the naturalistic, boring content of most situation comedies on TV, which meant that she did not watch them, she always saw at least one episode of each new show to judge for herself whether she would want to see future episodes.

I think Rush Limbaugh is intelligent, but he deliberately translates difficult ideas into language the average listener can understand and follow. Often, he uses humor and presents topics in the form of questions, to make his program entertaining and prompt the listener to think. This is not easy to do well, and it is not easy to attract and keep a large audience with serious ideas, and he does it day after day. He doesn't just state his views, he presents the opposing view in contrast first. He often asks the listener to figure things out for himself, before stating his own solution. When it comes to economics and foreign policy his arguments are from fundamental principles of self-interest, self-defense, and respect for the rights of and character of the achiever and producer. Limbaugh and Glenn Beck mention Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged all the time, especially now that the book is so relevant to what is happening. Limbaugh mentioned a caller was "atlas shrugging" just in passing today without even needing to define it further. Limbaugh's boastful, self-confident persona is one of his better features. On Phil Donohue's program Ayn Rand agreed that false humility is not a virtue, in regard to baseball players or anyone else. Of course Limbaugh's pro-religion comments are wrong, and his anti-immigration arguments are not valid, but I see those aspects of his presentation to be ones that he just trots out to please the Christian Right. He doesn't seem to be a particularly religious man in his everyday life. When he sticks to one of those topics for awhile, I cannot listen to him. But when he speaks on foreign policy, and especially economics, he is usually on target and bases his arguments on self-interest and logic. Even his anti-environmentalism and anti-global warming arguments have come to rely much more on scientific evidence in recent years, and man's right to exist and produce, rather than on a "belief in God" argument. Yes, I cannot defend his ideal of Conservatism. But in this Obama/Pelosi era, I find his reporting on daily political maneuvers and the likely deeper meanings of Democrats' words, their long-term intentions, to be indispensable. His defense of producers is inspiring. When he goes back to religionist comments, I turn him off. Probably the dumbest thing he ever said was that Matthew J. Fox exaggerated his Parkinson's medication effects in a political campaign ad supporting a Democrat. Logically, if Fox isn't actually that affected now, he will be eventually, so what's the point? Obviously, Limbaugh's opposition to stem cell research is one of his worst applications of religion to politics. What I don't agree with is when people say they "will never" listen to Limbaugh. That's a second-hander statement. Each of us ought to use his own judgment and if you never listen, you cannot make a judgment. Someone as influential and popular as Limbaugh deserves a few listens or at least read his web site a few times, before judging him. I believe the Left tries to make out that he's crazy or a bigot and doesn't warrant any attention, so that people won't hear his strong arguments against them, much as Ayn Rand was labeled crazy to stop people from reading her work. See www.rushlimbaugh.com to see actual transcripts. See my two recent blogs that refer to Rush Limbaugh as well: http://zigory.thinkertothinker.com/2009/01/31/rush-limbaugh/ and http://zigory.thinkertothinker.com/2009/02...-you-angry-yet/

I took my five year old twins to the film Kit Kittredge and they both loved it. I thought, as a film for children, that it was extremely well-made in that the events of the story, though complicated, held their interest. For example, they understood (because I told them) that the story takes place at a time long ago (the Great Depression) when many people did not have money--or lost their money-- through no fault of their own. The film clearly portrays the dangers to people in such a situation: people's homes may be taken away from them. Any child can understand this as an important problem. Another important problem is that a breadwinner, specifically a father, may have to separate from his family in order to find employment in a larger city. This sets up the strange time and place and the delicate situation. Meanwhile, the benevolence of the American sense of life is conveyed as people who can do so, take friends who lose their homes as boarders for a time. I didn't find it unbearably altruistic, but perhaps it is a bit overdone in the film. One boarder, a magician, performs a magic show, which in itself was fascinating to my children, but also has significance in the plot. The children have a tree house, which is another naturally interesting detail for young children who have never seen one and creates a setting where the children, the protagonists, are in charge of decisions and events. As the story develops, having established how important every penny is to the characters in this strangely difficult time, a large amount of money is stolen and an innocent person is accused of the theft. The child journalist, observing details more carefully than other eyewitnesses, presents an essential fact to the police and heroically helps foil the real bad guys. To my children, the theme is how by being courageous and observant, and using logic, even a child can achieve great results, where justice is accomplished. The filmmakers try to tack on politically liberal and altruist themes in the form of lines of dialogue, but these themes don't affect a child's enjoyment of the real values of the film. For example, the word "hobos" is used to describe a type of person, as if it is a minority group, and all hobos are persecuted or judged for the sins of a few bad ones. So even though most of the hobos in the film are not members of any racial minority, the way they are presented is clearly a message that (racial) prejudice or profiling is bad. This did not bother me, it's a reasonable theme. But more bothersome were two or three out-of-nowhere lines of dialogue praising FDR's New Deal and stating that the government must provide social services and financial and housing assistance. Finally, there was a comment that Robin Hood's stealing from the rich to give to the poor is a good thing. However, this concept later is shown and even described to be a bad thing in practice, and I was satisfied with the way it was handled.