Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Radio Talk Show Hosts

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

We should all speak a common language, by law?

To become a naturalized citizen, don't you have to be able to speak English? We maybe should not require speaking English as a law (and the gov't should definately should not go out of their way to provide Spanish materials/programs), but it is definately in the best interest of the person to speak English.

P.S. Maybe the whole world should speak English? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you wondered, though, why it's such a politically charged topic?  I think many Americans have culture-phobia.

Maybe. I don't think people wanted to be forced to compromise their language in their own country.I think it's more of a love of our own culture than a culture-phobia. People love what America is, and perhaps see it eroded by the influx of non-American ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Compromise their langauge? What does that mean (as if 'language' is some sort of abstract value)?

How does the presence of another language threaten American ideas? And by forcing people to speak American will you force them to think American? I don't get this. As if even 1% of Americans think American. Are you aware that America is a country of immigrants? Always was and still is today. Notice that immigrants value citizenship much more than natural-born Americans.

I personally think this talk about "threatening American ideas" is mindlessness. Americans do that on their own to their own country much more than any non-english culture does. In fact, immigrant cultures, on the whole, bring a thirst for success and the American Dream that most Americans are apathetic to, and thus live what America stands for, rather than this notion of 'eroding it.'

I mean, seriously, we've got a government enacting ravenous longterm police-state powers inappropriate even if we had a war decleration, the internal and external threat of Islamodogs, and people talk about language being a threat to American ideals? WTF?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I listen to Rush Limbaugh in hopes that he will be gone and Walter Williams will be taking his place. Although, the last I heard of Walter Williams was when he gave a very utilitarian justification for capitalism that sounded like some kind of brand of socialism. I like that Rush Limbaugh is educated on subjects such as history and economics and that I am actually able to learn new facts from him. I think that Sean Hannity is the worse, with his bland, repetitive appeals to tradition.

I was also a big Phil Hendrie fan- back when he was on the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest John Batchelor of ABC News Radio, though his show is a news program, not what I think of as "talk-radio", meaning: he does not take calls from listeners (which is one reason I like it). Ideologically, he doesn't add up to much, just a fairly typical religious Republican, full of lots of inconsistencies, but he supports the war, presses the fact that Iran and Saudi Arabia are the sources of much of the world's heartache (but doesn't forget about China, France, and Russia), and presents the news with seriousness. His is a great program for staying "up on things". He's on the air for four hours, the last of which is mostly repeated segments from earlier in the show. He talks to authors, experts, analysts, etc. Some of his frequent guests include Victor Davis Hanson, George Friedman, John Loftus, Yosef Bodansky, Michael Ledeen, Bill Whalen. Usually he has a segment each night dealing with recent astronomical happenings, and occasionally he has one about movies. He also throws in segments where he interviews authors about their books, which might be about anything at all.

His site is here.

You can listen live here, 9pm to 1am EST every weeknight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Michael Savage's basic core values of "Borders, Language, and Culture":

Borders: I would make this analogy: "What is mine is mine is to the individual as "What is America's is Americans'" is to the nation.

Language: The additional cost of the government or businesses printing hundreds of thousands of forms in a multitude of languages and hiring those who are bilingual is a huge cost, it bloats government and business thus making it inefficient. Individuals may be able to speak a foreign language , but may not be the most qualified workers. This adds to the size and inefficiency of government and business. These costs, burdens, and wrong headed policies stop government and business from doing what they are meant to do, that is protect our rights and make money.

Culture: Our culture which strives for liberty (though this is weakening as time goes on) and is driven by the ideals of capitalism ( though these are also weakening ) comes into conflict with some other cultures in which these are greatly watered down or are nonexistent.

Edited by Shrugging Atlas
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Sean Hannity is the worse, with his bland, repetitive appeals to tradition.

I was also a big Phil Hendrie fan- back when he was on the air.

Phil Hendrie is still on the air. If your station dumped him, you can subscribe to listen via his website. Listening to the callers' reactions is generally priceless and tells you a lot about how some folks think. I won't spoil it for others with more detail.

Sean Hannity is frustrating. Now and then he pulls out something really instructive or insightful, and living in the best damned country there is, I appreciate the strong patriotism. It's refreshing to hear someone who isn't criticizing the country non-stop. But the problem is that whenever he gets a guest with opposing views he pretty much just acts like a bully, letting them state their views without contest, instead attacking character and odd details while letting glaringly bad points stand. It's no wonder he gets so many big name guests on the show. As a guest, you either get your boots licked, or you get to be a hero for standing up to a big name conservative without having to do the work of standing up for your ideas.

Edited by McGroarty
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you referring to European ideas, like Kantian ones? Or is it something else?

Kantian ideas, and socialist ideas that many feared were being brought in from Europe during the turn of the century.

As to what I meant above by "compromise thier language", I mean having to deal with paying for bilingual programs and other nonsense that shouldn't even be an issue in an English-speaking country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy Dr. Ellen Kenner and Prodos (who can only be heard on the internet). Larry Elder is the most consistent radio show host I’ve listened to. I enjoy Rush’s Political analysis and Dennis Prager’s broad range of topics.

Stern is a nihilist and integrates very little serious conversation between his buffoonery.

Savage may have had Piekoff on his show and even mentioned that he enjoyed the Fountainhead movie, but he’s hardly pro-capitalist. Often he’ll rail against businessmen for their concern with the “bottom line.” I’ve heard him mention that unfettered capitalism would destroy the environment. Also, I can’t take the constant emotionally charged doom and gloom.

Edited by Norse God
Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil Hendrie is still on the air. If your station dumped him, you can subscribe to listen via his website. Listening to the callers' reactions is generally priceless and tells you a lot about how some folks think. I won't spoil it for others with more detail.

Thanks for the link. I listened to him on his home station, KFI, so I figured that once they took him off that he was gone for good. Although, now that I think of it- I was in Hollywood a couple of weeks ago and I was able to pick him up on a different station there. It's too bad that KFI dropped him. It was a California powerhouse and provided the large, first-time listener base that his show required.

Sean Hannity is frustrating. Now and then he pulls out something really instructive or insightful, and living in the best damned country there is, I appreciate the strong patriotism.

Yeah, but even then he credits God for making America the best country in the world- not its founding fathers.

But the problem is that whenever he gets a guest with opposing views he pretty much just acts like a bully, letting them state their views without contest, instead attacking character and odd details while letting glaringly bad points stand. It's no wonder he gets so many big name guests on the show. As a guest, you either get your boots licked, or you get to be a hero for standing up to a big name conservative without having to do the work of standing up for your ideas.

His new hobby seems to be holding televised debates in large auditoriums packed exclusively with his supporters. As long as the audience cheers and boos at the right times, he can conclude that he "won" the debate. If a potential guest chooses to not subject himself to this ridiculous situation, then Sean Hannity declares him to be a coward. I'd love to see how he holds up in a true, fair, scholary debate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
To become a naturalized citizen, don't you have to be able to speak English? We maybe should not require speaking English as a law (and the gov't should definately should not go out of their way to provide Spanish materials/programs), but it is definately in the best interest of the person to speak English.

P.S. Maybe the whole world should speak English?  :dough:

To my knowledge you don't have to be fluent. Everyone thinks the citizen tests are super hard long drawn out tests but from everyone it's just a few simple questions like "can you spell the presidents name" "are you a communist" "how many states are there" kind of thing. My ex girlfriends mom couldn't speak anything but Spanish and she passed with flying colors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I've done this before (probably in this thread too), but I recommend Neal Boortz. He isn't perfect, but he's the best one out there. He's very pro-individualist and regularly makes references to the current "war against individualism." I rarely hear him say anything with which I disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam Carolla. He has a great sense of irony/sense of humor. He hosts the radio show Loveline every night from 10:00 to 12:00. It's great because he has secondhand morons call him up and he gets to yell at them. He often complains about irrational idiots who say stuff like "everything happens for a reason" and who believe in Chinese mysticism (favored rants of his). He's like a firsthander who doesn't realize it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

Interesting little essay by Neal Boortz.

The Drudge Report is reporting this morning that several broadcast television networks are considering a series loosely based on the concept of the end of America. Details on the various programs aren't yet available, but my bet is that the fictional end will come through either terrorism or some sort of a natural disaster.

The networks have part of this right. The end of America as we know it could well be on the horizon. The networks just wouldn't dare present the end as it very well may happen. The death of America will more likely come from the advancement of the American welfare state.

Empires have life expectancies. The history of civilization would tell us that a country based on freedom and economic liberty generally last just a bit over 200 years. If you know of such a society that has lasted well beyond the 200-year mark, let me know. I haven't been able to find one. Our Constitution was ratified on December 15th, 1791. In just a few weeks the United States of America will be 214 years old. That, for those of you who went to government schools, is just a bit over 200 years.

You can trace the decline of American to several different and varied beginning point. Among them:

The adoption of a graduated and progressive income tax, as envisioned by Karl Marx.

The adoption of a system of government education of our children, again as envisioned by Karl Marx.

The movement away from a rule of law to a rule of the majority (Democracy) which really took hold during the days of Franklin Roosevelt.

America, the welfare state, is growing steadily. In the last few weeks we started George Bush's Medicare prescription drug program. The original estimates for this welfare boondoggle ran at about $300 billion for the next ten years. Those estimates doubled before the program even began. The actual tab will probably be closer to one trillion dollars for the first ten years .. and growing after that. Baby boomers will be retiring over the next decade. As they retire they will start drawing down Social Security and Medicare dollars by the bucketful. The cost will be enormous. As presently structured, these income transfer programs can't handle it, but all attempts at reform, at least insofar as Social Security is concerned, have failed.

Back to the main point. Americans are no longer in love with freedom. In fact, the case can be made that Americans are afraid of freedom. Oh, they want to be free to go on vacation and to chose where to live, who to marry and what to wear each day, but that just about covers it. Americans want the government to educate their children, guarantee their jobs, determine their wages, provide them with medical care, pay for their prescriptions, ensure their comfort in retirement, regulate their business competitors, and control the actions of their neighbors. If you suggest that the responsibility for any of these factors be placed back into the hands of the individual the screams and howls of outrage and indignation will be heard across the country.

If the networks want to do a series on the end of America, their script has already been written ... .by some Russian named Ayn Rand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I love to listen radio talk shows, not all but a select few. I was wondering if anyone else is a listener.

I think a few hosts demonstrate some, I repeat, some Objectivist ideas. They would in my opinion be just two: Micheal Savage and Jay Severine ( he is on an FM talk station in Boston 96.9, but it is only a matter of before he goes national).

While I found Savage to be correct in a number of areas, I find his religious zealotry to be highly offensive. When he starts on his rants of religious ferver, I tune out.

O'Reilly seems to come closer to the viewpoint of an Objectivist than do the other Christian Fascists. I don't agree with a lot of O'Reilly's thinking either, but in the major areas, at least he's neutral about issues having to do with metaphysics, whereas the others are functionally insane because they believe in the 'green gremlins in space' that religionists do.

I found O'Reilly's talk about the port contraversy to be balanced. He recognized the distinction between private ownership and government ownership of the ports, citing that the British firm was privately-owned, while the Arab government would own the ports if the deal went through. All the other talkers missed this distinction and sided with the 'patriotic' radicalism that many have shown in the general population.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Here in Michigan there used to be a talk show host called Mark Scott. He was heavy into Ayn Rand and each show was hardcore. Unfortunatly he died about three months ago.

William

Mark Scott was one of the best hosts I've ever had the privelege of listening to. He and David Newman (perhaps the most astute interviewer in radio history) were intellectual dynamite when they were both on WXYT 1270 AM in Detroit. Unfortunately Mark passed away and David suffered a stroke and retired. He may have passed away too, but I'm not sure. Mark Scott's web site is still up:

http://www.markscottshow.us

While I found Savage to be correct in a number of areas, I find his religious zealotry to be highly offensive. When he starts on his rants of religious ferver, I tune out.
As another poster said above, the constant drumbeat of negativism on the Savage show is a real turn off. He really has a dark personality.

O'Reilly seems to come closer to the viewpoint of an Objectivist than do the other Christian Fascists. I don't agree with a lot of O'Reilly's thinking either, but in the major areas, at least he's neutral about issues having to do with metaphysics, whereas the others are functionally insane because they believe in the 'green gremlins in space' that religionists do.
O'Reilly is annoying when he gets on his anti-oil company kick. I think he's trying hard to be a populist by attacking the oil companies and suggesting windfall profit taxes, etc.. Apparently this makes him feel that he's "looking out" for the common man.

I don't know thay anyone has mentioned Michael Medved (the movie critic turned talker). He is occasionally OK on Islamic fundamentalism, but he's such an overpowering religionist that I find it nearly impossible to listen to him on a regular basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...