Here's my addition:
I'll comment on those people.
Glenn Beck is a conspiracy theorist who seems unable to find a conspiracy theory he won't embrace in one form or another. The problem comes when Glenn tries to tie them all together because all Glenn seems to be able to do is tie himself in knots. Admittedly, he has enriched himself, but he doesn't appear to be able to discern fact from fantasy which would be perfectly fine, even laudable, in a high end escort, but it's laughable if credibility is what you seek. Consequently, I laugh at him and anyone who takes him seriously.
Ann Coulter was trained as a lawyer which is hard to believe given a lawyer's tendency for dry dispassionate writing which contrasts sharply with Ann's natural gift for incendiary red meat rhetoric. Yes, she's the mean HS girl who found new adult victims like the Jersey Girls to torture as they reeled from their post 9-11 devastation and loss. No, just like Ann thinks there's no such thing as a victim you shouldn't kick when they're down, Ann seems to believe that there's no conservative reprobate she can't rehabilitate with a book and a few carefully chosen words to show that a man like Joe McCarthy was really a swell guy, after all. I await Ann's next book where she regales the world with the fun-filled days of Menachem Begin's youth when he was a terrorist killer who bombed and hanged people to further his political agenda. She's may be a natural born polemicist, but her judgment on right versus wrong, or good versus evil is severely clouded to the point of opaqueness by her political leanings. Therefore, her objectivity is flawed to the point of resembling the ravings of a mad woman.
William Bennett is a man who once had the temerity to write a book entitled "The Book of Virtues: A Treasure of Great Moral Stories" in order to instruct everyone else on morality despite the fact that he had a very serious gambling problem at the time. But it was okay because he didn't mention gambling as a moral shortcoming in the book. See how that works? I've had the opportunity to listen to Bennett's early morning talk radio show a couple of hundred times (at least), and all I can say is that he's one unapologetic propagandist who will shamelessly put any liar on the air to spread any rumor in order to discredit the political opposition. Don't believe me? I once heard him put a guest on his show who accused Democrats of essentially being terrorist coconspirators, and Bennett, a former Reagan cabinet officer never uttered one syllable of protest at such an outrageous charge. All I can say is his book on morality must be based on Machiavellian morality because his behavior isn't something I would want any child to emulate let alone learn from someone who used to be the education secretary of the United States of America. But undoubtedly, Bennett would have no trouble squaring that moral circle as long as the ends justified the means. In my opinion, when any lie, any falsehood that furthers your goals is considered wholly acceptable, that's an example of rhetorical terrorism, and perhaps future copies of his book should be retitled "The Book of Bullshit" in order to comply with the truth in advertising laws.
So we can assume, by your unbiased reviews of these authors, that you aren't a fan. Big news there.
You know, I recall, back in the dark ages, being fed a steady diet of Nietzsche. I was young and impressionable and fell for his crap hook, line and sinker. Then, over a drunken, pot-filled weekend, I tackled "Thus Spake Zarathustra".
When I finally came to my senses on Monday morning, I realized what the term "pseudo-intellectual" actually meant.
Stop "analyzing" everything you encounter. It will give you a headache.
There wasn't much in the way of analysis. It was mostly just observation.
But since you mentioned it, I WILL offer some analysis.
Twenty years ago, I was somewhat troubled when I first tuned in to talk radio and heard the opinion-based radio shows which offered uninformed opinions on the issues. But I didn't worry TOO much since I knew part of it was meant to be a political version of Howard Stern's shock radio and reflected an effort to make money. Besides, radio didn't have the reach of TV. But silly me. Certain TV executives turned to talk radio and decided to use it as a template for TV which transformed our media landscape.
Now, I'm disturbed by the fact that our radio and TV media outlets are increasingly dominated by opinion-based shows which do far more to stir people up emotionally by offering up false and misleading programming which understandably upsets people if they believe what they're hearing, and I think it's clear that they do.
On one end of the spectrum, we have our schools failing our children when it comes to education to prepare them for an increasingly competitive future, and on the other end, we've got the media engaging in wholesale propaganda like I never could have imagined three decades ago.
And what I know from experience is this: Given bad information, people make bad decisions. Consequently, this cannot end well if the trend continues.
How's that for analysis?
