RoR: Forum

I have lots of opportunities to listen to Rush while cleaning cars at work. While his thoughts on the various subjects of the day are often dismissed as "rants" (and he does go on rants from time to time), he also makes very astute observations once he really gets on a roll.

An example from yesterday's broadcast: on the subject of Live 8, Rush said that what Africa really needs is capitalism, but we're told we can't "impose" our own notions on the African nations. Nothing new so far, but then he pointed out that what Live 8 is doing is imposing socialism on Africa by continuing to prop up a bunch of failed statist regimes. So the left's claim of respect for the political independence of the African continent is rubbish.

Post 1

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 5:49am

It is great that his web site lists the books but, as I have mentioned before, he seems to take pride in not being able to "get through" the books himself.

Post 2

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 12:32pm

I have heard Rush on occasion give his dues to Rand. And he's one of the few talk show hosts who really treats Randites with respect. I remember specifically Sean Hannity and Michael Savage, on separate occasions, berate and brutalize Randite callers. Savage tried the tired old line that Objectivism (hence, atheism) is itself a religion, a belief system to be taken on faith. I get tired of that crap, and so did the caller, who argued his point before getting hung up on. Savage then reminded his listeners that Rand was Jewish, and said she had in essence betrayed the faith of her ancestors with her atheism. And Hannity? The guy is an idiot. When he's not talking about his ratings or pimping some event he's in, he's toeing the Republican line point by point. Whatever you think about Rush, be aware that he is much more open to -- and much more a sympathizer of -- Objectivism than any other talk radio host out there. I for one enjoy his show.

Post 3

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 1:00pm

Jamie, I tend to agree with your comparative assessment of the three talk hosts. Hannity is a glib but extremely superficial conservative Republican who thinks in sound bites; nobody will ever accuse him of being an intellectual. The aptly named Savage is far worse: screeching the slogan of "borders/language/culture," this nationalist-tribalist simply salivates over the prospect of censoring, jailing and knocking the heads of his opponents; he's the stridently uncivilized voice of latent American fascism.

By contrast, Limbaugh represents sanity and civility on the right. Unlike Hannity, he grasps issues in terms of principles; unlike Savage, he is committed to the principles of individualism, not cultural collectivism. Though Limbaugh takes the wrong stands on a few social issues, such as abortion and "right to life" cases such as Terri Schiavo, it is on the grounds of misunderstanding the implications of individual rights -- not hostility to the principle. Generally, he is a knowledgeable supporter of property rights and free market economics, which issues are where his heart seems to be.

Post 4

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 5:56pm

RB

Glad to see you find value in Rush. Can't tell you how many times I have been 'boiled in oil' for holding that opinion.

Hannity and Savage are a waste of the human form.

Post 5

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 12:12am

Thank you all, for filling me in on the details of these "Big 3" conservative talking heads.

Michael Savage (who is really the renowned ethnopharmacologist from Berkeley: Michael Weiner, PhD) used to be an actual guru of mine (see Weiner's Herbal, Quantum Books -- for a great inroad to natural medicine -- along with Herbs That Heal). He spoke quite eloquently on herbal remedies (in the late 1980s-1990s). Now, the bugger is ranting, social-metaphysical style, and he has lost my reverence as a social lighthouse.

Hannity was an X-factor for me (but that is now quenched -- thanks to your insights).

Limbaugh was on my philosophical hit-list, but has now been taken off of said list, thanks (again) to your insights. I will now stop -- to listen to Rush -- whenever occasioned.

Ed

Post 6

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 6:47am

Ed,

What is hell is an ethnopharmacologist? A non-caucasian?

Post 7

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 1:51pm

Wolf,

Ethnopharmacology is the study of the natural medicine of indigenous peoples. An example is the use of the herb, Echinacea (for infection), by Native Americans. Weiner (Savage) was the first in the country to get a PhD in ethnopharmacology (Berkeley created this PhD specifically for recognizing his knowledge/talent). He is also rumored to be The Medicine Man (played by Sean Connery -- a look-a-like of his) -- who had discovered treatments for cancer, but was supposedly silenced by the Feds.

Ed

Post 8

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 5:52pm

Ed ,

Michael Savage has a Phd from Berkeley? How did he survive Berkeley?

Post 9

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 6:35pm

Michael Savage has a Phd from Berkeley? How did he survive Berkeley?

Robert D., haven't you listened to the guy? Clearly, he didn't survive Berkeley.

Post 10

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 9:22pm

Robert B.,

I just clicked on the check-mark above, just for the mot juste.

Post 11

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 2:06pm

RB

You know how to leave 'em laughing.

Post 12

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 2:52pm

"DITTOS!"

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 9:57pm

Jamie and Robert are right on. Sanctions all 'round.

Post 14

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 4:39am

Agreement all around about the talk show hosts mentioned above, although Savage is sometime fun for me to listen to for his rants.

My favorite, being an Atlantan, is Neal Boortz. I think his syndication has grown recently to the point where he should reach most of you.

Post 15

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 6:57am

Teresa had mentioned an Objectivist talk-show host in her area, perhaps she could repeat his name and station call letters?

Ted

Post 16

Friday, June 8, 2007 - 3:27pm