Posted on 11/23/2001 5:35:55 PM PST by Avoiding_Sulla
For instance:
This is a question I've toyed with for some time. Today I asked it and got no answer. I'd like your help. I think we need SOME answer. Here's why.
It's widely felt (and certainly on the pages of FR more than elsewhere) that many of the Statist mechanisms that George Orwell predicted for his dystopic novel 1984 have been put into place. That they haven't become fully despotic may only be a matter of time. That is a concern of us here at FR -- we'd like to see our republic remain free.
Talkradio is frequently seen as the most free thinking of all the airwaves. Yet those airwaves are doled out by agencies of the same government it criticizes. There is clearly a logical disconnect there. What's it all about?
In Orwell's novel, many of you will recall that the leader of the underground opposition was named O'Brien. As I recall (it's been a long time), George Orwell made it seem that O'Brien was commonly known to all members of Big Brother's society as the leader of the opposition. We all know that talkradio is the place where the most outspoken voices can be heard widely by many people at once. Our largest public soapbox. Despite much of the trash we hear, a good deal we hear there is very good. Still, it doesn't go any further than that. Because of it, our leaders cannot claim (in their typical Senatorial denial voice) they don't know what we know. So they or their sympathisers can only mock the little voices -- our voices -- they disagree with.
I know they don't like it; but they won't really care unless they feel threatened by that speech. And in this there could be a threat from public radio to us from whom it gets its material and views. As public policy becomes more and more seemingly illogical and insane, you will feel compelled to speak out; when you speak out it becomes you who are declared the problem; any who complain become the target. The tyrant cares not whether you understand his demands, only that you comply. In the end, irrationality is a tool of the tyrant: who are you to declare it irrational?
The protagonist of the novel, Winston Smith, when he and his girlfriend Julia could finally stand the insanity no longer, sought O'Brien out. When they found O'Brien, O'Brien put them through a thoroughly planned torture. In the end, they had no more doubts. They loved Big Brother.Tonight I found the time to call the Michael Savage Show. I told the screener this was the question I wanted to ask. The screener asked me to elaborate. I doubt MS needed for me to explain the question because he brings up 1984 and Animal Farm frequently. Still I did elaborate -- in a shorter version of this story I'm relating to you.
MS's screener chose not to let me ask. Fair enough. It's his job, it's his perogative. Maybe he doesn't see the depth and significance of the question. One cannot expect MS's screener to be as erudite as he.
Still, maybe it is time we heard an answer. I cannot think of a good answer. But I'd love to hear someone like Michael Savage come up with one. If more of us ask, maybe we'll get an answer?
FReepers, Wouldn't you too like to know the answer?
What's a good answer?
Savage is gaining -- and he's the only one who's constaintly bringing up 1984 and Brave New World -- so I singled him out for this question. Too bad Savage's screener is so protective of him.
Still, it's a question which needs asking even if all we get is the Senatorial denial ("I never heard that. Sounds interesting; send me an email and tell me all about it" is the talkshow host's equivalent of "call my office and tell my staff".) :^)
I looked very hard, but couldn't find anything about Conan. What gives?
1. The "War on the West", choking off famers, loggers, miners, and ranchers from their means to make a livlyhood. The road closures that limit access to the National Forests to hunters and recreaction.
2. Allowing the Clintons to skate from their many felonies.
3. Our cozy relationship with Red China and being blind to their intentions to do us ill
4. Our sieve-like borders that allow drugs and illegals to erode our sense of nationhood.
5. The condoning of the "Slouching to Gomorroh" of our society by the government with an occasional "tsk, tsk".
6. The trashing of the 4th amendment by the BATF and FBI - with grievous hurt to the 1st, 2nd, and 5th.
What to do, what to do, what to do.
Run in circles, scream and shout?
I suspect that MS is more "feelings" and any one with particular "knowledge" of a given subject would show him up. Just guessing.While I've obviously got my doubts about MS, I wouldn't sell him short. He's more to the point on many issues than most. He can go on in depth and at length at a moments notice on a variety of subjects and get it right. I only personally caught him short of knowledge once, and he was quite amiable about it, not exhibiting the Senatorial denial, but openly permitting his ignorance to show. However, that was on KSFO before he went national. :^)
Here are two areas where his academic achievement helped me (and maybe a few of you who haven't heard these) just because he was there to offer his opinion:
In areas outside his schooling he's apparently better than most. His sudden outbursts against some callers who seem to agree with him could be displays of irrationality, blatant showmanship, defensiveness or an intentional discrediting of his own stated positions. All of these would argue against charges of O'Brienism.
Does anyone really believe Rush still has "fire in the belly"?
Did he ever really? What part did Roger Ailes play in his success? What part did ABC?
What more can be said about the stifling of emerging independent opinion by the "master of talk" than his own commentary? [Paraphrasing from memory]
"If I've said something about a subject, that's all there is left to say."Doesn't that seem strikingly the same excuse you'd expect from the alphabet networks were they in Rush's business? One either offers nonviolent "independent voices" the opportunity to be aired or one doesn't.
Here's another idle thought. Rush doesn't offer an organization other than the GOP to fight against "encroaching statism." Savage does. For that reason MS is more likely a potential O'Brien than the self-satisfied Rush.
Rush has strayed, at most, to the Establishment fringe. That observation is not necessarily bad, but I think it is accurate. As said elsewhere in this thread, with all that money now, perhaps he'll stray even less now. Hence he's the less likely candidate for O'Brien.
One bit of evidence that Michael Savage may harbor some O'Brien element is what I have heard as his refusal to put one of America's leading battlers agains the immigration invasion, Glenn Spencer, on the air. If Savage is really in this fight against the immigration invasion, why won't he put our real soldiers on the airwaves?It's a good question, the answer to which has been hinted at by history (he was yanked off the air abruptly in August without explanation after a heated exchange -- there was a thread here about it that's not currently active) and he has aluded to explicitly ("if I'm not on air you'll not hear it"). I'm not necessarily buying his explanation, but what other choice do you have? Most of the time he talks the right game -- perhaps to take the wind out of our sails (if someone is saying what your thinking, aren't you less likely to initiate action yourself?) -- and then he doesn't walk the talk.
Am I getting this wrong? Anybody out there with a reasoned defense of Savage's blackout of our champions?The less he caters to your desires, the less he is attractive to you -- hence he couldn't be YOUR O'brien, just maybe someone elses. That makes the most sense doesn't it? Each of us will be offered our own O'Brien. Orwell's point with O'brien was that even the opposition was organized by Big Brother.
That's also why I subtitled this thread "A Question for Your Favorite Talk Show Host" even though I offered MS as the example.
So, who are you gonna ask?
Savage cannot avoid this question too long without losing more credibility simply because it seems like he's been asking for it with all his references to 1984 and Brave New World.
When he finally does, a flippant and dismissive answer rather than thoughtful response will be very disappointing.
So, for all you who doubt Savage's sincerity, I recommend this question to flush him out.
He's already dodged once. Can he dodge hundred of times? Please help with this test FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.