I've enjoyed Brew's liberal lean in political coverage. He oftentimes pointed out articles I hadn't seen. I don't think he's closing shop due to Gore's request, as his wife just had a new baby and his time is limited. I also preferred his "toned down" approach to politics versus Bartcop's raging emotionalism, but I also understand that Bartcop feels that only raging emotionalism can counter the raging emotionalism of the Dr. Laura's and Rush Limbaugh's.

Another one bites the dust

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2000

Answers

Now THAT'S a loss. Sheesh.

It's really sad, but Bartcop is right: that IS the only way to counter the right-wing rhetoric. I've heard Rush and Michael Reagan. I have to turn it off. I wind up screaming at the radio. It gets quite insane.

These people are nuts. It just reminds me of the "selective fact syndrome" during Y2K.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2000

I didn't visit the Daily Brew but once or twice, but I hate to see it close down. You ought to write them and ask 'em to hang in there. Even once a week is better than none at all.

Incidentally, Russ and Dee did an interview with J. J. Johnson on our station this morning. He's basically asking for a nationwide trucker's strike of all the "blue" (pro-Gore) areas on that now-famous USAToday map, as well as a tax protest, if Bush doesn't win the election.

At his Web site , the Sierra Times, he's asking for donations and volunteers, so things might be tough all over. :)

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2000

I've heard you mention Russ and Dee once before, and I can only assume they're right-wing pundits. Our radios only get two stations [just kidding]. We listen to Tom Joyner's show or the Classical music station. Joyner was the disc jockey who commuted each day from Chicago to Dallas, so moving here and hearing him made us feel right at home.

Have you heard of a Radio host named Larry Nichols? Presumably he's the one spreading the rumor that Hillary has filed for divorce.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2000

There must be SOMETHING about AM radio.

A M radio in New York

-- Anonymous, November 16, 2000

Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh..............I miss WFAN. :-( I miss the Jets/Knicks fans' therapy sessions (that usually include the Rangers as well).

Actually the article is amazingly on target. NYC probably has more "Right Radio" than any other place in the country. (Not really; it just used to seem that way.)

It boggles the mind. (Then again, I can only take so much of NPR; it's one of the only things on the "new" SNL that I find truly hilarious -- and not far from the truth.)

(NPR Trivia: I was on NPR a few years ago. There was a HUGE AIDS demonstration in front of NYSE and I worked a block away. The police had the entire area closed off, and I had to walk almost four blocks out of the way to get into my building. I wasn't a happy camper. I went into the coffee bar to get my morning dose of $2.50 caffeine and started talking to someone about it; at least four people were complaining. Next thing I know, this woman is shoving a tape recorder in my face. I told her that yes, I did contribute to GMHC regularly, but if these people really wanted donations out of the "money bags", it's probably best not to piss them off. She took my responses out of context and selectively edited what I said so that it sounded like I was against the demonstration. Half the people I work with heard it that night, and the next day I was subjected to some of the worst interrogation. I forgot to listen [g].)

Out here, every other station is "Right Radio". Doc will put it on in the truck when we're driving somewhere (morbid curiosity, I suppose), but within five minutes one or both of us is usually screaming at the radio. Then we switch to FM :-)

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Anita,

The conviction that the big newspapers and television networks are liberal and biased is BIG amongst right-wingers. So, as a result, they've flocked to AM radio. (A special dispensation is granted to FoxNews. [g])

There are some ironies and oddities here. For example, Disney owns ABC, which provides the network infrastructure for Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk shows. And yet, Disney is boycotted by the Christian right! Go figure:)

(Incidentally, ABC also produces Tom Joyner's show. Tom's a 'Bama boy -- he got his start here, in Montgomery, AL. The people here treat him like a local.[g])

AM radio accepted the talk revolution with open arms because of market pressures. Just 20 years ago, AM was near extinction; everyone had gone to FM. Talk radio has rejuvenated the AM medium. The listeners are fanatically loyal and WILL support the advertisers.

Take our big AM here in B'ham (remember the pictures?). It was languishing under a Disney kid's music format; it was losing money and was in terrible shape. It sometimes went off the air for hours (which is one reason why we decided to rebuild it virtually from the ground up).

We bought it and converted it to talk, and, less than a year later, it's doing great. And that's in a market with several other talk stations, including two other 50KW'ers. :)

(And incidentally, we don't carry Rush Limbaugh.)

On right-wing vs. left-wing. I've always had trouble with labels because they don't fit neatly. You've never struck me as a wild-eyed liberal and likewise, my political conservatism tends to wander a bit on some issues. For example, amongst my more conservative friends, I'm considered a heretic because I think that health insurance plans and HMOs SHOULD be liable for bad decisions. But daggone it, as a CHRISTIAN, I think it's WRONG to let these groups hurt people just to save money. SOMETHING has to be done.

Likewise, I stopped listening to Rush Limbaugh for the longest time because I was tired of his incessant attacks on Bill Clinton. You already know what I think of the Clintons; no need to repeat that. But GMAB: every day? For three hours? On and on and on, with no end in sight? I just got tired of it.

Now for Russ and Dee. Here's what they look like:

And yeah, they're firmly to the right; make no mistake.[g] You can read their bio at www.russndee.net/bio.html. But they don't just parrot the usual right-wing stuff; they really made their name by targeting corruption and Good Ol' Boy politics here in Alabama. They'll turn on a Republican as quickly as they will a Democrat.

So ... right wing they may be, but at least they're consistent about it. For example, just prior to the election, a number of Republicans endorsed a constitutional amendment that would give the Governor access to a bunch of trust fund money (LONG and boring story; I won't go into the details). Russ and Dee named them on the air and then flatly announced that they would actively campaign against them.

(And given the size of their audience, that's not an idle threat.[g])

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Lot of extremists of every stripe on the web, too. Not to mention pirate radio.

And shortwave is getting odd - I finally managed to find that shortwave station with the oddballs again, turns out they are a regular broadcast from Nashville, of all places, and are on 3.215 MHZ. Some of their shows are oddball types, some aren't so bad.

My problem with the extremists is that they polarize the political scene out of all proportion because of their influence. A politician will do a lot for a small bloc of votes.

Example: If there was no AM talk, I really doubt that a number of Republican leaders in Congress would be making such a point of always referring to Clinton as 'your president' when speaking to Democrats or mixed groups. They are, of course, referring to the fact that Clinton never pulled over 50% of the popular vote. I suppose they will do the same to Gore, if he gets in. If Bush gets in, I wonder if Democrats will do the same to him? (Note: By the rules as I understand them, Democrats control the Senate agenda for the next four years.)

(Another note: Stephen, the other day you were irritated at Anita and I for saying Bush would have a rough row to hoe, and wanted to know if we would support him. Looking at that last paragraph, I have to wonder if you consider Clinton as ever getting any support from the right?)

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Paul,

No, Clinton didn't get much support from the far right. (Which didn't make a great deal of sense, because they didn't really like Bush, either.) The moderate right was reasonably pleased with him (because he did a lot of what they wanted, such as welfare reform), which drove the far right crazy. Rush Limbaugh, just to name one, seem very frustrated that the American people couldn't "see through it," ie, that Clinton was just "acting" conservative to stay in office.

My opinion was, as long as he did what I wanted, for whatever reason, I was basically satisfied. This is what Rush missed. I had a few bones to pick with Clinton -- some of his appointments struck me as a bit left of center, and I didn't agree with his military deployments -- but like most Americans, generally approved of the job he was doing.

Incidentally, Clinton's popularity (after "swinging" more to the right), combined with the success of talk radio (and Fox News -- it was the most watched of the cable channels on election night), incidentally, proves something else that I've said for a long time (and which the liberals never seem to get): this nation actually leans more to the right than to the left. Most citizens are moderate to conservative. :)

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

"Rush Limbaugh ... seem[ed] very frustrated that the American people couldn't "see through it," ie, that Clinton was just "acting" conservative to stay in office."

This makes absolutely no sense; it's completely illogical (well, it is Flush we're talking about here [g]). If he's "acting conservative", doesn't that indicate that his actions are "conservative"? (The none-too-subtle hint buried in there is that he's therefore done things that SHOULD please the conservatives. Yet.....)

Which proves the point I've been trying to make all along ..... it doesn't matter what the politician does as much as it matters what party affiliation s/he has. (Again, there were shining examples of that on your board and TB2K II.)

(Wonder what ol' Flush would say about Orrin Hatch calling Hillary to congratulate her? snicker.)

I don't agree with you about the make-up of the nation, Stephen. I think the majority is moderate; not conservative. I don't believe simply because FOXNews was the "most watched" on election night that it proves anything. How would you explain Doc and I listening to Right Radio? (Hint: Morbid Curiosity.)

(We also "watched" FOXNews that night -- along with CNN, and MSNBC, CNBC, C-SPAN.....the Remote Control is a Magnificent Invention [g].)

One other thing people seem to constantly overlook is the fact that NYC has a Republican Mayor (yep, that Hotbed of Liberalism.....) -- a Two-Term Republican Mayor.

So much for "statistics" :-)

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Stephen:

You may want to take back that comment about not thinking I'm a "wild- eyed liberal." I visited that Sierra site and had to wash my hands. There's NO WAY that I will ever be able to NOT associate the confederate flag with racism. Check out the front page of www.bartcop.com to see why.

I understand that you don't see the flag in this manner. I read your posts defending the confederate flag...on Uncensored, weren't they? If the day ever comes when this symbol of the old south isn't used by racist extremists, I could change my mind, but until then, I must assume that its use reflects racism, and my stomach will churn, my eyes will bulge, and I'll wash my hands.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Just because I pointed to it, it's been replaced. Here's what it looked like:

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

(who was it that mentioned 'right wing rhetoric'?)

Nice leftist move with the pic....show a group of KKK dipshits with a sign that says "we love george W"

*sigh*

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

How can this be considered "rhetoric" when it's a photograph (e.g., it actually happened)? How is it a "leftist move" to show a picture where the KKK uses this flag as a symbol of their hate?

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Trish,

Which proves the point I've been trying to make all along ..... it doesn't matter what the politician does as much as it matters what party affiliation s/he has. (Again, there were shining examples of that on your board and TB2K II.)

Yeah, I know. But remember, too, that I am on record as favoring the abolishment of ALL political parties. Take that, couple it with accurate elections, campaign financing reform and term limits, and you wouldn't believe the difference it could make.

But the pickpockets who run this joint would NEVER consent to that, so it's a pipe dream. :)

(Hey, I sound like Doc now! [g])

(Wonder what ol' Flush would say about Orrin Hatch calling Hillary to congratulate her? snicker.)

I think it was pure class on Orrin's part. Bitterness and rancor doesn't help anyone. Or, maybe he's got a crush on her. :)

I don't agree with you about the make-up of the nation, Stephen. I think the majority is moderate; not conservative.

That depends on where we split the labels; the point was, they're NOT as "liberal" as, say, many of the academics who teach in our colleges.

I've mentioned elsewhere that most Americans want abortion to remain a legal option, but they are quite uncomfortable with it being used casually as a means of retroactive birth control. Where that places them in the political spectrum is a matter of opinion.

Does support of a union make you "liberal?" My wife is about as conservative as they come, and yet, she's a member of the union at Social Security. Where does that put her?

On NYC, two observations from an admitted outsider. (1), there are more moderate conservatives there than most people think and (2) Rudy was elected because he wasn't *perceived* as a Rush Limbaugh-type right winger (if he had been, I doubt seriously if he would've polled more than 30% of the vote).

Anita,

I had already seen that picture earlier.

Why in the world would I class you as a "wild-eyed liberal" for this? There are conservatives who would agree with you -- including this one (to a point, anyway)!

I do believe that the battle flag is misunderstood, just as the Confederacy and the reasons behind the War for Southern Independence have been misunderstood. As with so many key moments in history (including the current mess down in Florida), the precise chronology -- the order in which the actors did the things that they did, and the reasons that they claimed for doing them -- is forgotten. Thus, that entire struggle is now reduced to a single soundbyte or two, including my favorite: "the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery."

I'm not going to rehash all of that here; I've been working on an article for my website that I may post some day.

The battle flag has been misappropriated by groups like the KKK. There's no copyright on that flag and no organization to prevent them from doing that. It irks me, but they can do it.

But you know what? I actually think the whole argument is an utter waste of time. What's far more important to me is that the South should defend its identity, culture and mores against those who call us "redneck" or "backward."

I tell people that I'm a Rebel, but not a racist. :)

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Hey, I like Orrin Hatch. I even voted for Rudy (once).

But Flush has got to go.....along with Michael Reagan, and Bob Grant, and "Dr." Laura.....

I admit I don't listen to any of them regularly (I just don't HAVE that kind of constitution about me), but whenever I have listened, I have rarely heard one single FACT being bandied about. It's predominantly right-wing rhetoric, shouted as loud as is humanly possible, all to stir the masses. Doesn't matter that what's being shouted isn't exactly true -- facts have no place in this little game. Just tell 'em what they want to hear -- the evil liberals are taking your money, the feminazis and immigrants are taking your jobs....blah blah blah ad nauseum.

The thing that gets me is that this is EXACTLY how organizations such as the KKK and WAR operate -- say what the "disenfranchised" want to hear and suck 'em in. Kind of the same way that cults operate.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad, but these are the same people who claim to want to put religion and "morality" back in your life, but what they don't tell you is that it's THEIR religion and THEIR morality.

Pretty much the same thing they accuse the Evil Liberals of doing.

Hence the hypocrisy.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Well, as I have said before, I used to listen to Rush, before he found out money and fame lay in constantly bashing Democrats and praising only the extreme right wing Republicans.

He still gets calls telling him he is too "liberal".

Funny thing, I know a bunch of Rush Republicans. Only a tiny minority fit the image of Republicans. Most of them are truck drivers or similar. These guys gripe about income tax constantly. If the Federal Income Tax was totally removed tomorrow, they wouldn't get an extra $50 per week. And they would be screaming about the Interstates breaking down inside a year.

I mean, really, what these guys want is something for nothing. And they can't even see the flaws in their logic, or lack thereof. I've seen them on food stamps, and section 8 housing, and they seem to think they DESERVE this, because they 'paid the damn tax'. It would take ten years of their taxes to pay for what they get in ten weeks of being laid off, but they just don't see it that way.

Put it this way - Milne told us he gets the unearned income tax. You tell me if he votes Democrat, Republican or what?

As for the Confederate Battle Flag, well, Stephen is right. The war was not fought because of slavery, it was fought partly on a basis of the right of the states to govern themselves, partly on the fact that the North was rigging taxes so the South was bringing empty bottoms back from England, and partly because of inflammatory rhetoric in the North. (Uncle Tom's Cabin - the Limbaugh of the 1850's)

But, even so, that flag has been so demonized by so many for so long, that I think common sense dictates its removal from public parks and grounds, save in the case of museums. I really don't see how any other outcome is possible, and it gripes me to lose this one, but a lost cause it is.

(The empty bottoms thing - you ship cotton to England, you expect to bring something worthwhile back. You can't if the taxes have been rigged to make everything in England too expensive to make a profit possible. So the shipping costs for cotton go out the ceiling. So the South could either go broke or fight. In the end, they did both.)

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

I spent 24 hours debating with myself about whether or not I wanted to mention my reaction to that Sierra site lest I might offend Stephen for the offering. I didn't want to present the picture on this forum [because I find it offensive], so offered a reference which later went away. Didja ever have one of those days when the only damnation you get comes from yourself?

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Anita,

All the time. It's called "liberal guilt." (GD&RVF!)

(When are you going to figure out that I am not offended by disagreement? I ENJOY discussing things with people who disagree with me.)

Paul,

Well said.

Incidentally, the League Of The South is interested in "Southern cultural identity," with the strong view that we should eventually secede to form a separate nation -- strongly allied with the rest of the USA, but separate.

Mike Hill has got a big master plan: we'll start with the slow transfer of control from the Federal back to state government; in time, we'll form, say, a Southern "association" of states; and finally, a Confederacy, followed by eventual independence.

(We've had Hill on our station, too, by the way.[g])

OK, fine, Mike. Let's explore this for a moment.

The flag offends most black Southerners. Whether they're right or not, whether they're misreading history or not, is completely irrelevant: the fact is, they are offended by that flag.

It's not hard to see why, either. Put yourself in their shoes: when they were kids, a bunch of sheet-heads in pickup trucks with battle flags in the rear windows would terrorize the neighborhood from time to time ... hmm, yeah, that would probably leave a lasting impression on ME, too.

It is utterly irrelevant that the flag USED TO represent "Southern independence from Northern domination." What the flag means NOW is what counts. As long as the Southern independence movement insists on wrapping itself in a symbol that has COME to be associated with racism, it doesn't have a chance in Hades.

Hey, if it makes Hill feel better, he can even get angry at the Klan for stealing that flag and "corrupting" it (just as *I* get angry at the Klan for daring to call themselves "Christian"). But politics is politics; you can't create a country when half the population is pissed off before you even get started.

He needs a lesson in Politics 101, methinks. :)

(Speaking OBJECTIVELY, of course. [wink])

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

And Paul?

Well-said on the taxes thing, too. The South actually seceded for several reasons; Lincoln's tarriff was one of the biggest. It helped protect Northern industrialists from cheap imports, but killed the South's agricultural trade with Europe.

That's why I said that the "precise chronology" matters. When the Southern states began seceding, Lincoln met with various Southern leaders in an attempt to keep the Union together. One of the saddest facts of history is that they almost worked out a compromise that would have prevented America's bloodiest conflict ... but the sticking point was Lincoln's tarriff. He wouldn't (couldn't) give it up (it would have killed him politically).

Most people nowdays don't even know the original text of the Thirteenth Amendment, which was offered by Lincoln to the South to reassure them that slavery would be protected from Congressional interference. But again: he wouldn't bend on the tarriff thing.

The talks fell apart and the North invaded the South to restore the "rebellious territories" to the Union. Most people nowdays also don't realize that Virginia and North Carolina did NOT secede until this happened. They were perfectly willing to stay in the Union, but felt that they could not, in good conscience, support an invasion of one state by another. So, they seceded.

(And ironically, my home state of North Carolina, the most reluctant of all, would eventually suffer more casualties among its soldiers than any other Southern state.)

The issue for the first two years of the war was "preserving the Union," and whether the Federal Government had the right to do so by force. Several Northern generals, including several who were strongly opposed to slavery, came to fight on the Southern side over THIS principle -- not slavery.

Two years later, when England and France were within a hair's breadth of recognizing the Confederacy (which would have ended the whole thing right then and there!), Lincoln finally decided to stop playing up the "save the Union!" angle (which was getting nowhere in Europe; they couldn't care LESS). He decided instead to appeal to strong European anti-slavery sentiments and issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

I'll hush now. :)

I've been working on an article on this for the website; I may finish it up and post it before too much longer.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

Paul,

OK, one other thing. :)

Harry Turtledove has written an excellent alternative history of the Civil War; I recommend it highly. Start with How Few Remain and proceed through the "Great War" trilogy. It's highly recommended reading. :)

-- Anonymous, November 17, 2000

I've been reading Turtledove longer than most people knew he existed.

Haven't gotten into the alternate world of the Civil War much,as yet, though I did read Guns of the South.

I'm way behind on casual reading, since that forced hiatus in the mid 90's.

Its funny, but slavery could have been abolished without the war. There were several proposals for exactly that, and something would have been adopted eventually, probably no later than 1875 or so, IMHO. Most countries got rid of slavery without fighting over it, and the US could have done it, too.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2000

Paul,

How Few Remain takes a different tack: instead of time-travellers giving the Confederacy AK-47s[g], the South won the Battle of Antietam and proceeded into Pennsylvania a year ahead of schedule, when Union forces were disorganized and very badly-led. They encircled Washington and the British and French recognized the Confederacy and forced mediation on Lincoln.

The difference is critical. By 1864, everyone was tired of the war and there was gruding respect on both sides for the other. Everyone was ready for the war to be over, one way or another.

(Which is why memories of Reconstruction still burn down here; the South felt betrayed. They were prepared to believe Lincoln's pledge of "malice toward none, charity toward all;" when he died, we basically endured a brutal military occupation for several years. But that's an aside.[g])

(Although, for historical reference, that's the reason why you couldn't hire a good Southerner to vote for a Republican until that party "reinvented" itself in the late 60's and early 70's.)

If the war had ended in 1862 when tempers were still hot, particularly given foreign interference, there would have been gloating on the part of the South and resentment in the North, especially toward Britain and France.

As Turtledove sees it, the Confederacy would have formed close ties with those two powers. In How Few Remain, there's another war (this time over Mexico), which the Confederacy wins with British and French help.

As a result, the United States very likely would have formed an alliance with Germany. The series continues into "The Great War," and with the United States and the Kaiser on the same side, the outcome would have been very different.

Turtledove covers all of this in depressing detail. It makes me, as dedicated a Southerner as you'll ever meet, glad that the Union was preserved in the long run (though -- again -- we could have done without the Reconstruction stuff ...[g]).

The only good thing in this scenario is that it's unlikely that Hitler would have come to power. Hitler needed a defeated, broken Germany to do that.

(But Turtledove hints that the Confederacy will produce its own "Hitler," a guy named Jake Featherstone .. . ... we'll have to wait for the next book in the series to see how THAT one plays out.[g])

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2000

Most people have no clue as to the heavy support for Germany in WWI and at the start of WWII accross Kansas, Michigan and much of the North and North West. Things could have easily gone down a different path.

As for Reconstruction, I consider it war by another means. Things were very strange for a while there. And the origins of some 'old' fortunes don't bear much examination, if you know what I mean.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2000

Paul,

For that matter, relations between Great Britain and the United States weren't all that great at the onset of WWII. There were bitter disputes over trade, for example, and Pacific rim policy.

In that case, though, Hitler was so clearly bad that there wasn't much question which side we'd choose. Plus, Roosevelt was a confirmed Anglophile.

A lot of people write off our contribution to WWI, saying that the war was essentially over by the time that we went "Over There." I think that's flat WRONG. The Bolshevik revolution freed the Germans from that front, meaning that they could turn all their resources toward France. Absent American intervention, the result would have been entirely different -- best case would have been an armstice with Germany left intact; worst case (ala Turtledove) is an outright US/German victory, with huge indemnities charged against the Confederacy, Britain and France.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 2000

Perhaps, though I've always thought the Germans had some desire for access to the oil of the Arab Gulf, in both WWI and WWII. Not much oil in their part of the world.

(Which really made their opponents in the world trade arena unhappy, right?)

Speaking of trade, Japan was doing everything possible to take the bulk of the trade in South America and Latin America away from us prior to WWII. They had free ports going in in SA, and things wern't looking good for us down there.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2000

Paul:

As I read the history, the most important and extensive support for Hitler was in Conneticut, Delaware, NJ and PA. The, so called, barons of industry were very impressed by his handling of the labor unions. You know the names of these people. They still hide from their history. I know some of the families. A few still feel that way.

Best wishes,,,,

Z

-- Anonymous, November 19, 2000

I should have simply said accross the North. I meant to say North East, in fact.

For that matter, Texas had a number of people who thought a lot of Hitler in his early years, including grandpa Bush - he was in quite a bit of trouble over his banking deals with Germany.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2000

For another matter, there were more than a few people in Great Britain who thought Hitler was a great man -- especially before the war.

-- Anonymous, November 20, 2000

Yes, remember Lord Haw Haw? (I've actually forgotten his real name.)

"Germany calling. Germany calling. You have no chance to defeat the German military machine. It is invincible. Tell your armies to surrender now, or face the consequences."

-- Anonymous, November 21, 2000