SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: calgal who wrote (520058)1/5/2004 11:53:55 PM
From: calgal  Respond to of 769667
 
Media frenzy
Matt Towery (archive)

January 6, 2004 | Print | Send

A president of the United States will be elected this year, but right now, public attention seems to be drawn to the legal problems of media and entertainment stars. So just for this week, let's wander away from the regular fare of this opinion column -- public surveys on politics and policy -- and look into the troubles of one star-crossed superstar.

I've made predictions on the eventual fates of Michael Jackson and others. But it's not my place to pass judgment on his or anyone else's legal problems. And that includes radio titan Rush Limbaugh. In fact, it's fair to ask why all this hoopla over Limbaugh's alleged "doctor shopping" for prescription pain pills. According to The Palm Beach Post newspaper in Limbaugh's home of south Florida, his alleged crime has seldom been prosecuted in that area. And to be fair, investigators say they have yet to take action against the conservative talk show host.

It's perfectly understandable for all those Democrats and "liberals" Limbaugh has taken on for so many years to give back to Rush a taste of his own. Limbaugh even believes politics is behind the potential legal case against him. That charge is unproven but would certainly be disappointing if true.

Less expected is to find that some who benefited from Limbaugh's trailblazing style -- which arguably launched a whole new world of conservative mega-media stars -- are either publicly or privately putting him down or, at minimum, abandoning him before the liberal onslaught.

Bill O'Reilly, one of Rush's fellow superstars, recently wrote a column that made no bones about denouncing those who are smearing Limbaugh. But at the same time, it categorized Rush as an "ideologue." The column hinted that "extremists" on both ends of the spectrum often meet sad endings. I certainly agree with O'Reilly when he cites surveys showing that most Americans consider themselves to be moderates or "in the middle." He's right, and many a Republican activist would do well to take note of his evaluation of the electorate. But that having been said, I'd like to present a slightly different take on Rush Limbaugh.

Can anyone even name a conservative talk show star before Rush? Probably not. From the late '60s through most of the '70s, the norm in the world of syndicated talk radio was liberal and maybe some moderate hosts. The presence of conservatives or libertarians was marginal at best.

I remember the first time I heard Rush on the air. Upon hearing his refreshingly pro-Republican message and his affected voice -- it reminded me of the Ted Baxter news anchor character on the old "Mary Tyler Moore Show" -- I wasn't sure if this was serious programming or a parody. But soon enough I realized this was something fresh on the airwaves.

Had it not been for Limbaugh's brash views and outspoken delivery, it's possible the legions of conservative and moderate listeners who now cling to every word from Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity might never have provided the market share conservative talk needed to prosper and affect America's political dialog.

Is Limbaugh an ideologue? Of course, that's his shtick. Just as Al Franken -- Rush's media nemesis -- has a funny, liberal shtick that I find entertaining even if I disagree with it. Can't most writers and talk show personalities be considered "extreme" in some of their views? Remember, their job is to express opinions and to encourage us to offer our own. The truly expert talk radio masters, including Limbaugh, Hannity and Neal Boortz, all bring passion to their broadcasts. That doesn't put them outside the pale. It makes them good at what they do.

Certainly Rush Limbaugh has had days riding a too-high horse; days of making tough judgments on this person or that cause. But his positions are usually well thought out, and he's rarely mean-spirited. I've never heard him treat a caller rudely, no matter how vigorously he might disagree with them. Some despise him for taking himself and his views too seriously, but I've always found him to maintain a sense of humor and proportion.

Ever notice that when Hollywood stars or professional athletes have personal problems, their colleagues tend to rally on their behalf? And who can forget congressional Democrats rallying around Bill Clinton during his impeachment troubles? But too often, in my experience anyway, conservatives or independents are more likely to leave their friends floating in the cold water.

Rush Limbaugh an ideologue? Perhaps. Has he had problems? Sure. Could he use a pat on the back, some words of appreciation and some support as he faces up to an addiction? You bet. After all, even the purest of knights falls off his horse now and then. Here's guessing the critical group of Americans that Bill O'Reilly correctly calls "moderates" understands that better than most.

©2003 Creators Syndicate



To: calgal who wrote (520058)1/5/2004 11:54:07 PM
From: calgal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Re-Post:

URL:http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20040105.shtml
Welcome to Civility 101
Mike S. Adams (archive)

January 5, 2004 | Print | Send

Dear Students:

Welcome back! I hope you had a good Christmas break (or Kwanzaa break, or whatever you celebrate). Mine was great but now it’s time to get back to work as we kick off a new semester. Those of you who have had my classes before need to pay close attention to this memo because I am changing some of my class policies this semester. Specifically, I am changing the way that I deal with those who interrupt class by either walking in late or by allowing their cell phones to ring during a lecture.

At the end of last semester, I decided that something had to be done about this diminishing level of respect shown by students towards their professors and their fellow classmates. This decision came shortly after I sat in on another professor’s class. While I was listening to a 75-minute lecture, the students interrupted the professor at least 58 times before I lost count.

First, a student came in class three minutes late. Then another student came in 15 minutes late. Then another student came in 25 minutes late. Then the first cell phone went off. Then the second cell phone went off. The other 53 interruptions were variations of “what was that again?” and “could you repeat that?” A raised hand accompanied none of these 53 interruptions from daydreaming students. They just shouted at the professor to get his attention. And they didn’t seem to care whether he was in the middle of a sentence. Interestingly, most of these students were in their third year of college.

I haven’t ever had a major problem with the hand raising issue. I just don’t answer students’ questions if they don’t raise their hand. But the cell phone and tardiness problems have exploded over the last five years or so. Most of my liberal colleagues have just allowed these problems to get worse. No matter how bad it gets, these PhDs just can’t seem to find a solution. Actually, that isn’t fair. They could find a solution if they wanted to, but they just don’t like imposing their own truths upon their students, who may live according to a different set of truths. And, of course, being disrupted by late students with cell phones gives them something to whine about during department meetings.

As most of you know, I take a different approach to these problems. First, I shut the door at the beginning of each class period. Then, if a student walks in late, he (it usually is a male, no offense to tardy feminists) gets three points deducted from his final average. If his cell-phone rings (no offense to co-dependent feminists), I deduct three points from his final average per ring. And if she (sorry guys, it is usually a female) actually answers the call, she fails the course. And, last semester, I actually started deducting points from the students’ average if they (regarding gender, this is a closer call-no pun intended) are merely in possession of a cell phone. But, unfortunately, last semester, four different students let their cell phones (which were hidden in their pockets) go off in class. All four were one-ringers. I also had one student in each class who decided to repeatedly come to class late.

In light of the on-going problems with tardiness and cell phones, I am going to modify my class policies this semester. I am not going to follow the advice of my anti-war colleagues who think that we need to talk to tardy cell phone people in order to find out why they hate us. Instead, I am going to let them do most of the talking. The specifics of my new policy follow:

If your cell phone goes off in class, or if you are late to class, you must write a 2500-word paper (minimum) entitled “The Death of Civility at the Postmodern University.” In this paper, you will be asked to write about the decline of civility in our public universities in recent decades. Please note that if you are late more than once, or if your cell phone goes off on more than one occasion, your paper must be a minimum of 5000 words. If you have three separate transgressions, you automatically fail the course. Finally, the paper must be of “A” quality in order for you to stay in the course. You will receive no other credit for completing this project, except, of course, for its positive impact upon your character.

Since you have probably never written on this subject, and since the paper is fairly long, I have listed a couple of suggestions to help you get started and to help you fulfill the minimum word requirement. These suggestions are not exhaustive, nor are they mandated, but I think they will be helpful.

Suggestion #1. Interview a person who was alive during World War II. Ask them the following questions:

1. How often did students walk into class late when you were in school?
2. How many of your failures in school were the result of a lack of “nurturing” by your teachers?
3. Did your teachers spend a lot of time boosting your self-esteem and soothing your inner child, even when you failed to adhere to the rules of the classroom?
4. Did any of your teachers ever suggest that punctuality was an antiquated Western notion with racist, sexist, and classist overtones?
5. Did students ever get up and leave in the middle of a lecture if they had to go to the bathroom, without asking the permission of the teacher?
6. Did students ever take long potty breaks in the middle of exams, without asking the permission of the teacher?
7. Did students ever get up and leave class just because they were bored?
8. Did you ever appeal a test score in front of the entire class or help other students do the same? If so, did you predicate your complaint with “hey Dr. Ummm,” or “dude, you ripped me off.”
9. Did you ever interrupt a professor to ask whether what he was saying was “important” or whether you “had to know it for the next test?”
10. Did people actually manage to finish school without having a cell phone with them at all times?

Suggestion #2. Interview an employee at the Office of Campus Diversity or any professor currently teaching in the social sciences or humanities. Ask them the following questions:

1. Is it possible that the diversity movement, with its emphasis on moral relativism, causes students to dismiss the rules a professor establishes with regard to appropriate class conduct?
2. If it is good to refrain from judging other people, doesn’t that mean that we should stop expelling people for plagiarism?
3. Isn’t the statement “ it is good to refrain from judging other people” itself judgmental?
4. Is it possible that liberal professors who teach that people are not responsible for their own behavior unwittingly encourage their students to engage in anti-social behavior such as compulsive tardiness?
5. Is cheating wrong just because a professor says it is wrong?
6. If a student claims that cheating is acceptable in his/her culture, is he/she exempt from punishment for cheating?
7. Can a student be given credit for an answer that the professor deems to be wrong, just because the student “feels” it is right?
8. What if everyone decided to come to class late every day?
9. If tardiness becomes even more prevalent than it is today, can we just write “whenever, man” under the designation for class meeting time in the course-scheduling catalogue?
10. When professors come to class late, does that in any way encourage their students to do the same thing? Does that undermine the professor’s moral authority?

In closing, let me say that I hope you don’t put yourself in the position of having to write a civility paper this semester. If you do, I would advise you to follow the first suggestion and interview a person who was alive during World War II. I don’t mean to stereotype, but these people tend to be very helpful and patient.

Unfortunately, you may find the second suggestion to be less fruitful. University professors and administrators tend to be less patient and less accessible. After all, they’re usually busy constructing a Utopian society. They seldom have time to talk about civility.

Mike S. Adams (adams_mike@hotmail.com) is an associate professor at UNC-Wilmington. While he was jogging in 1998 he was nearly killed by a 90-pound woman who ran a stop sign in her 6000-pound SUV. She was talking on her cell phone and appeared to be running late. Dr. Adams still has nightmares about that woman.

©2003 Mike S. Adams