From: "Paul S. Penrod" <furballs@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 1996 08:23:26 +0800
To: hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Noise: Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
In-Reply-To: <9607241624.AA06524@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9607251251.A18211-0100000@netcom>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




On Wed, 24 Jul 1996 hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:

> 
> >Talk shows that attempt to stimulate active thought on reasonable premise 
> >generally do not survive long in syndication. With Limbaugh's show, it 
> >took a double hit as the markets it played to were for the most part late night. 
> >BTW, this comes from actually looking it up in past TV Guides - not 
> >mindlessly drooling over the radio - so put away the "he's lying" crap.
> 
> And why did the networks put Rush on so late? Could it be that
> he did not pull in the viewers?

Syndicated shows are scheduled by the local broadcasters. They decide 
when and if to run them. It only makes sense that if you have control 
over your material but are at the mercy of the broadcaster, that is not a 
sound business position to remain in.

> 
> >Following the shallow logic of your argument, Limbaugh is not a success 
> >because he does not broadcast on TV. 
> 

I noticed you clipped the truism about academia...

> It is shallow logic, but it is Rush's own logic. He promotes the
> idea that success is measured in ecconomic terms. The failure of his
> TV show demonstrates the failure of his ideas under the criteria 
> which he himself espouses.
> 

Maybe in your book, but your above statement demonstrates that: a) you know 
very little about how the TV broadcast market works, b) you are confusing 
the issue of business with political stance, c) that you assume to 
understand what makes a person financially successful, when infact you have 
said nothing here to demonstrate such knowledge, and d) your bank account 
is much smaller than his, otherwise you wouldn't piss and moan about 
Limbaugh's financial status in the first place.

> >The issue I take with this, is the constant spouting of King Bill's 
> >pronouncement of why OKC occured in the first place. We don't know WHY it 
> >took place - that's what a trial is for (if you actually believe that 
> >justice is blind and lawyers tell the truth always). We will NEVER really 
> >know - but it's damn fine political fodder to take an unconstitutional 
> >swipe at the populous with the anti-terrorist legislation.
> 
> That is not what the trial will decide. The question is who and what,
> why is irrelevant given the nature of the offense.
> 

Maybe in the UK, but in the US there is the little thing called motive. 
It either helps or hurts one's final outcome in the court system.

> >If you firmly believe the premise that Fascism was the root cause behind 
> >OKC, then you have no choice but to look to the White House and Capital 
> >Hill. 
> 
> Nope, I look to the millitas, Chritian Identity, the Klu Klux Klan 
> and their appologists including Liddy and Limbaugh. If you read
> the propaganda that the NAZIs used you will find it if anything 
> less direct than Liddy or Buchannan. The NAZIs did not advertise their
> intention to commit mass murder, they used code words. When Buchannan
> refers to "Hose" he is using a codeword he knows will be understood.
> 

Well, that's your take on politcs, and a very narrow view that it is.

Obviously there is more to American Politics than Pat Buchanan, and 
frankly I would doubt very seriously he had anything to do with Fascism 
and the US Government. In a former life, he was a reporter and columnist 
in the press (one of the self-anonted guardians of free speech). He never 
set policy, just did his journalistic spin on it.

If anything, Buchanan is reminicient of the protectionist days of the 
1930's prior to US entry into WWII. Back then Hitler was a European 
problem that got out of hand quickly. And, if it wasn't for the fact that 
France and Great Brittain tried to beggar Germany after Kaiser Willhelm 
surrendered, Hitler and the NAZI's may not have come to power. 

I would suggest you study your American history more carefully and 
without the grandstanding and speeches of the revisionists who pass 
themselves off as educators and political analysts.

...Paul