In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"T. Early" wrote:

"Leonard Martin" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Corbin Ray" wrote:



http://www.boston.com/news/globe/edi...d/articles/200
4
/03/30/lib
eral_talk_radio_no_one_will_buy_it/



The upshot of this article, shorn of all it's chest-beating in
favor
of
right-wing concepts, is that AM talk radio has the ears of
ignorant
people, there are far more ignorant people in America than
educated
ones, therefore liberal AM talk won't work.

Can't argue with that.

And to think, some of these right-wing ninnies actually see
liberals
as arrogant, condescending, and overly impressed with their own
intelligence. How far off-base can you be!


And lots of right-wingers think they're "the real people" simply
because
they don't know much about much of anything. At least us snooty
liberals
generally have sizeable collections of facts and ideas at our
disposal!


If only you'd put those collections on exhibit once in a while.

Your last two posts are Exhibits A & B in why the left has so much
trouble winning elections in this country despite being
disproportionately represented in dominant media outlets. Those great
unwashed you sneer at are smart enough to realize what you really
think of them.



It has always been thus. In society there's always a conservative
peasantry--sticking religiously to the most ancient and outdated ideas,
taking them all en masse without critical examination--, and an educated
avant garde who's members are willing to think new ideas and try new
things, which is a necessary preparation for meeting changed conditions.

Example: tradiitional Islamistist CANNOT be induced to treat women like
people, no matter how hard some of their leaders try to make them do so.

Our right-wing commentators know how to restate the unexamined
traditional ideas, essentially YELLING them back at the great unwashed
over and over again (which yelling the G. U. take as a valid form of
argument), and thereby give the G. U. the erroneous impression that
those ideas have been carefully examined and endorsed by a true thinker.
This gives the listeners a temporary sense of security about things
they'ed been growing a little uncertain about because they've heard
their society's true thinkers calling them into question.

Example: The ridiculous idea, clung to by some of our more benighted G.
U., that the earth was created just a few thousand years ago.

I don't see how it's possible not to have contempt for this process, or
for its practitioners or consumers.

Leonard

P.S., Do YOU really feel comfortable taking part in this kind of pep
rally argumentation?

--
"Everything that rises must converge"
--Flannery O'Connor