It Ain't No Air America...

The author getting a book signed by her hero, Neal Boortz

Every Wednesday on Austinist we feature one of our multitude of ridiculously talented writers, writing written things for your eyes to consume. The opinions expressed by the writer are strictly their own, and are not necessarily shared by the Ist Network or any of its affiliates. For this week, meet: Julie Holden. Enjoy! -- Columnist Editor

The freedom to speak whatever's on your mind is...scary. Fun? A chance to really get yourself in trouble. I've decided to out myself about something that will shock even my closest friends. Hell, it might even get me fired. Oh well. Here goes. All day, Monday through Friday, I listen to conservative talk radio on 590-KLBJ. Being a lifelong, card-carrying Democrat, some folks might guess my husband turned me on to it—but this is all me. It began about a year ago in a desperate move fueled by pregnancy hormones. A bona-fide Morning Edition junkie, I needed a break from the incessant negative news, so I decided to find out what the enemy was up to. Somehow...I got hooked. Here's a brief run-down of what life is like on the other side.

My day kicks off with KLBJ's version of the morning zoo. Three guys hash out local and national issues. Ed Clements, the goofy "left-wing" dude, who is smack in the middle by most standards, battles with Sgt. Sam Cox, a retired cop (think McGruff), who is so far right he makes Matt Drudge look like a communist. Mark Caesar is the seemingly neutral referee, but listen long enough and you'll discover he yaws hard a-starboard. Big surprise. Nevertheless, it's fun to hear them squabble. They keep things light, take plenty of calls, and cover a lot of ground.

Indeed, one of the biggest up-sides to KLBJ is its outstanding Austin news coverage. They often break news first, and they cover Austin-based topics in greater detail than any other media outlet. I know much more about the city council, problems in our schools, crime and traffic/transit issues, the new city manager, and the ongoing drama in the APD than I ever would listening to any other radio station. When the morning show wanders into national news, it covers topics as diverse as the WSJ's take on the subprime mortgage debacle to...photos of Rush Limbaugh with his new honey. Admittedly, they fare best when sticking to Austin stories.

After getting my fill of the local yokels, in breezes Neal Boortz. I love Neal Boortz. Love him. Did you know he's unabashedly pro-choice? A compassionate, staunch defender of gay rights? And he wants to abolish the IRS? Awesome. Boortz is a Libertarian, a former lawyer, and a fascinating guy. When he argues with listeners—which he does frequently, since he courts callers who disagree—his intelligence shimmers. Really, it's a blast to listen to him.

Image from RushLimbaugh.com

He's dead wrong about a few things, though, and when he cranks up on these pet topics, I must admit I get more than a little peeved. His attitude towards Muslims is downright offensive, as is some of his colorful language characterizing illegal immigrants. Also, he's bought—hook, line, and sinker—the idea that global warming is a hoax. The latter is the most annoying part of the right-wing talk show circuit. The common attitude toward global warming—blunt, ignorant, politicized—is pervasive and ridiculous.

Rush Limbaugh, the meat in the Boortz-coined "ham sandwich" (Boortz leads in and then follows Rush on KLBJ), is the biggest blow-hard there is in the global warming "debate"—or any other subject. We all know that Limbaugh is the bull dog guarding the gate of current conservative politics. Yet...he's been fascinating lately. He so deeply, desperately hates Hillary Clinton, scrutinizes her every move, and believe it or not his analysis is frequently correct...sometimes even prophetic. And could you even guess—he waxes romantic about Barack Obama, doling out sound advice I wish Obama would follow. I hate to admit it, but Limbaugh's election coverage has been riveting. Once the dust settles, however, I imagine his show will once again deflate to its monotonous, "mega-ditto" mediocrity.

Image from FreedomKeys.com

Last on the block? Hours and hours of local hero—former UT football player, current UT lecturer—Jeff Ward. Ward often does a solo rehash of the morning show topics, but in a world-weary, dry-as-dust tone that he's perfected to an art. Mostly his show consists of him ranting about some or other local issue, with input from often mock-worthy callers. Ward spends plenty of time in self-mockery as well, particularly when he gets caught in the camera lens with the likes of Jennifer Gale (scroll to the bottom). Amazingly, it's some of the most entertaining radio I've heard. It's all cult of personality—and yet Ward plays the reluctant radio star to a T.

I'm not sure how a one-time turn around the room with the guys on the right snowballed into an addiction. Partially, I had grown tired of being the choir—had become inured to the lectures from the pulpit. Also, after a few months, I unexpectedly found the warm, whispered tones on NPR to be cloying. I thought, "Don't these people ever get exciting about anything?" Ultimately my secret vice hasn't changed me much—if anything it has pushed me further left—so I'm not terribly worried about it. But isn't it odd that I genuinely fret about being judged harshly for such a habit? I hope this confession hasn't shot any chance I might've had at becoming popular in this town....

Contact the author of this article or email tips@austinist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Julie Holden in Other on February 6, 2008 9:30 AM 0 Comments

Comments [rss]

snmseo

Hashish addiction is hotly contested – many experts are certain hashish
is addictive in the same way that marijuana is, others disagree that
either of these commonly used recreational drugs are even habit-forming,
let alone addictive. Hashish is made from trichomes which form on the
cannabis plant towards the end of the growing season.

Hashish Addiction

mdahmus

More talking points. Sigh.

There aren't any credible climatologists who wouldn't agree to this statement: "unacceptably high likelihood of drastic consequences without action soon". That's pretty much what Gore says. We don't know exactly how bad it will get, but we know that there's too high a chance it will get too bad to not do anything about it.

Anybody who still believes Random's tripe, go ahead and check out realclimate.org.

Random

Perhaps some clarification is necessary - "inevitable catastrophe without drastic action" would probably be a better way to say it.

And you are absolutely wrong to say that any uncertainty about the long term impact of global warming is false.

It's obvious that to you global warming stopped being about the science and more about the politics of it.

mdahmus

Well, Gore doesn't say "inevitable catastrophe" either - that's what people slightly to the left of Limbaugh like to claim he says because it's a helpful caricature. And, yes, "you guys", because it's very clear that the climatologists are saying pretty much what Gore said - people who assert otherwise are playing the false-uncertainty game.

mdahmus

Well, Gore doesn't say "inevitable catastrophe" either - that's what people slightly to the left of Limbaugh like to claim he says because it's a helpful caricature.

Random

"uh, no, legitimate climatologists all line up with variants of "some minor quibbles but overall we agree", and that goes for the tone as well. This is a particularly effective talking point you guys have come up with, though. Bravo. I'll salute you as I sweat."

"You guys"...this is what I'm talking about, any amount of variance in the party line and you get lumped into the science fearing non believers.

And I do believe you are mistaken on what all scientist agree on, because it sure isn't the inevitable catastrophe scenario.

mdahmus

:The science in the film is solid, but it's the catastrophic inevitability of it all that has legitimate climataologist questioning it.:

Uh, no, legitimate climatologists all line up with variants of "some minor quibbles but overall we agree", and that goes for the tone as well. This is a particularly effective talking point you guys have come up with, though. Bravo. I'll salute you as I sweat.

mdahmus

:The science in the film is solid, but it's the catastrophic inevitability of it all that has legitimate climataologist questioning it.:

Uh, no, legitimate climatologists all line up with variants of "some minor quibbles but overall we agree", and that goes for the tone as well. This is a particularly effective talking point you guys have come up with, though. Bravo. I'll salute you as I sweat.

skc

I agree with you about Boortz being entertaining, though I disagree with him on some things.

Boortz has had April Fool's pranks of "all cemeteries should be abolished in America because they use up prime real estate in metropolitan areas" and "The Georgia State Cat Parachuting Finals" - a contest in which parachutists dive after de-planed felines before they hit the ground in a theatrical manner that would make Orson Welles proud, but absolutely Humane Society safe. I listen to him just to hear what's next.

Boortz is fresh air to the same ol' news radio.

I'm a FairTax Loving, Pro-Choice Conservative.

Ursel

Boortz "intelligent"...for real?.....Limbaugh "facinating"?.......lady ...please go away

DiedInSuburbia

Funny..I'm planning a move out to Austin next year, from Boortz' home town of Atlanta. Was hoping to get away!

Boortz is occasionally tolerable, as you mention, but no more. He's behind the flaky "Fair Tax" proposal, there's the global warming "hoax" thing, and of course, nothing good can come from a Democrat in his eyes. That in itself (as also evidenced frequently by Atlanta suburbanites in general) is really the most annoying part.

DiedInSuburbia

Funny..I'm planning a move out to Austin next year, from Boortz' home town of Atlanta. Was hoping to get away!

Boortz is occasionally tolerable, as you mention, but no more. He's behind the flaky "Fair Tax" proposal, there's the global warming "hoax" thing, and of course, nothing good can come from a Democrat in his eyes. That in itself (as also evidenced frequently by Atlanta suburbanites in general) is really the most annoying part.

helloali

(well that was weird - i didn't even hit submit.. cont'd)

terry gross, i switch over to jeff ward.

it was inevitable, but austin radio suffered a huge blow when 590 switched from abc news to fox. anyone know another station that does abc?

helloali

yeah, another left-leaning, 590-listener here. can't stand boortz, and i definitely wouldn't use the word 'intelligent' to describe him (unless you mean in relation to his callers). but if you can stomach the grandstanding blowhardness, limbaugh does have decent political analysis - or at least an interesting perspective (one that you rarely get in austin, as a previous commenter mentioned). and ward is just great. when i can't stand to listen to terri

gnubeewonkanobie

I have to take a break from Morning Edition (and All Things Considered) every now and again. Mostly because all the negative news sorta ruins my(natural) high. But instead of tuning in to the other side of the spectrum, I usually just jam out instead. I've been rocking Mahavishnu Orchestra to and from work the last few days and living up the morning traffic on 360 in righteous 70s jazz/rock/fusion style. :-)

When I get curious about the right-slant on things news related, I sometimes skim the headlines at Fox, but I rarely click any of the links. The headlines are so worrisome I just can't bring myself to read the article. I do wish there was a better internet resource for local news, though. Anyone have any suggestions?

chetlemon

Undrum...

It sounds like you know plenty about Jeff Ward's show. What year did you graduate and did you play ball? It sounds like his interestes keep you at least interested enough to know his interests.

pinko traitor

The utter garbage that spews from KLBJ-AM is emblematic of the rapidly declining quality and influence of terrestrial radio. Now that they've syndicated Alex Jones around the country they've lost all credibility and may as well rename the station K-Rush.

How Jeff Ward's show attracts anyone beyond the UT alumni roster is beyond me. Unibrowed shirtless AC/DC fan persona aside, his interests are just too pedestrian to keep this longtime Austinite interested. It's like he pulls his material from the Talk Show Host's Daily Primer or something. And the small gang of anti-government/right-leaning young professionals (who fancy themselves libertarians) that call in almost every day is enough to make one gag. He should stick to more local and germane issues, and leave the reactionary rhetoric, Oprah-bashing, and washed-up movie reviewer from Dallas (!) for Sgt. Sam's Sunday show.

Random

The science isn't what people take issue with, it's the tone. And when you're dealing with a potentially catastrophic issue, tone makes a big difference.

The science in the film is solid, but it's the catastrophic inevitability of it all that has legitimate climataologist questioning it.

What's sad to me is that once something is a partisan political issue, there is no room for nuance. In the case of climate change, you're forced to either believe that man made warming will cause the destruction of the planet or that man made climate change has zero long term impact on the planet. No one is allowed to complicate this lest they betray the left or the right.

mdahmus

Here's a typical take from real climate scientists on Gore's "alarmism":

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

Note that he takes care to point out several errors, but goes on to say that:

"For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right, just as he did in Earth in the Balance. The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change."

If you pay any attention at all to what climatologists actually say about this movie, you will see that 99% of them say something like the above, which is: "a few things wrong; but overall very accurate and quite well done".

debimama

I've been listening to them for years and I agree, Mark, Ed and the bunch are great esp. on local stuff and Jeff Ward rocks my socks. I can't do Neal B. or Rush though. That's when I take a break switch over to 1370AM for Dr. Laura.

I'm sure lots of people would shame me for that!

mdahmus

"How disappointing that the people working to solve the problem resort to simplifying and emotionalizing the topic to the point of leaving themselves open for debate."

The people who really do the science are about one step away from Gore on the continuum between Gore and Limbaugh/Boortz. Yes, they'll tell you about that one step - but to say that Gore is simplifying and emotionalizing in an attempt to let Boortz et al off the hook for simply LYING is just beyond the pale.

smack

Jeff Ward is the diggity, man. I just wish it wasn't quite so footbally.

Jooley Ann

No, there is no damage. I still disagree with Limbaugh, Boortz, and others on this topic, and I live a lifestyle that backs up my beliefs, from the car I drive (or *don't*), to where I live, to the products I purchase. I'm not being self righteous -- I'm simply saying I'm not all talk.

That being said, the rhetoric used by Gore & Co is overly manipulative; the polar bear "conspiracy" is chief among my complaints. Yes, global warming is grounded in actual science (as you say), and doing one's part to minimize it is the morally responsible, correct thing to do. How disappointing that the people working to solve the problem resort to simplifying and emotionalizing the topic to the point of leaving themselves open for debate.

Random

I have no idea what this Boortz fellow says, but it is not a right wing reactionary take to claim that some of the claims in an Incovenient Truth are either slightly exagherated, or are cases of presenting debatable points as fact:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7049377.stm

This is part of what I was talking about earlier, and is no idfferent that what you see on conservative talk radio - legitimate questions and concerns being silenced because they conflict with or complicate an ideology's point of view on the topic.

mdahmus

"overly manipulative language and imagery employed by Gore & Co,"

That's pretty much a Limbaughian talking point right there, and it shows the damage they've done. Gore & Co are, for the most part, fairly restrained in what they say - it's far more grounded in the actual science than what Boortz himself retorts.

mdahmus

"overly manipulative language and imagery employed by Gore & Co,"

That's pretty much a Limbaughian talking point right there, and it shows the damage they've done. Gore & Co are, for the most part, fairly restrained in what they say - it's far more grounded in the actual science than what Boortz himself retorts.

Jooley Ann

Random, yes, what you describe is what I was experiencing. Exactly!

Tim, who says I don't think we'd be better off nuking the planet? And yes, I'll confess that Limbaugh's unbelievable repetitiveness (sometimes I think he's not quite right in the head, he repeats himself so much) forces me to turn the radio wayyyy down. Except for lately, when he has been quite interesting. I hate to admit.

Kenneth, I'm not sure why Boortz, who is otherwise incredibly smart, buys the global warming "hoax" argument. I suspect his usually logical sensibilities are disrupted by the overly manipulative language and imagery employed by Gore & Co, not to mention proposed legislation that is anti-Libertarian. It's a disappointment, though. I will say -- at least his call screener, who participates very frequently on the show, is the polar opposite (buys carbon offsets, etc.), and he allows her to speak about it.

kenneth1

So Neal Boortz is a "fascinating guy" whose "intelligence shimmers," yet he claims climate change is a hoax. Tell me, where does he stand on the holocaust? How about the round Earth vs. flat Earth debate?

tim

I listen from time to time to all those shows. Preferring Bortz and Ward. I don't know how you do it every day. I can barely listen to Rush for an hour he spends so much time repeating himself. I couldn't listen to Air America either. They both get me so worked up. And I find their venom just isn't healthy for me to listen to. That said I tune in every few months just to find out what the current talking points are.

I don't think you're weird though. They're pretty entertaining if you can listen without thinking we'd be better off nuking the planet.

Random

It's funny that you talk about being pushed to the left. When I first came to Austin I was an ardent Libertarian: pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, low tax, less government type of guy. When I first got here I found the liberal slant to the town very refreshing. I came from south Texas - a Democratic strong hold, but hardly what I would call liberal. To hear people fired up about liberalism was something I had never experienced.

Though something weird happened around 2004. After several years in Austin I noticed a tendency towards preaching to the choir. There aren't very many vocal conservatives in this town and I started to get the impression that liberal Austinities sometimes pushed aside dissenting points of view and tended to enjoying arguing to agreement to any actual discussion, which sounds a lot like what you were experiencing. I started to veer more towards the right during this time, not because I actually believed a lot of it, but more because I felt it was a point of view that was sorely missing.

Which is odd now, because I've since left town (my family has remained) and I've gone right back towards the moderate libertarian center. There is no point to this other than to relate to the notion of going further to the left (or right) when immersing yourself in the opposing viewpoint.