Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Thoughts While Shaving: If I Were Blago I’d Testify…but then I’m Not…Michael Savage Makes Fun of Glenn Beck Losing His Sight (Ugh)…

   Feast of  St. Lawrence of Brindisi*
                                          If I Were Blago…
       Far be it from me as a non-lawyer to quibble with the Adamses (father and son) over whether or not Blago should testify…but all the same, I’d pull the ripcord and encourage him to get on the stand.  The only conversation I ever had with Blago was shortly after his election when he stunned me with the breadth and scope of his knowledge of history. Since then I’ve been equally aghast at his surreptitiously recorded FBI tapes.  But all the same since he has made a big deal about his eagerness to testify…an affirmation that probably hasn’t been lost on at least some jury members…I’d go on the stand were I he.  For one thing, I’d hate to be serving 24 years in stir thinking that if I HAD gone on the stand things would have been different.  
                                       Michael Savage. 
        The very first time I heard/saw the talk show host Michael Savage he was on MSNBC with a simulcast, taking calls from a radio audience and staring straight ahead at the camera.  One guy called up and said he was gay and vehemently disagreed with Savage on the nature of homosexuality. Savage flew into a rage and wound up saying to the guy that he hopes he gets AIDS and dies from it.   For that he was…justifiably…fired from the network.  
        That took care of me so far as Savage is concerned. The few times since then that I’ve heard him, I found him to be compelling but a fun-house mirror of contrasting emotions.   For one thing he is bitterly envious of his conservative competition: Limbaugh, Hannity et al.  He once made fun of a TV host who has arrested muscular dystrophy.  And now he thinks it’s uproarious that Beck may be losing his sight.  
          Not only is he wildly out-of-order, he is constitutionally unable to be civil when he confronts a competitor.  Although the elite class despises Beck, I think he’s contribution is outstanding.  He teaches a revisionist history that needs to be communicated to all those who haven’t had the benefit of solid historical grounding.  As one who went to school long before Beck was born and who had the benefit of learning history before the liberals skewed it, I can tell you that almost 100% Beck is right on. 
          No, I’m not saying that Savage should be terminated.  Just that I cannot fathom what people see or hear in his bitter denunciations of others who agree with his views but are competitors. To me way of thinking, conservatives have a brilliant repertoire of good commentators. All of whom can be used for different ends. Limbaugh is good for helping to postulate arguments and for helping conservatives with one-liners: akin and often better than Jon Stewart is on the Left. 
          Hannity is good for a less clever but equally dedicated audience.  He doesn’t have Limbaugh’s humor but he has youth and intensity that communicates well on TV.  Michael Medved is scholarly and rigorously honest in debate—plus a scholar of Judeo-Christian philosophy.  Megan Kelly now that she has cleaned up her one-time immature act on satellite radio with Howard Stern, has the makings of an extraordinary prosecutor in her questioning of liberals on Fox-TV. Laura Ingraham is far better on TV than she has been on radio (although for the life of me I can’t imagine why she published a book that supposedly contains fictional Obama “diaries.”  Ann Coulter is our version of Maureen Dowd and is fun to read…although when she appears on TV, swishing her long blonde hair around and crossing her bony legs in semi-seductive fashion,  she’s not for me.  But she’s a genius at hurling barbed one-liners.  
            Dennis Prager whenever I can get him is probably my favorite. I find him smart, cerebral and a master of incisive analysis. 
             With this armada of conservative commentary I cannot understand why Savage has to…savage…his competitors—except for one thing. He’s a terribly insecure individual.   But he’s the least valuable of all the foregoing in my book.  
    *: St. Lawrence of Brindisi [1559-1619].  Born near Naples, Lawrence came from a wealthy family (notice of how saints have?) and displayed great spiritual insights from a very young age. He became a Franciscan at 16 and soon developed an extraordinary gift for languages, ancient and modern which he used to study the Bible.  Transferred to Rome, he was sent by Clement VIII to pioneer in the conversion of the Jews (lots of luck!). It didn’t work out but his energy convinced the Pope to send him to establish Capuchin reform in Germany.  Capuchins are a stricter variant of the Franciscans.  He founded houses of reform in that country and in Prague.  He became minister-general of the Order in 1605 but refused to stand for reelection. Against his will he was dragooned to become the Order’s commissary-general and later definitor-general. 
         Perceiving that Lawrence had diplomatic skills, Rudolf II, the emperor, gave him the mission of uniting the quarreling German princes against the Turks (Muslims).  Then he became a kind of male Joan of Arc, exhorting the troops and riding at their head armed only with a crucifix…inspiring them to win the battle of Szekes-Fehervar (1601),  Later he persuaded Philip III of Spain to join the Catholic League and founded a Capuchin house at Madrid.  Later he became papal nuncio at Munich and coordinated the efforts of the League  as well as preaching. 
         In 1618 he retired to Casera for a life of contemplation and prayer but they wouldn’t let him rest. The Pope sent him to Spain and Portugal to persuade Philip III to replace the viceroy of Naples. He died at Lisbon, was buried in a Poor Clare cemetery at Villafranca. He was canonized in 1881 and declared a Doctor of the Church by John XXIII in 1959.

1 comment: