July 10, 2018--Audiological Tale: Fox News (Concluded)

Ten days later, when I was scheduled to bring back my loaner hearing aid and pick up my new one, Rona and I drove up to Rockport.

In Dr. Schwartzberg's office, before he could fit me with the new device, Rona said to Gary, "I think I know what you're up to."

He immediately put on his blank face. Clearly he was moving to protect himself from who knew what.

"From the day we last saw you, less than two weeks ago, I've noticed changes in Steven's behavior." Rona paused to see if he would engage her or just keep on staring.

It was unusual for Rona to take the lead while at his office. After a moment she continued, "I could be wrong about this because I didn't keep notes of what I was observing."

Engaged now, Gary said, "This is sounding interesting. Please, tell me what you've been noticing and what you make of it." He slid his chair toward Rona but close enough to me so that I would be able to hear everything, even if either of them spoke softly. I thought so I wouldn't feel left out and think they were whispering about my condition behind my back. 

"Like you, Steven is progressive. Politically." Gary nodded, "On his blog he frequently writes about political issues." Gary rolled his eyes as he knew I was more than interested in what was going on--I was obsessed. "He is so involved with trying to figure out what is happening that in addition to gobbling up everything he can find that's critical of Trump and his supporters he even samples what's being broadcast on middle-of-the-night rightwing talk radio, especially Fox News."

I jumped in, saying, "It's not that I spend a lot of time listening to what they're saying, how they spin things, it's more as Rona says, to understand them better, to know what we're up against. So I check them out. There's just so much that I can take of the likes of Sean Hannity or the well-named Michael Savage, whose real name, by the way, also is appropriate--Michael Weiner."

"That's his story," with an edge, Rona said, shrugging in my direction.

"So then what's your story?" Now eager to hear, Gary slid closer to her.

"Since we saw you he's been doing a lot more than checking out what's on the conservative media. For example, he's been spending more time than usual tuned in to that Trump enabler, Laura Ingraham. Even at times watching her whole show." She folded her arms across her chest and vibrated her foot so violently I was afraid she was going to topple out of her chair. 

Gary was now smiling broadly. He asked me, "Do you have anything to report?"

"I don't agree," I waved toward Rona, "I'll admit that I tend at times perhaps to be a little over-involved," Rona snorted, "But there's no way I would watch more than a few minutes of Laura Ingraham's show. I find her to be part of the Trump propaganda machine. I maybe turn her on for five or ten minutes to see what's she's up to and to get a preview of what Trump's talking points will be the next day since Fox helps set his agenda."

"So what do you make of that?" he asked Rona.

"It's bogus. Baloney. Like I said, last night, I swear, he watched her entire show. And worse, I saw him nodding his head. Nodding his head because of something she said! Next thing you know he'll be wanting Fox to rehire Bill O'Reilly."

A tense silence descended between Rona and me. We had never spatted while with Gary. Some of the hearing loss issues are tense and emotional. I hate to be so hard of hearing and as a result need hearing aids. Depend upon them. It's an aging thing, and always Rona has been beyond sensitive to my frustrations about the inevitable lose of some of my powers. So we always tread lightly about anything potentially too upsetting when in Gary's office.

I sensed that he was uncomfortable witnessing our increasing edginess. 

Finally, he said, "I don't want to put you through any more of this."

"You're behind this?" I said, "About what Rona claims is happening? Whatever that is?"

He looked away, but, nodding, said, "Yes. I was running a little experiment with you."

"An experiment with me? Without letting me know?" I was upset but also relieved.  Maybe whatever he had to say would help reconcile Rona and me.

"Forget the CIA business you brought up the last time you were here. And all the things you wrote last year. The stories you made up."

I said, "I'm beginning to sense that rather than your wanting us to forget about the CIA because there's nothing there it's because there is something there. A connection to you that you are trying to keep hidden. Maybe even in regard to this little experiment you mentioned. It's just as I've suspected for two years. There's a covert side to you." I raised my hands triumphantly and swung around toward Rona, who was looking quizzically at Gary.

"Before you come to any conclusions let me explain." Not waiting for either of us to respond, he said, "You know I'm interested in neurology. A lot of my involvement with hearing and its correction is neurological. How the brain adapts to the loss of hearing, or, for that matter, sight. If one ear or eye has a problem the brain adjusts. As some would describe the process, it remaps itself. If there is lose of brain function--including how it effects hearing or sight--other parts of the brain have at least some capacity to take over. You recall when I first fit you for hearing aids we went through a three-month process of adjustments. As your brain got used to the hearing aids I tuned to one level what you were hearing began to feel more and more comfortable, more natural. As if you didn't have aids at all. And then I pushed their capacity a little higher and over a few weeks your brain adapted again. Remapped itself."

"I remember all that," I said, "It was fascinating and you described it at the time very well." I was moving slowly to consider letting him off the hook.

"Switching subjects," he said, "As someone as politically interested as you I thought you might like to participate in my little experiment. I couldn't tell you about it in advance--maybe all things considered and how you both reacted, I should have. I didn't and I apologize for that, even though it would have spoiled the experiment. Because then there would have been the placebo effect."

"Get to the point," I said, "You have patients in the waiting room. And to tell you the truth all of this is exhausting me."

Pressing on, Gary said, "Are you aware of the experiments and literature in behavior genetics that suggest a large portion of one's political ideology is genetically influenced? Some reputable scientists claim that up to 40 percent of our political attitudes could be hardwired in our DNA. Not subject to external influence. Like what gets said on Fox or MSNBC. That doesn't affect us at all."

I said, in fact I have read about this. Including in a book by Hibbing called Predisposed. "It's controversial but if even half true it's important to understand and deal with the reality. It would help explain some of the behavior of the hard right."

"And," Rona said, "Let's not forget the hard left. They or we can be pretty rigid too about political issues."

"Touché," Gary said, now smiling again. "For example, there have been findings that suggest openness to experience, which can in large part be genetic, predicts liberal ideology and conscientiousness, also in part genetic, often goes with a conservative orientation."

"Again, though interesting, how does this relate to your so-called little experiment?"

"I know of course that Steven is a liberal and if the science about this is accurate a large part of that may be genetically predisposed. As with the rest of us. Let's say the genetics of this is true. What we don't know is if any of the predisposed part might be alterable. Or is it untouchable. Once a Democrat always a Democrat. Or a conservative. Political campaigns as a result tend to focus pretty exclusively on the non-hardwired part of the electorate. Which is understandable. With my neurological interest I'm interested in the non-genetically-influenced part."

Attempting to follow, though exhausted, Rona and I were intrigued. 

Sensing this, with enthusiasm, Gary said, "Though it is claimed that we can't do much about what's hardwired, maybe in fact we can in various, yes, covert ways, affect the way people think and ultimate vote. And so . . . think about what might be possible . . . What could be . . . Who knows the good . . ."

Tired by the effort, I could feel him considering the possibilities.

"I'm out of gas," I said, interrupting, "It's been a long day."

"I'm done," Gary said.

"Not quite," Rona said, "You still haven't described the specific details of the experiment."

He rose from his chair, also weary, and stood behind me, placing his hands on my shoulders. I twisted to look up at him. He removed the bronze, loaner hearing aid and held it up, being sure we both could see it. Then placed it carefully in a small box on his work table.

"Think about it," he said, "Think about all of this."

And with that, gently, into my left ear, he pressed the new device and turned toward the waiting room. My hearing was immediately restored.

With so much to consider we drove home barely exchanging a word. Later, we both confessed that what he had shared with us was exciting and important. Even if we hadn't understood it all.

April 16, 2018--Ann Coulter & Me

Tell me I'm hallucinating. 

I woke up Saturday morning to the news that overnight we had bombed a number of chemical weapons sites in Syria. Putting aside for the moment how I feel about that, I thought I heard that Ann Coulter, as well as numerous right-wingers, who I assumed, as hawks, would reflexively call for tough action wherever and whenever, staunchly opposed President Trump's decision to attack military assets of the Assad regime.

I woke up in a hurray and sure enough, with the exception of dead-ender Sean Hannity, pretty much all the talk-radio bloviators, conspiracy theorists, and Fox News hosts and guests were ranting about how Trump violated his campaign pledge to bring all troops home from overseas misadventures, especially those that were involved in "nation building." They reminded Trump about this, since they know he was watching and listening, citing our failed involvements in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region.  

The Hill reported that Fox hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham both claimed that Friday night's attack was inconsistent with what Trump said during the campaign and that it could be "risky" for us, considering the country's experience with the Iraq War.

Well-named Michael Savage, host of the radio show, Savage Nation, tweeted--

"We lost. War machine bombs Syria. No evidence Assad did it. Sad warmongers hijacking our nation."

Warmongers, I assume, including Trump.

Ann Coulter showed her opposition to the missile strike by retweeting postings by other conservatives who condemned the move, citing Trump's past tweets in which he cautioned about military action in Syria.

Infowars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, broke down in tears on his  talk show when grossly gasping out his opposition to the missile strikes. He said-- 

"If he [Trump] had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn't be so bad. We've made so many sacrifices [he did not list them] and now he's crapping all over us. It makes me sick."

Best of all, alt-right conspiracy theorist and social media personality, Mike Cernovich, on his men's empowerment website, Danger & Play, posted--

"At least I won't feel bad when he gets impeached."

About that, we agree. As I do with Ann Coulter. 

That is, unless I was hallucinating.

October 14, 2015--Talk Radio

I'm a notoriously poor sleeper.

I manage to fall asleep without trouble, but it's the staying asleep that's the problem.

I have found that one thing that interrupts my early morning obsessing and allows me to resume sleeping is listening to overnight talk radio. The shows tend to be so repetitive and inane that they literally bore me to unconsciousness.

Sports talk of the sort found on WFAN, where callers and hosts obsessively fret about the Jets, Giants, and Knicks gets me slumbering in less than half an hour.

And then there are the political shows. All right wing and full of hate (mostly directed toward Barack Obama) and paranoia (most fears and conspiracies attributed to Obama) and so predictable and repetitive that they too soon lull me back to dreamland.

Then there is Coast to Coast, a nationally syndicated show that is devoted to the paranormal. Guests and callers share stories about flying saucers and how they were abducted and poked in all their bodily cavities by Martians before being returned to Earth. The good news--no one on these shows seem much interested in the president. Though occasionally he is thought to be an alien.

Usually, if I manage to acquire a strong C to C signal, I'm snoring again in less than 15 minutes. There are just so many trips to Venus I can handle even when staring fretfully at the 3:00 a.m. ceiling.

It is interesting that with two exceptions, political talk radio is all so stridently conservative. The two exceptions are the Alan Colmes and Al Sharpton shows. The former has 1.75 million listeners while the Reverend typically attracts 1.0 million.

Compare this with the king of talk, Russ Limbaugh, who has 13.25 million followers; the prince of paranoia, Sean Hannity with 12.5 million; delusional Glenn Beck and Mark Levin with 7.0 million each; and the Michael Savage show that pitches to 5.25 mad-as-hell insomniacs.

All the latter specialize in savaging (pun intended) liberals and especially Obama, who, frequently, is thought to be the Antichrist or at the very least a Kenyan Muslim. Nothing he is doing or did in the past is without fault. The goal is to overturn everything he accomplished, especially Obamacare, and even to delegitimatize him. Yes, he was elected two times with majorities, but if he can be proven to be foreign born or the literal Devil, they can make him go away. It would be as if he never existed.

To give their assault on Obama and other liberals the patina of credibility, these hosts and their callers frequently make things up.

Since they cannot marshall facts to support most of their allegations and grievances, they create them, disproving Daniel Patrick Moynahan's oft-quoted assertion that we are entitled to our opinions but not our own facts.

One small example--On the well-named Red Eye Radio program the other night--a widely syndicated show pitched to truck drivers--they were ranting about Obama's intention to ignore the Second Amendment and to begin to confiscate everyone's guns. Even hunting rifles. That he was using the most recent campus slaughter in southern Utah as a "political opportunity" to justify his fascistic agenda.

"If he's in favor of more gun control," one of the hosts shouted, "why doesn't he come forward with detailed proposals? He talks in generalities but offers no specifics."

His cohost and a procession of folks called in agree.

In fact, three years ago, after the murders at the Sandy Hook School in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama proposed a full program of legislation to limit the size of ammunition magazines for automatic weapons, increased requirements for those who sell semi-automatic assault rifles at gun shows, and the like.

I thought, why aren't any people calling in to present these facts? Where are the liberals who care about these issues? Why are they, we, so passive when faced with the phenomenon of right-wing talk radio?

If we can't sustain shows that present a progressive perspective (including on television--MSNBC failed while Fox News is thriving) why not at least organize a campaign to flood the airwaves with callers who will take on the lies and vitriol of the Glenn Becks, Michael Savages, and Mark Levins?

Liberals recognize the influence and power of these shows on political life and their ability to articulate a vision for the extreme right. A segment of the activist population that is more and more influencing and even shaping the Republican agenda.

Why have we ceded this on-air ground to the untra-conservatives? Even if these shows' producers began to screen out liberal callers, that in itself would make quite a story when publicly exposed.

It is curious that progressives spend passive time tuning in to the Jon Stewarts, Steven Colberts, and Bill Mahers, but are not motivated enough to get up off the couch to take on the calumnies of Limbaugh and Hannity.

Sorry, but if we don't get mobilized, we will get what we deserve.

October 4, 2013--Rite Aid

On Wednesday, while in Camden in 80 degree weather, we stopped at the Rite Aid pharmacy to buy a bottle of water. Forget for the moment that 18 ounces was $1.95 and Rona couldn't resist making a point about what must be the profit on selling "free" water.

What was most interesting was the chat I had with a Rite Aid staffer who was set up with a computer at a desk near the prescription counter.

He was with a customer but we caught each other's eye and I mouthed, "Obamacare?"

He nodded and when the person with whom he was talking got up--seemingly quite happy--I stepped closer and we chatted about what he was doing and how it was going. Counseling people, he said, about the Obamacare options available to them in Maine and how the public he was encountering was reacting to what they were learning about it from him. Very positively he reported.

He told me that at every Rite Aid around the country, not just in communitarian Maine, there were people like him who had been trained to help uninsured people think about what might be best for them.

I told him I was not waiting to have him describe the options to me, that I am on Medicare and have Aetna in addition, but since there was no one waiting he seemed eager to chat.

"They come in here having gotten most of their information about the Affordable Care Act from listening to fear-mongers such as Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, and Mark Levin on the radio in the middle of the night and, as you might imagine, are very worried about what having to purchase insurance will mean for them and their families and how much it will cost them to sign up."

"I can only imagine," I said, "Though to me it's far from perfect, I support Obamacare; but feel he hasn't done as good a job describing it, selling it, as people such as Rush Limbaugh have done to denigrate it and instill fear in unsuspecting listeners."

"Pretty much everything they tell me that they 'know' about Obamacare is wrong. For example, there is still the belief out there that if you sign up for it you and your family members will be under the control of death panels and if you currently have coverage you will not be able to keep it but will be required to join a plan endorsed personally by Obama."

"What about cost issues? Are people worried about how much it will cost them?"

"Initially, pretty much universally yes. But when I sit them done and run the numbers--based on their family income--considering incomes here are in general not that high, they discover that it will likely cost them a manageable amount to select a health care plan."

"Can you be specific?"

"Sure. For a couple making less than about $62,000 a year (and that would be almost everyone here) with the tax credits available, on average it could cost them about $100 a month. Which almost any working couple can afford. For a family of four, tax credits kick in up to about $94,000 of annual income; and the cost for the plan selected--and there's a range of them--would run from a couple of hundred dollars a month to $1,000 or so for those opting for the low-deductable, so-called 'platinum' one. On the other hand, if a family of four makes less than $32,000 a year, the cost of the basic plan will be about zero. Like for those of you on Medicare. The government subsidies will cover pretty much the entire cost. Which, to say the least, is a good and big deal."

"Do they know about how with Obamacare there are no lifetime caps on how much will be covered and how, no matter one's preexisting conditions, coverage can't be denied?"

"Some have heard about that but most haven't. And when I tell them about that--almost everyone I've spoken with thus far does in fact have a preexisting condition--they think I'm not telling the truth. That I'm a shill for Obama."

"So Mark Levin and company have been ironically successful in spreading misinformation . . ."

"And lies," he said. "That's what this computer's for," he tapped the screen, "I show them the truth in black and white, so to speak."

"How's business? I mean, how many people have you seen?"

"Between yesterday and thus far today maybe a couple dozen. But here's the most interesting part."

"What's that."

"Already today I'm seeing people who had friends or relatives who I spoke with yesterday coming here now based on what their friends learned. It's too early to generalize, but word of mouth seems quite positive."

A couple of middle-aged people had joined the line behind me so I turned to leave.

"They're not positive about me," he laughed, "but about Obamacare."

"I wonder if this will find its way to the media or will they continue to insist on covering the negative?"

"That would be a first," he said, winking and waving as I left.

June 6, 2013--Barack Obama and the Khmer Rouge

I’m not much of a sleeper, so to distract myself from middle-of-the-night fretting, I listen to talk radio, thinking it’s so boring it will drive me back to sleep.

I usually listen to sports talk—which is as enervating as it gets--but last night I tuned in to Savage Nation, an eponymous right-wing program hosted by Michael Savage.

Born in the Bronx as Michael Weiner, he is a little unusual because unlike his ilk he has a really good education—a Ph.D. from UC Berkeley--and he has had considerable success in fields other than milking money from Tea Party crazies. Back in the day he even ran with Allen Ginsberg, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, and Timothy Leary.

Knowing him as I do from other late night encounters, I anticipated lots of railing about the IRS, Benghazi, and Eric Holder. I wasn’t prepared for his tirade about the seven female senators on the Armed Services Committee and how they are attempting—with Obama’s open encouragement—to undermine our military by pressing to take the investigation and prosecution of soldiers who engage in sex crimes away from the normal, failed chain of command process.

He ranted about how these “harpies”—with Obama again—were like members of the Cambodian Khmer Rouge whose leader, the communist Pol Pot, to consolidate his power, during the 1970s and 80s, called for and oversaw the barbaric torture and extermination of at least two million of his fellow countrymen.

This was so over the top even for the likes of a Savage, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh that when I awoke I thought I must have been having a nightmare. So I did a little checking.

It appears that Weiner/Savage has been making these Khmer Rouge slanders for a number of years. It is one of his mantas when savaging Obama. (Pun intended.) As an example, here is a long except from WND, a raggy right-wing Website:

Any doubt Americans may have had that Barack Obama is a Marxist should be alleviated now after hearing his rhetoric in a speech in Virginia over the weekend, top talk-radio host Michael Savage told his listeners in July 2012. 

Asserting that it is governments and not individuals who create jobs, Obama told entrepreneurs Friday: “If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” 

 “You didn’t get there on your own,” the president said. “I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.” 

After playing the audio of Obama’s remarks, Savage offered a blunt assessment.“So there’s communism,” he said. “That’s Karl Marx Obama. That’s Hugo Chavez Obama. That’s Joseph Stalin Obama. This is a very dangerous man.” 

Savage, noting he has studied dictatorships, recalled that tyrannical regimes “begin with innocent remarks like this.”“This man is the most dangerous, most divisive, most evil – I’ll use the word evil – president in the history of America.” 

Savage acknowledged he was “stepping up” his own rhetoric, because the situation requires it, and no one else will. 

“Things don’t start the way they end,” he warned, drawing lessons from history. “They start with the most innocent remarks like this.” 

The elected Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, whose rhetoric originated with 19th century French anti-Semites, did not start with death camps but with relatively benign racial purity laws, and no one stopped him, Savage pointed out. 

“The rhetoric Obama is expressing is not his own rhetoric,” Savage said. ‘This is what is deeply embedded in the man’s brain stem. He has been inculcated with hatred for the American way from the cradle.” 

The Cambodian dictator Pol Pot, Savage recalled, “was a mild mannered professor like Obama” who went to Paris, studied Marxism “and came back a flaming communist.” 

“It ended with a mountain of skulls,” Savage said, with some 2 million people slaughtered in Cambodia’s infamous “killing fields.” 

Pol Pot, instituting what he was taught at Paris universities, unleashed his Khmer Rouge on anyone with an education – the productive people of society. 

“What does this have to do with that nice man in the White House with such a nice wife and nice children?” Savage asked his “Savage Nation” audience. 

“It starts with rhetoric like this,” he said. “It unleashes the genie in the bottle. It justifies any acts of betrayal, any acts of hatred, any acts of sabotage against the successful.” 

He called Obama “the most hateful man who has ever plagued the White House.”

Thinking about Obama, the seven female senators, and the Khmer Rouge, I thought to see just who those seven senators are and what they had to say during the hearings with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Two of the seven are Republicans—Kelly Ayotte (NH) and Deb Fischer (NE)—and they were just as openly critical, even outraged as their Democratic colleagues.

What’s more, three of the male GOP senators—Roy Blunt (MO), Saxby Chambliss (GA), and John McCain (AZ)—were just as upset about the resistance of the Joint Chiefs to take the problem seriously that they spoke about about it just as forcefully as their female counterparts.

Here is what Khmer Rouge member McCain had to say—

He told an anecdote about a woman he encountered whose daughter was thinking about volunteering for the Army. She asked McCain, in the light of all the reports about sex crimes in the armed forces, if he could offer his “unqualified support for her daughter’s choice.

With a heavy heart, this former air force hero and prisoner of war said, “I could not.”

A final word--Michael Savage never served in the military. Like Dick Cheney, he secured a series of student deferments.