The Matt McNeil Show

I tune into 950 AM because it is the local affiliate remnants of the "Air America" thing.

The reason I tune in is because after a while of listening to Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage, you can almost finish their sentences for them. Whereas I'm finding it a very addictive and forbidden habit to tune into liberal talk radio. Not for anything insightful that they might say, but because I have this morbid curiosity to see their rationalization and logic (or lack thereof).

Of course, this results in an odd listening pattern.

I listen.

they try to make a point.

it's either factually wrong, the premises they're using are flawed, it's intellectually dishonest or it's just outlandish.

This then rises my blood-pressure up to a level where I have to turn it off because there's no point.

I tune back into conservative talk

Realize they're just now discovering things and making observations I made years ago

I switch back to liberal talk radio for more

repeat.

Inevitably, it boils down to boredom, I want to listen to something new, but I can only listen to stuff I know is factually wrong and "stage-one" thinking for so long.

For example Mike Malloy. He's purely angry. Just a nazi. He has no problems calling for the execution of Republicans. Everything is Bush's fault. And it's all explained in a complex conspiracy theory you just don't have the brains to understand, because, well, you didn't have a trust fund to finance a liberal arts degree in philosophy.

Ed Schulz is even worse. Mike Malloy will actually get a rise out of you. There's at least some entertainment in that. But Ed Schulz. Cripes. Nothing but repeating the same damn thing over and over again. His refrain?

"The little guy?"

Who's keeping him down?

"The man."

The man is who?

"Corporations."

Solution

"Governmetn legislation for the little guy."

Not on iota of economic though about maybe going beyond the "rich get richer, poor get poorer" and (oh heck, I don't know) LOOKING FREAKING STUFF UP BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION?

What's worse is his callers. GOOD LORD. Think of the people who are actually intellectual stimulated by his one-trick-pony droning to the point of calling in. And guess what they say,

"Yeah, you know, it's the corporations holding down the little guy. When does the average working Joe get a fair shake in this country?"

Stephanie Miller. Eh. More like a morning comedy show where it would be quite entertaining if the premises they were operating by we actually true. For example;

Stephanie Miller - "Well, Sarah Palin's at it again."

Moron Producer Guy #1 - "What, she thinks she can still see Russia from her house?"

All - Laughter

Stephanie Miller - "No, she's out there again, pushing for those nazi tea partiers."

Moron Producer Guy #2 - "Heh, those tea partiers. They'll follow anyone to protest anything. They must be a bunch of bored trophy wives!"

All - Laughter

It's more or less the same thing and it isn't a surprise Air America went down, but it still provides for a REALLY interesting (and scary) insight into the psychology or just the sheer lack of knowledge and information these people have.

However, there is one show. Don't know if it's new, but I was tuning in, and I liked it. Still disagreed, but I liked it because the host was above all things, honest. Matt McNeil is a local guy, and the reason I say he's honest is because it isn't a platform for a burnt out baby boomer hippie to relive the 60's like Mike Malloy.

It isn't a funny laugh show where you mock people of the other political team and make intellectually dishonest comparisons and pass that on as a Dennis Prager-level piece of thoughtful radio like Stephanie Miller.

And is isn't just a boring, droning mouth piece for the unions or CNN miserably failing to become the left's Rush Limbaugh, as Ed Schulz.

It's this guy, out here in Minnesota, who genuinely cares about the country who happens to be liberal. His logic makes sense. His moral compass I would say is sound (for example he genuinely cares about kids getting a good education) and you could have an adult conversation with him, whereas with a Mike Malloy you no doubt would be called a nazi and be a member of a conspiracy to bring down the average man.

There's just one problem.

Like most honorable, well-intentioned liberals, he just isn't informed.

I called into the show because I've been trying to ask various liberals (talk show hosts primarily, but any liberal that would answer my question) various questions as to the specifics of what they would like to achieve or bring about in the US. The particular topic he was on was education. I thought it would not be too much of a tangent to get his opinion on how much would be enough to satisfy the left's ideal education system.

His answer was, "I don't know specifically how much in terms of money, but I would like it that my kid would have paper and pencils. That we could have programs like music and art." He went onto list some other things, but that's precisely it.

He listed things as a proxy or substitute for actual dollar amounts.

As I don't have children, I'm not concerned with "things." I'm concerned with the bottom line of my property tax bill wherein I subsidize (quite charitably I might add) the education of other people's children. And here was the gap.

I know how much is spent on the schools. I've looked up per pupil spending, put it terms of gross state product, looked at the budget. I know the factual, specific data that tells us how much we spend.

He was more concerned about the outcome of all that spending. ie-the quality of the spending. And that is how he measures whether or not we spend "enough."

The problem is that spending does not correlate with performance when it comes to education. How do I know this? Because I (again) looked it up and ran a correlation between spending per pupil and standardized test scores.

Sadly what Matt doesn't realize is that he still has to spend money and pay property taxes too. And simply getting more money won't solve the problem. It's an issue of efficiency. Elk River has 6 football coaches for ONE high school. I question whether a schools need a brand new, fully equipped theater or if it could maybe just get by with using the gym as a theater as well. We could go on and cite various examples of spending in the schools that isn't efficient, but you get my point.

This issue here I'm trying to make isn't one of public school finances and efficiency. It's the point that the only difference between Matt (a liberal talk show host) and myself (an evil, right wing hate monger that eats kittens for breakfast) is one of knowledge. Knowing something rather than feeling or theorizing (no matter how logical) about something results in the correct answer because it is known. It is based in fact. And if you're going to look at government policy, at whatever level, the only way it will be effective and of a benefit to the people is if it is also based in fact, not feelings or dreams or hope or change or nice wordy words coming from a politician's mouth.