Ok?

Let me just see if I've got this ... you think Beck is funny, entertaining, you like the topics, and you agree with him on much of what he says, and you're not a fan.

Ummm ... ok.

Look, it's no secret he's my favorite talk radio host. But that's what he is (and he even reiterated this on his television program the other day) - "Ten years ago I was a friggin top 40 DJ, if I can educate myself, dammit, so can you." It is a reoccurring theme in both his radio and tv program - "I'm not an expert, I'm self educated, and I read profusely. I'm doing the best I can to tell you what I see coming." Sound like any other group? Rhymes with GrivewayGund? The religious aspects (he's Mormon) make me wince a little too (though that has more to do with me than him I suspect). That has been more and more in the making. And since it wasn't there a few years ago I assume he is simply reflecting his personal journey as religion becomes more central in his own life. Hell, if it was your job to immerse yourself 24 hours in the direction this nation is going via Obama and the historical left, how could you not turn to religion just to preserve your own sanity?

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not sure how you can "not be a fan" of a self educated (ing), self deprecating, funny radio host that actually talks about (in great detail in many shows) 18th and 19th Century history, rather then just responding to what Pelosi said last Thursday, or some other inane Hannitty-esque line of dialogue. I mean he talks more history, I mean actual historic discussions, then Limbaugh, Hannity & Church combined. And if you ask me that's why he's on track to overtake Hannity on radio (he has already on television). He offers more to the educated (self or otherwise) listener then what's hot that week. And even when he does get into what's hot that week his take often has its' roots in a historical perspective.

Put it this way (this is the day I stopped listening to Hannity altogether): when the Sonya Sotameyer (sp?) Supreme Court nomination was getting under way, Hannity opened with Sonja's "wise Latino woman" comments and went right in to her "liberal agenda" that was sure to follow any confirmation. Beck? On that same day he opened with those comments and went directly into black Revolutionary War heroes, followed up on his television program with an all black audience that was three kinds of pissed that all these numerous black American historical figures (which Beck had no less than 3 professors machine gun firing out the dates, names & acts of) had been literally expunged from their own public education growing up. All to demonstrate that "victimhood" became the business of the left, of progressives, in order to gain the allegiance of minorities; because after all you can't effectively beat up on America as racist and a "white man's history" if you pepper the youth's education with black/minority historical figures whom helped shape the nation. And that's how you end up with a Sonja Meyer thinking minorities are some how separate new comers to the American experiment.

Which approach do you find more appealing?

Look, I'm not trying to defend Beck because he's Mormon (he's a much better Mormon than I, I assure you). Or because of ideological agreeance (I'm sure Hannity & I are eye to eye on nearly everything ideologically). The reason I'm advocating his appeal here is THIS is exactly the type of programming/approach to issues that we take, that we have long lamented is missing from mainstream news/discussion programming. If he got some dates wrong (& believe me, he knows the Constitution was framed in 1787), fine, call him on it in your car to yourself, on the phone literally, or here. Disagree on his historical points or take? Fine. Do it often and loudly here or anywhere else. The point is he is ACTUALLY discussing the topics of the day in a historical context based on the self education of disciplined reading habits. Who else is doing that? Name him.

We've been friends a solid decade, so let me just make an observation here Titus - and before you jump all over it, mull it over a minute ... or two. I think you don't like the idea of you being a "fan" of a guy/program that is so commercially popular/successful. It's distasteful to your palette. That idea is a bit too "common" for you. You couldn't possibly be a fan of "that guy" - that's not how you see yourself. And I'm not making a dig, hubris is a trademark of this little group, and that's fine. I just want you to consider that "being a fan" doesn't fit neatly into your self view, and the fact that you are a fan is thus rendered irrelevant.

Like I said, you expend multiple superlatives complimenting him, all building up to a rejection. Curious to say the least. I'm not his PR rep, I just don't want you to dismiss the very type of program we've called for, for how many years now? That's all.