NOTE: My statements are not necessarily my opinions. I often post point-counterpoint essays in which I strongly take one side of an issue and later counter that with antithetical views. This intellectual exercise helps me see the merit in opposing opinions and augments my creativity.

Senator Chuck Schumer lashes out at a citizen who disagrees with him

Have you heard how politicians talk to real Americans when the camera isn't around? A woman—Karla—called the Mark Levin Show on November 17, 2008 to relate what Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer said to her in LaGuardia Airport when she voiced her opposition to reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine.

Like many pieces of legislation, its name is misleading; it should be called the Unfairness Doctrine, because Democrats hope to use it to suppress criticism of them on conservative talk radio programs. Predictably, Democrats are not opposed to free speech when the liberal mainstream media bashes conservatives and Republicans. It's OK for liberals to hang Sarah Palin in effigy, or to talk about raping her, or to suggest that her husband is sleeping with their daughters, or to fabricate countless lies and deliberate distortions. All of that and much more is fine with them, but when a conservative talk radio host lambastes a liberal Democrat . . . heavens no! We can't have any criticism of liberals!

MARK LEVIN: Let's go to Karla, Brooklyn, New York, the great WABC. How are you, Karla?

KARLA: Hi! I am so glad to talk to you. I'm also kind of nervous because I don't want to end up like Joe The Plumber.

After Joe The Plumber asked Barack Obama a question during the 2008 Presidential campaign, multiple Democratic state government officials in Ohio (Joe's home state) investigated him, and the liberal mainstream media immediately launched a massive investigation to dig for any dirt they could find to discredit him, shut him up, and to discourage other citizens from challenging Democratic candidates.

KARLA: I had an, let's just say an altercation with Charlie Schumer in the airport at LaGuardia on Saturday night that was pretty extensive and . . .

LEVIN: Now wait a minute. By altercation, you mean a discussion?

KARLA: Well, yeah. A heated discussion . . .

LEVIN: Yes.

KARLA: . . . about the Fairness Doctrine. I was deplaning; he was ahead of me. There was a fawning Democrat chick who came over to him and was like all over him. And I had heard what he had said on [unintelligible; possibly “I think it was”] Fox News on Election Day. I had heard his comments about talk radio and about the Fairness Doctrine, which really repulsed me. So, I saw him there, his big smile on his face, and I just said to him, “Don't you dare try to take my talk radio away from me.” And he said to me, “I'm not trying to take your talk radio away from you, but we can't allow people to be nasty and rude and say things that aren't true.” I said, “Are you kidding me?” I said, “That's what our democracy is about.” I said, “Our democracy is messy.” I said, “Our democracy is about being able to be nasty and rude and sarcastic and wrong when we want, and say opinions that may be wrong when we want. That's what makes us different than Europe. And he just started out lashing at me. He told me how ignorant I was, and that they were not going to . . .

LEVIN: Wait a minute, wait a minute — so in other words, he was shrill and rude and vile.

KARLA: Well, he was obnoxious and shrill and it was attacking my intelligence and my IQ and . . .

LEVIN: Gee whiz!

KARLA: . . . telling me I was dumb. I told him that there was a very good country that believed in his philosophy: it was called Red China, and he sounded like he was talking right out of Mao's Red Book, and that was not what our country was about, and that our democracy was unique in that we allowed our discourse to be messy, and that we allowed our discourse to be wrong when it's wrong. And that's the nature of democracy.

LEVIN: Let me tell you something. You're a patriot. I wish more people would engage like you, politely but firmly, confronting the left. And you're not stupid; he's a moron. And let me tell you, Karla, what's really upsetting Schumer. You know what it is, Karla?

KARLA: No.

LEVIN: Me. It's me because he doesn't like my mocking him. I know it gets under his skin because he thinks he's greater and better than the rest of us. That's why I mock all of them: to knock them down two or three notches. But when he says “shrill,” he's talking about me, because he doesn't like me, 'cause I'm in his face, because I've challenged him, because I've urged him to come on this show, because I know he's a coward, but he's a menace. He's a menace to this country; he's a menace to this society; he's a menace to the judiciary. I think he should call a hearing. I think he should invite me and a couple of the others [conservative talk radio hosts]. We'll come up there. I'd be more than happy to testify under oath — assuming, of course, that he would swear in, too, so he could be punished under penalty of perjury. [Directing his speech to Schumer:] I'd be more than happy to do that, Schmuckey. I'd be more than happy to educate you about the First Amendment, political speech, and if you don't like it, it's none of your damn business. I'd be happy to educate you, Schmuckey. What do you think of that, you dope? And Karla, your IQ is twice of his, so your IQ is about 140.

KARLA: Well, I told him, I will fight to the death for my talk radio, and for anyone else to be obnoxious, to be as loud and nasty as they want, because . . .

LEVIN: But is he not the most obnoxious member of the Senate?

KARLA: Of course he is. I said, "But the point of our democracy is that we don't censor our tones; we don't control our tones."

LEVIN: Well, of course you're right, and you're extremely intelligent, but he wants to do by brute government force what the Constitution doesn't allow him to do. You see, the Founding Fathers had dealt with people like Chuck Schumer. They dealt with people who would punish people who dared to say things that they didn't believe in. They tried to squelch dissent; they tried to squelch free speech. And that's why when they passed the Bill of Rights, the very first one included the right to free speech. And they would be appalled by Chuck Schumer, but Chuck Schumer doesn't give a damn. He's a power-hungry menace! Thank you, Karla, God bless you, and good job! You take care. Yup, he really is . . . .

The views expressed on this page may or may not reflect my current opinions, nor do they necessarily represent my past ones. After reading a slice of what I wrote in my various websites and books, you may conclude that I am a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican. Wrong; there is a better alternative. Just as the primary benefit from debate classes results when students present and defend opinions contrary to their own, I use a similar strategy as a creative writing tool to expand my brainpower—and yours. Mystified? Stay tuned for an explanation. PS: The wheels in your head are already turning a bit faster, aren't they?

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald

Reference: Imagining dialogue can boost critical thinking: Excerpt: “Examining an issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning …”

Comments (0)

post commentPost a comment or subscribe to my blog