Ralph Nader Challenges Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh to Debate- Calls them Cowards for Refusing

(from ministerfaust.blogspot.com)

Last night around 2am, in my sleep-deprived state (having a newborn, 2 year-old, 6 and 10 year-olds as well), I was watching C-Span and an interview with Ralph Nader.  I believe I heard him say that he has been attempting to get Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh to debate him in a neutral setting. He called them out as “Cowards” for refusing him to this point.  He also called their format/style as that of “Cowardly Silioquy” whereupon they silence any question they don’t like by switching off guest’s mikes.

I think this challenge should be answered- no matter where you stand or who you prefer in this mix, I have to give the man who calls for an honest debate the winner -in my own estimation- until someone steps up and accepts the challenge. It would seem a fair fight given the vocations of all of these men- if someone is going to be a public media figure who specializes in political material- that puts them in a category where they should be able to manage a genuine debate scenario.

The Great Darkness

May 19, 1780 was a memorable one in the history of New England.  Darkness descended for several hours in New England and parts of New York.  The cause of the darkness has been blamed on everything from volcanoes to dust storms.  The most commonly accepted explanation today is that the darkness was caused by forest fires.  An excellent overview of the Dark Day and its possible causes is presented by John Horrigan here.

Darkness in the middle of the day of course caused quite a bit of alarm, with more than a few people thinking that the Day of Judgment had arrived.  In the Connecticut legislature a motion to adjourn was proposed and passed.  Members of the Council of Safety of the legislature wanted to go to their homes.  Senator Abraham Davenport would have none of it.  “The day of judgment is either approaching, or it is not. If it is not, there is no cause of an adjournment: if it is, I choose to be found doing my duty. I wish therefore that candles may be brought.”  John Greenleaf Whittier immortalized this archetypal stubborn Yankee with this poem:

Markets and Morality: Ron Paul and Wilhelm Ropke

The relationship between markets and morality has been the subject of analysis and sometimes intense debate for centuries, since Aristotle wrote chapter 1 of The Politics and possibly sooner. I myself have participated in many of these debates, and the position I would typically take is that markets were either amoral at best, or a cause of vice at worst. There are many Catholics and many Distributists who probably share the same view. They will concede and even embrace the fact that the Papacy has not categorically condemned market activity, but they will spend the majority of their time highlighting why markets ought to be regulated and taxed, why we need welfare programs, labor unions, and all of the rest.

I have written extensively against a phenomenon called consumerism, which is also heavily critiqued in the Papal encyclicals. But it would be wrong to associate consumerism, which is a byproduct of mass production and communications technology, with market activity as such, since it pre-dates industrial society by thousands of years.