Comparing Education Levels of Pundits and Political Talkshow Hosts

So I was wondering the education levels of talk show and news show hosts.  I knew Rush Limbaugh dropped out of college, but I wanted to see the education levels of the individuals, so I looked them up.  I'll try to organize them by approximate popularity and see if I can come up with any trends.  I'll start with the Liberals, Progressives, and the like.

Progressives/Liberals
Rachel Maddow  Ph. D.  Politics
Thom Hartmann  Ph. D. (All Degrees Unrelated)  (Around 20 Books)
Kieth Olbermann  B. S. (3 Books)
Ed Schultz  MN St. (not sure degree)  (2 Books)
Alan Colmes  B. A. Communications  (2 Books)


Conservatives/Libertarians
Rush Limbaugh  High School  (2 Books)
Sean Hannity  High School  (2 Books)
Glenn Beck  High School  (8 Books)
Bill O'Reilly  M. P. A.  (8 Books)
Phil Valentine  High School  (2 Books)
Fred Thompson  Juris Doctor

My hypothesis was that if a host was more popular (on the right), the likelihood would be greater that they would be uneducated.  And the more popular on the left, the likelihood of higher education would be higher.  You can argue with my ordering of these people, or you can suggest that I add more, and I hope that you do, I need a more comprehensive list.  However, I am sure that either Rush or Sean is the top on the right side and obviously, it doesn't matter because they are both only educated through High School.  To be fair, they did both drop out of college.

My hypothesis does seem to be correct, at least without deeper research.  This is due to the different emphases in the way business is done in each case.  On the right, the louder, more vitriolic (but not too much) ones seem to excel, while on the left, there is the emphasis on correctly reporting and analyzing the facts.  The right also seems to try to identify with non-educated people more as well.  They tend to criticize scientists, political scientists, Arts degrees, and higher education in general.

I would just like to point out that as far as books go, Glenn Beck wrote one called "Arguing with Idiots" but it has a picture of himself on the front cover.  So, the number of books written may not be an indicator of much if you know what I mean.

WiredForStereo

The L Curve

Throughout the nineties, incomes of most people grouped by education achievement went up. After the Bush Tax Cuts, everyone's median income began to go down (except perhaps those with Associate's Degrees.) This shows the continuing race to the bottom and the shipping of jobs overseas. During this time, the number of millionaires didn't increase much, but the amount of wealth accumulated by those millionaires increased dramatically.

While Americans are continually told that our country is the most wealthy, it is in fact not per capita. The truth is, each citizen of Switzerland on average makes more than what each American does by the equivalent of about $10,000.

But what is even more surprising is not the top 10% or even the top 1%, it's the top 0.000267%.
View this.
This is known as an L curve. You've heard of linear curves, parabolic curves, and exponential curves, but this is even better. Think of an L lain on its side. The side of the L sticking up is the income of the ultra rich. Yes, I know, L's aren't curved, but just stick with me. The best example of this is a demonstration of incomes as dollar bills stacked on a football field created by David Chandler.

"Chandler visualized the yearly income of each American as a stack of one hundred dollar bills (10 cm. = $100,000) and then arranged the stacks, slimmest to fattest, in a line that spanned the length of a football field. On his imaginary field, the stack of bills at the 50-yard line is 1.6 inches high ($39,000). At the 95-yard line, the pile reaches 4 inches ($132,000). It is not until the 99th yard line that the first millionaire appears (40 inches high). Then, just before the goal line, a line spikes up vertically to a height of thirty miles – over 4 times the elevation of Mt. Everest. This line represents the top 0.3% of Americans with incomes up to $50 billion dollars."

Please check out lcurve.org for a sweet graphical depiction of this.

I know most of you didn't grow up poor (but some did and you'll understand this better.) When you're rich, they give you money just for having money (this is called interest.) When you're poor, they take money from you that you don't even have just because you don't have it (this is known as insufficient funds.) And somehow the rich (read Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Bush, Cheney, Reagan, and every other politician you know) have convinced the more gullible of you that tax cuts for the rich actually bring in more money and stimulate the economy. And that raising taxes on the rich kills the economy and redistributes wealth. In fact, when the lower classes are more free from an oppressive burden of taxes, and not tied like indentured servants to their employers, they innovate and move up into the middle class where the real purchasing power is. And yes, it does redistribute wealth because instead of rewarding the rich for being rich by lowering their taxes, it removes the punishment for being poor by removing their oppressive tax burden. It gives the poor the freedom to move up on the social ladder because they can look up and see that the rungs aren't missing.

One last thing, Americans obviously don't know the first thing about progressive taxes. Let me explain it as simply as I can. If the tax rate on $40,000 to $49,999 is 10% (for example) and the tax rate on $50,000 is 20%, then if you make more than $50k here is how it works. If you make $49,999, you pay 10%. If you make 50k, then you pay 10% on $49,999 and 20% on $1. The rate doesn't go up the whole way if you make a dollar more. Thus people misunderstand Obama's tax plan. If you make less than $250k taxes don't go up, but if you make more than $250k, taxes only go up on what is above $250k. That $250k stays the same. Let me put it this way, if you make $20k, and you pay 5% taxes on that, you're paying $1000 which hurts real bad. But if you make $1,000,000 and you pay 40% taxes, then you still have $600k and you are not hurting at all. I'd much rather earn one million and pay 90% taxes than earn $20k and pay no taxes at all. This is the reality of the income disparity.

This is the reality that you need to think about when you choose a tax policy politician like I did when I voted for President.
WiredForStereo

Extended Comments from Limbaugh Post Below...

H says: my response was too long. It said that my code could be at most 4,096 words so apparently I have written a book. You can publish this if you can figure out how too!!

You have so much POWER! Thanks for re-posting my comment. :) I was so irritated yesterday. OK, now I was being a little flippant about the being the whole republican thing -which I think you know that although I lean conservatively, I'm independent. I was just doing what you hate by grouping all of those people together so I felt like claiming to be all of the above.

You know that I'm never trying to insult you.(ex. You saying "Just maybe you are." in regards to my usage of the word "bias" instead of "point of view". Or perhaps you were suggesting I was wrong- I just thought of that scenario. We shouldn't really talk this way, it's so much easier to hear the tone of voice in person.) This seems to be a running theme of ours. Perhaps we are both too sensitive. But, I have to say that aside, that you are kind of contracting yourself in that last paragraph, "And the fact is, anyone who claims to be without bias is full of shit. ...... I think maybe you should try using the term "point of view" instead of bias because it is a loaded word, and insinuates that I'm the one who's looking at it wrong. Just maybe you are." The only reason I used the word biased to begin with was because of your own comment, "Oh, and I never claimed to be without bias, I'm biased left right and center. I'm biased against anyone's message if it doesn't mesh with Jesus."

so which is it? Am I wrong to use the very word you used to describe yourself? I wasn't trying to be rude.

So proper word usage aside, I have never read anything on here- and I haven't ready EVERYTHING so there is a good chance that I missed it somewhere- that has made your ideals line up on the right. When you say you are unbiased yet only ever seem to talk to how republicans are wrong (I am generalizing, I realize) and Christ is more like the democrats and/or left, well, do you see where I'm going? I don't think your "point of view" is wrong, I think some people are wrong in the way they think, but it's a hefty thing to tell someone that what they think is wrong, because there are so many contributing factors to how they were raised, etc. to judge that in a person.

I think you are right to judge according to the bible, but people interpret things differently than you do sometimes. It doesn't make them WRONG just because you think they are and your biblical interpretation is different. I think this is your blog and you can say whatever you want to, but you do come across left biased because that is all I've ever read on here. AND again, I haven't read everything you have written, it just seems to be a theme on here. Which is OK, this is your place to rant just like my blog is my place to rant. It feels good to rant. My only concern is that you generalize so much of what I believe in to be wrong, and I'm not blind. I'm not stupid. I have come to my conclusions as logically and biblically based as you have. And I don't think you are wrong. Maybe you think I am wrong, and I'm ok with that. I think we have different opinions on several topics, but I would rather concentrate on our similarities as Christians. It seems to me just as much as it seems to you that there is an "us vs. them" scenario in left and right because each side comes across that way.

I hope I'm explaining myself here in a way that isn't abrasive, I am trying very specifically not to be because I want you to understand clearly where I'm coming from. I think we disagree on a lot of things, but I don't think that makes you wrong or me right.

and on a different note: I don't like Hannity, Rush or Beck. But if a Christian who happens to be a Republican likes someone who shares their political views, what is the problem? surely there is some amazing talk show host or even tv personality that is more left that you enjoy listening to! You thanked B for turning you to the radio station, so surely you like ONE of the hosts. Isn't it a tinsey weensey judgmental of you to have a problem with a Christian Republican liking Hannity when you probably enjoy a left version of him? and if you don't, obviously this whole comparison is a moot point. lol

anything that seems rude, please don't take it as such. I have no malice here, it's just that, like I said, that the words don't come across here like they do in person. :) I hate committing to publishing this in case there is something that could be mis-construed to a insulting degree... geez I'm such a girl sometimes!

H

and I'm so very glad that you enjoy that radio station, I need to check it out. For real.

Sorry if it came off a little harsh, but (I have no problems with generalizing) some people just haven't thought for a second that they might be wrong, so, just consider that. If we were talking in person you'd have seen me say that with eyebrows raised with an inquisitive look and tone of voice. Not at all meant to be harsh, but written words can do that.

I'm not exactly sure why you think I'm contradicting myself with the use of the word biased, I am biased, but not to the left as you think. Whenever I come upon a subject that needs considering, I eventually run it through the rule number one and rule number two test. If you think for a minute, you'll know what these are, (number two is often linked with the golden rule.) In fact most stuff just gets run through rule number two. That's why I am against torture in all circumstances, I don't think it should be done to me. So sure, I'm biased, for Jesus, but my point of view is from the center, it matters not upon which side the opinions land, the point of view is from the center. The funny thing about the fence (or in this case let's call it the neutral zone, I like Star Trek,) is that you can never land exactly on the center, and republicans being the Romulans in this case, always think you are on the other side. I've had this conversation with a few people more than you, and I always get the same stuff to deal with. Had a great conversation with a guy who I think thinks he's a libertarian (probably not) and I agreed more with him than any one I've ever talked to before.

I'm sorry you haven't read all the posts because I think I am repeating myself when I say I'm not against the right siding with the left. The funny thing about where I usually get cross with the right is actually the subtitle to "God's Politics." The right gets it wrong and the left doesn't get it. So as I've said before, I don't have to tell Christians to stay away from liberals because it doesn't seem to be a problem. Liberals take care of that themselves. Some liberal politicians are the most greasy people in the world, but on the other hand, I'd rather go hunting with a liberal than Dick Cheney. If a guy will defend torture to the American public, who even knows what he'll do with a gun when you're not paying attention.

Again with the problem of us versus them, just because my ideals don't line up with the right doesn't mean I'm on the left. I can say this because I have no problems with generalizations and because I've talked to enough of you to say: I just don't think you get the concept of someone not being on either side. Just because I'm left of you (I'll certainly admit that) doesn't mean that I'm left proper.

And no, I don't enjoy a left version of Rush or Beck or Hannity, because I don't think there is one, not in the daytime anyway. Nobody on the left called McCain a traitor or a terrorist or dishonorable or an extremist (a word now part of Hannity's opening theme played every day.) There just is no one like that in the pop left. Of course there's a reason I don't listen on the weekends, the more nutty guys are on then. Seriously, they don't get a whole lot worse than Jon Stewart, though many are technically smarter but probably not as funny. Every day Hannity is all about the national debt being 11 trillion but he never remembers to tell the audience that 10 trillion of that was accrued during republican presidencies. It's just dishonest. Remember during the campaign the use of the word "elite"? That word was used by guys with a baker's dozen houses and 100 million dollar salaries. How exactly does that work? So, no, there is no left Rush because no one makes that much money. There's no left Beck because no one is that much of a fear monger. There's no left Hannity because none are that disgraceful, and there's no left O'Reilly because none are that loud. And I'd know because I listen to all of them. If you'd like to try on of the progressive guys, try Thom Hartmann, he's on at the same time as Rush. am1090seattle.com or airamerica.com

Witty wrapup goes here.
WiredForStereo

Emails to Phil Valentine

I was listening to the Phil Valentine show recently because he had an American car company representative on talking about gas mileage. As you might expect, this guy was giving all the normal nonsense about the car companies not being able to do what the government wants and only selling what the people want.

So I wrote Phil a letter. Here is the whole back and forth in it's entirety:

That guy you had on talking about gas mileage was lying through his
teeth, wow, what a load of crap.

Car makers can make what ever they want, or are told to. They just
don't want to make efficient cars. You think they can't make a pickup
that will get 35 mpg? Daimler Chrysler was advertising that they could
before the sale of the company went through. Why was there such a boom
in light trucks and SUV's? The car companies decided that's what
people SHOULD want, not what they did want. Advertising did that.
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh both are now advertising Cadillacs while I
now have to listen to whiney commercials about gas mileage that the car
companies have made.

Why did Honda drop the Accord Hybrid? Because the Accord Hybrid SUCKS.
It gets 27 mpg while my non-hybrid Toyota Corolla gets 35. You don't
see Toyota complaining about the Prius, they are making money hand over
fist off that car, and as gas prices rise, they'll be making even more.
Toyota plans to offer the Hybrid Synergy Drive in all it's cars, and
people will buy them, because they work, and they work well. American
hybrids barely get 2-3 mpg better than their non hybrid brothers.

You think car manufacturers can't make a car that gets 52 mpg? The
Prius already does if you take it easy on the gas, and the third
generation Prius, out next year or the year after, is said to be able
to get 30% better than that.

Technology travels faster than B.S.

Bottom line, that guy was so full of crap his eyes were brown. And you
bought every minute of it.


Phil replied:

Bottom line: Auto makers make what they think people want.
If their research showed people wanted cars that get 52
miles to the gallon you don't think they'd make them?
What would be their motivation NOT to make them?

Phil


To which I replied:

Thanks for responding,

It's monetary motivation. It costs hefty amounts of money to retool to
make new cars. In fact, it costs more to create a new line of cars
than it does to launch an ad campaign to make people like the cars that
already exist. There was a significant amount of time, money, and
effort that went into making the Prius, as well as the EV1, and will
also into the Chevy Volt.

True, car companies make the cars people want. But if a car company
wants the people to want a car, it's a simple task of telling them what
car to want. Appeal to machismo, add some sex appeal, and slap the
word "new" on it. Not hard. It's been done for millenia, and it costs
less than actually making something new.

American car companies will continue to slide into the back seat in
sales and popularity as long as they continue to push the status quo.
I personally am an American, and proud of it, and I'd absolutely love
to buy and American car. But every American car I've owned has been a
piece of crap, and every Toyota I've owned, I still have. Right now,
there are no American cars beside the Chevy Volt that I would consider
buying, and the Volt is still years off.

American cars will also not win the car wars when they advertise "high"
mileage as 30 mpg while there are a great many Asian cars that get
above 40, and most European cars (not sold in America) get above 40.

If Toyota meets it's goal of producing the third generation Prius drive
train at 50% of current costs, there will be no way American cars will
ever catch up. And when gas gets to $7 a gallon, suddenly that ugly
little aerodynamic pod car starts to look mighty enticing.

Thanks


Unfortunately with his show hosting duties to fulfill, Phil was not able to reply. I can only expect that he remains unconvinced and continues to tow the party line.

I shall try again another day,
WiredForStereo

Glenn Beck and Mormons

Talk show host Glenn Beck is discussing Al Sharpton and his comments about Mormons as I sit here now, and frankly, he needs to quit whining about religious persecution.

There have been over 65,000,000 Bible believing Christians martyred over the past two thousand years, Jehovah's Witnesses were massacred by the Nazi's, everybody gets a little persecution so he can just quit complaining about a little persecution, the Bible says it's good for you.

Secondly, Mormons have done plenty of persecution of their own, you need read only a little history to learn about the little wars, attacks and massacres on both sides. I recommend the book "One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church" by Richard Abanes. It's a very well researched book by a guy who deals with Mormons all the time. I read it very quickly, it reads like a novel because it's just appalling how people could actually buy what Joseph Smith was selling. Even more appalling is that people are still buying it today.

Anyway Glenn, if you expect to call your self a Christian or someone who believes in God, just accept your persecution and take it like a man. It's part of the territory. And if you expect to deny the historic Christian faith, you're gonna have to stand up to that criticism too.

WiredForStereo

Revenge Doesn't Work

There is a commercial for Glenn Beck's radio show on the local radio station, KFAY AM 1030, where he says that if there is any attack made on United States citizens or leaders, that a retaliatory attack or invasion should be made.

I would submit that this is not a Biblical assertion. Though such actions are consistent with certain forms of Mormon world views, and Mormon history and Joseph Smith writings will show that, but it is certainly not Biblical.

Now forget what I just said about Glenn. He is of no import in this conversation, but I paraphrase him only to expose the point. I believe this is an impressive flaw in conservatism, the tendency to military action. I speak especially of retaliatory military action, but also preemptive action as well.

Now I must qualify my statements by exposing my belief that Christianity is not meant to be a warlike religion, we can leave that to Islam. That is to say, nowhere in the writings about Jesus' life or indeed the rest of the New Testament, is there anything about war or starting a war, or a military action, or nation building, or any kind of offensive violent action whatsoever. In fact, Jesus told Peter that those who live by the sword die by the sword. But we must remember that Jesus also said that the company of the disciples, having two swords among them, was sufficiently armed.

I'll put it succinctly in the words of Rob Bell. "Revenge doesn't work."

Put in the context of scripture, 'Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."' Romans 12:19 ESV. Paul continues: 'To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.' As a nation who many call Christian, are we doing this? Certainly not under the official policy of a President who claims to be a born again Christian. We all remember the scene of the aftermath of 9/11 when the President stood at the site and said that we would find whoever did it.

The Bible speaks against vengeance and revenge and extols the virtue and basic psychological necessity of forgiveness, but what does it speak of self defense? As I mentioned before, in Luke 22, Jesus was satisfied that the disciples had two swords, yet a few verses later, Jesus chastises Peter for using one of those swords. I would submit that this was because Jesus' arrest was something that was supposed to happen, and Peter was acting on his human nature not on the prompting of the Spirit. For a little more insight, let's look into the Old Testament. Exodus 22:2-3. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft.” What does this say? If some schmendrick breaks into your house at night, and you kill him, accidentally, you are innocent, but it seems to me that if it is daylight, you are expected not to kill him. Just whoop on him for a while I guess. So if we want to put up a missile defense shield, that's fine, but we really need to fix the base problem, and that is responding to aggression with aggression.

So what do we do when a foreign government or terrorist group attacks us? According to the Bible, we should feed them, perhaps set up some hospitals and schools. What kind of power for good could our country be? I don't know about you, but if some wealthy person had paid for my education, schooling, and food throughout my formative years, when I became an adult and set out on my own, I doubt I'd try to usurp that person. It's just hard to kick against that kind of good. But if I perceived that all my life, a wealthy person had done me and my family harm, while providing nothing for my wellbeing, I might grow up and wish to do harm to that person.

We've heard so many stories of forgiveness and charity in the most trying of circumstances, and those stories had wonderful happy endings, but how many happy stories have resulted from someone taking revenge, someone killing their rapist, or killing the man who killed their relative? What kind of peace and healing can come from that? That's the kind of thing that works in the movies, not in real life.

We are so surprised that Muslim extremists want to kill us all. Why is that? Our lack of knowledge of history feeds this monster. In the 40's, world governments installed Israel on top of a Palestinian society of Muslims, Jews, and Christians that had existed for a thousand years or more. In the 50's, the CIA deposed a democratically elected Prime Minister in Iran simply to regain control of oil supplies. This led to the Islamic Revolution in Iran in the late 70's and the extremist governments therein and neighboring that have given us such problems since then. It took many decades to create this problem, it will take only a few to fix it if we are dedicated to fixing it. Unfortunately, the status quo seems to be the only thing that holds firm. Violence begets violence. It will only get worse.

Fight the Power,
WiredForStereo