The Day Larry Elder Called Me Gracious

Since coming back to the U.S., I have picked a new hobby. After being spoiled with the very well produced news programs on BBC in the UK, I have begun to indulge in trashy conservative AM radio talk shows. And even more so, I have began calling in.

Matthew from Northridge.

While normally on my car radio, one will find the incredibly informative and thoughtful NPR pieces from All Things Considered on KCRW, I also listen to Dodger games, which happen to fall on AM 790 Talk Radio. As fate would have it, it is also the home to the most outrageously conservative talk show hosts in Los Angeles.

While I literally feel my brain getting massaged and stimulating during NPR pieces about the independent film scene in Iraq, the motivations behind rural voters in Ohio, and fascinating business markets that are emerging in China and India, I must say that for some reason I have a soft spot for the utter trashiness and illogical narratives found on the talk show air waves.

They cut people off, the discussion is terrible, and the rationale is unquestionably incorrect oftentimes. The rare caller who actually seems knowledgeable and may challenge the host has his volume turned down while the host talks over and eventually kicks him off while playing soundbites of a crying noise.

I am getting mad, I am getting frustrated, I am getting passionate. I am loving it.

It also never really occurred to me how sort of easy it is to get onto these shows and at least have some influence in the public dialogue that Americans are hearing as they drive back home on the 405 during rush hour.

About two weeks ago, famous conservative LA talk show host Larry Elder asked his listeners why people hate Bush so much. He didn't understand why. So I took the opportunity to call in. I told him that critics didn't hate the man (I would most certainly have more fun having beer with him than Gore or Kerry), but that we resented the lack of competence and candor in many of the policies.

We proceeded to have a conversation about Iraq, where I put much of my attention. We gave back and forth very civilly, conceding points. He ended by saying that he didn't lump me with the crazies who just hated him because I had thought out reasons for disagreeing with the policies, and after I was off the air, he called me gracious.

Elder.

Who would have ever thought?

What struck me while talking to him is that he clearly is an intelligent man. He went to Michigan Law School, and was very prepared with arguments about why the invasion of Iraq was justified. I just wish the dialogue would stay on those grounds rather than the absurdities of nonsense that the talk radio often goes into.

Last night after Bill Clinton's and Joe Biden's speeches, I called into the Al Rantel show, where conservative host John Phillips was hosting. Just before I got on, Phillips thought he found a clip of Obama yelling for a second while the crowd applauded Hillary. He kept playing the clip over and over to try and say Obama was crazy, ala Dean.

The caller before me blasted him for focusing on such nonsense rather than the real issues of policies, so Phillips asked him to name one piece of Obama legislation. The caller proceeded to talk about the nuclear proliferation prevention legislation Obama worked on in the Senate, which Phillips was not informed on, so he proceeded to drown out the caller by raising his own mic levels and yelling. Rather than keep his cool, the caller got passionate too, which is hard because Phillips controls the show and hung up on him.

I came on next. I thought for a second about continuing on with the previous caller's point, but it just would have been more inane responses from the host. So, I went ahead and we discussed the Obama's interesting and perhaps risky strategic choice to paint McCain as four more years of Bush (because it depends on 1) a public dissatisfaction with Bush, and 2) an ability to repaint the "maverick" senator). My question was not so much whether the portrayal was true, but whether it would be effective. Image shaping is critical as we saw in 2004 with Kerry being a flip-flopper.

Phillips proceeded to be a bit disappointing not really providing any real insights or analysis, just going on about how McCain was so different than Bush. I think some of the hosts really aren't that bright and have to rely on these passionate talk show points because they don't have an ability to construct interesting ideas. Which bring me perhaps to my last surprising point.

Bill O'Reilly.

Now I disagree with the guy a ton, I think he's a jerk to guests of opposing views, and he can be crass.

O'Reilly: "WE'LL DO IT LIVE!"

Say what you will about him, though, but I do find him to be quite intelligent, and oddly appealing.This morning on his radio show, he even conceded that Obama was right and McCain was wrong about whether to go into Iraq, which surprised the hell out of me. He also shot down a caller who said Obama didn't fight for race issues enough by saying that would be unreasonable given folks' attitudes, and would kill his candidacy. All in all, fair and balanced...

(Slight caveat)

That being said, I often find his conclusions flawed because he uses false premises. Within the confines of his logic, it holds up, but it typically relies on big assumptions and cursory leaps over complicated issues that allow for a very conservative view that isn't based in reality. At least, though, there is some sort of logic to it.

So, should you happen to be watching the O'Reilly Factor, on the AM dial listening to hosts talk about how Texas school teachers should be allowed to carry guns in the classroom (true story), just wait for Matthew from Northridge. He might have a thing or two to say about that.

Going Downtown

I remember that as a kid, taking a trip to downtown Los Angeles was almost a scary affair. The heart of the city was filled with bums, gangs, and dirt. It was such a contrast from the securities of the suburb.

As folks my age begin to reach their twentysomethings, though, America is seeing an incredible demographic inversion taking place across its cities. Whereas the late 20th century saw great urban sprawl as rationalist city planning through interstate highways led by urban planners like Robert Moses pushed people from middle to upper income levels out of the city and toward the suburbs, the 21st century is seeing the affluent return. Especially from our generation.

There is an excitement that we place tangibly in being in the city. Even in suburbs and exurbs throughout the country, we are seeing attempts in new urbanism to create "downtowns" or "city centers" of shops and restaurants in these new places. Still, though, the heart of the city offers a unique draw. The article from The New Republic which inspired this post even goes so far as to see the influence of television on our generation's desire to be downtown:

This is the generation that grew up watching "Seinfeld," "Friends," and "Sex and the City," mostly from the comfort of suburban sofas. We have gone from a sitcom world defined by "Leave It to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" to one that offers a whole range of urban experiences and enticements. I do not claim that a handful of TV shows has somehow produced a new urbanist generation, but it is striking how pervasive the pro-city sensibility is within this generation, particularly among its elite."

Beyond this desire, though, are changing dimensions of downtowns. They are much safer now than they were thirty years ago as industry moves out and chique neighborhoods take their place. In addition, the rising cost of gas and increased congestion on freeways makes commuting less and less desirable. All this comes, though, with troubling shifts in demographics that reflect issues of race and class as gentrification occurs.

Having spent the past couple weeks scanning craigslist for lofts in downtown Los Angeles, it seems that I too can be lumped in the heap with other folks from my generation that have eyes looking toward downtown.

This is one of the of the best articles I have read in quite some time, and really offers interesting commentary on the changing notions of urban space in America's cities in the 21st century:

Trading Places: The demographic inversion of the American city

More on Fonts

It seems that if I ever talk to folks in person about my blog, the most commented on post is On Typeface, the expression of my perverse love of fonts. Since that post, typography seems to keep coming up frequently in my life, so I wanted to add three more news items in regards to typeface.

First, one of my friends from college sent me another site to accompany the whatthefont.com that I wrote about previously. Whereas in whatthefont, one uploads images and the site identifies characteristics of the typface, identifont.com asks a series of specific questions about how the font appears to try and identify the one you are trying to find.

In case you need to get very specific.

Secondly, I never realized that the font Trajan is so ubiquitous with film posters. It is basically a font the Roman Empire used (and was taken from a obelisk dedicated to the Roman Emperor Trajan), and was at first used for very dramatic movies. Now it is basically used for any movie poster as this short and amusing video demonstrates:

Lastly, for those who believed that strange folks having an unbridled love of typeface were doomed to express their love for serifs and kearns with others exclusively on the internet, have no fear, TypeCon 2008 is here (or rather, was here). I first heard about the bizarre convention for quirky font lovers in this amusing article.

If you thought Comic-Con was the nerdiest convention of the summer, then I'm afraid, Good Sir, that you were mistaken. I submit to you TypeCon.