Neal Boortz- The Amazing Plastic Man,

I believe I've already mentioned my masochistic penchant for listening to AM talk radio pundits. My latest form of self-flagellation entails tuning into Neal Boortz, an active subsitute for Rush Limbaugh. He's got his own show (of course) and you can hear him during the evenings on "hometown favorite" KDKA. Boortz fancies himself a "libertarian"- which basically just means that he is simply too embarrased (or otherwise realizes just how much of a P.R. gaffe it now is) to admit he's a Republican. He's willing to concede a little gay love and abortion as long as the IRS gets destroyed. But despite his pretensions at being "non-partisan", he consistently focuses his ire against all things Democrat.

One of the things I love to hear are the verbal contortions he twists through in order to excoriate Democratic leaders on the same issues for which he's willing to grant Republicans absolution. This is one of the absolute joys of listening to any of these guys- whether its Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh, Honsberger, etc. They love taking the moral high ground, until it's no longer useful for their specific cause. Granted I believe that all humanity falls prey to this kind of hypocrisy. It's just particularly funny to watch someone struggling to support a complete loser. In 2005, when public outrage built in response to media coverage of the increased surveillance the Bush administration directed against US citizens... all Boortz could do was cry about how past presidents (translation= Democrats) did the same types of things in the past. But now that it looks like Boortz' ultimate nemesis (Hillary Clinton) might attain the presidency, he is returning to his "libertarian" principles. For some reason the precedent is justified as long as the president he helped put into office remains in place. But it is a complete horror to imagine the type of repressions Hillary might perpetrate upon assuming power. It makes me wonder exactly what country Boortz has been living in since 9-11.

I've got to admit that I've always been pretty leery about government surveillance over the US populace. It's way too easy to imagine a political party with complete hegemony targeting the opposition with "dirty tricks". Hell, it was the left's whipping boy, Richard Nixon, that first brought this type of issue to the forefront of public consciousness. Are these surveillance tactics truly dedicated to the security of the American system? What system is it that our leaders are bound to protect? These are completely legitimate questions to ask.

But it's also fair to turn the response to those concerns around. For the last six years I've heard the same refrain from the Right- if you aren't doing anything wrong, then what do you have to be concerned about? Isn't this a fair question? If it was while the Republicans were in power, it certainly will remain so if Hillary assumes control. I wonder why Neal Boortz is now so concerned with the prospect of a strong executive branch. This is the same guy that freely admits to voting for George W. Bush in 2004. Does he want to curtail the government's freedom in fighting a "War on Terrorism"? Is he now going to flip and support "freedom" over "security"? Boortz is the "libertarian" who has thrown his full support behind the interventionist War in Iraq. It's amusing to see such lackeys of the "law and order" party suddenly rediscover liberty.

Ladies and Gentlemen! Pay your two bits... duck inside the tent... and see the World's Most Clumsy Contortionist!