So Charlie Sykes – also known by his more formal sounding nom de plume Charles J. Sykes – has graced us all with a preview of his 50 Rules, due in stores Thursday, presumably to whet the appetites of his rabid and devoted fan base.
Michael Mathias over at Pundit Nation and Paul Soglin at Waxing America have both started to break down the three rules Charlie previewed, and I just wanted to add my own thoughts on Rule #11, because it’s got some glaring problems (emphasis mine).
RULE (11): After you graduate, you won’t be competing against rivals who were raised to be wimps on the playground.
The Duke of Wellington once said that “the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton ” – reflecting his view that competitive sports shape a nation’s character. We sure as hell should hope that’s not true about America unless, that is, we plan on going to war against an enemy who also values non-competitive, risk-free, self-esteem building play activities for its young….
Now I’m sure you’re wondering what’s wrong with the quote I’ve highlighted, and I’d love to explain. It’s improbable Wellington ever actually said, “the battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton,” because according to various sources I’ve read, Wellington had been dead for three years when, in 1855, Charles Montalembert credited him with that remark in his De l’Avenir politique de l’Angleterre. The Duke of Wellington was at Eton from 1781 to 1784, from the ages of 12 to 15, and it’s known he was an idle and dreamy boy who took no part in organized sports. There was, in fact, little in the way of organized sport at Eton at that time, the activities to be seen on the playing fields appeared to the uninitiated to be more like free-for-all fights than games. Further, Wellington was said to have remembered his days at Eton as lonely and unhappy, his only sport being solitary leaps across a local brook, and he almost never visited the school in later years despite being its most famous alumnus.
I’m left to wonder if Charlie Sykes has any researchers on his staff, and if so, did he bother to have any of them make sure this quote – which he uses to help justify the logic behind Rule #11 – was accurate and attributed to the right person? If not, Charlie should get someone on that.
If Charlie is the ignorant, racist, arrogant, insignificant blowhard you claim he is, why do you and the rest of the Liberal goof-troop feel the need to spend endless hours researching obscure quotes, casting endless picayune insults and creating websites and coalitions aimed only at lampooning his book?…Before it’s even released no less.
Roland-
My answer’s simple: because I dislike dishonesty and laziness from folks who aspire to be authors and journalists. If Sykes can’t even get a simple quote right, then I can only wonder what else he’s gotten wrong.
Zachary,
Why not become a talk show host yourself? it’s a free country.
That was a joke, right?
I know, let’s start our own radio station!
Or maybe our own TV network, like Roger Ailes.
One reason people are responding to Sykes’ 50 Rules — besides their smugness — is some irritation with the fact that he shamelessly promotes it on a daily basis on the corporate platform WTMJ Radio provides. Most people who write a book on the side, for personal profit, would have a few more scruples.
George, you might be on to something. After all, I couldn’t be any worse than Jessica McBride, and I probably wouldn’t say anything as stupid and offensive as she did.
Though I have to wonder if I have a good voice for radio, and I’m probably too good looking for radio. I tend to think I’d be much better on television.
No joke, Bill (or Zachary).
You’re obsessed with Charlie.
But you won’t answer the question: Why not take him on, on the air? Why not got to all the AM stations in Milw and explain how your message is compelling and interesting? And if you can’t get on the air, what might that say?
Just a few questions.
George, the only thing I’m obsessed with is the truth. If Charlie could get his facts straight, I’d be more than willing to stop talking about him.
As for your question, I’d rather keep my day job; it’s much more interesting than radio.
I happened on this site somewhat by accident last evening. It (and a few others) talks quite abit about Charlie Sykes. If Zachary is happy with his “day job,” the question still remains: why not get a show and take him on? Huffing and puffing on this blog is not nearly as effective.
George, just a few things. If you believe one entry about Sykes in the few months I’ve been blogging constitutes “talking quite a bit” about him, then I don’t know what to tell you.
As for your challenge to me to get a show and take him on, I’ll repeat what I said – I’m one hundred percent happy with my day job. My little old blog might not be nearly as effective as Charlie’s radio show, but I’m okay with that.
Zach,
Why doesn’t someone else take him (and Belling) on?
Xoff says you need your own station, but why would that be the case? Why wouldn’t an existing station snap up a credible voice challenging Charlie? Joel McNally. Mordecai Lee. Think of all the candidates. Think of the ratings. Think of all the metro Milw listeners clamoring for an alternative.
Geo
George-
Some of us have tried to take on Charlie, Belling and the lot of them, and on their own turf. I personally have tried to call several times on different issues. The closest that I was allowed was to be on hold for twenty minutes before being cut off without even being told that they wouldn’t accept my call.
Now, are you offering to bankroll the radio station to counter it? I know I don’t have the money to break into the business.
Neither Charlie nor Mark own the stations for which they work. Neither had any $ to “break into the business.”
Why, with your compelling and factual message, won’t they snap you up?
Again, think of the ratings. How could they go wrong?
Ah, George is going back to the Fairness Doctrine debate, eh? Maybe I just have to find the right kind of massive multimedia conglemerate with the correct agenda, and I’ll be set. Ratings be damned!
That’s why Mark’s TV show is doing so well? Ratings?
Ratings be damned?
Are you suggesting that a liberal talk show would have low ratings? What evidence is there of that?
No, I am referring to the fact that the conservative ratings would be low, as has been evidenced on the West Coast. This negates your argument that it is just a piffle of a thing to establish a radio station or make a break into a station operation by a company with a conservative agenda.
In case that wasn’t clear enough. Conservative radio has been shown to lose to liberal radio when on an even playing ground. The reason Sykes, Belling, etc. are on the air is due to sponsorship from people with a conservative agenda, not due to ratings.
The agenda of stations running talk radio is to maximize profit.
If they thought liberal shows would do that they would run those shows.
Can you elaborate on “Conservative radio has been shown to lose to liberal radio when on an even playing ground”?
BTW, libs are doing very well on the web. See column in today’s MJS.
Sorry, it took so long, but I was unsuccessfully looking for the link. I recall seeing some article (or blog linking to an article) that a city on the west coast (Seattle?) had one true liberal radio station that was wiping the floors with the competing conservative stations. If I find that link, I will get it to you.