Alright, here is my second post in a row on the issue of “Intelligent Design.” If you want to know more of what ID is all about, then please read my previous post on the subject, “Intelligent Design is Everyday Science.”

I’m posting this in response to a rather reactionary piece posted to one of my favorite online Mags, National Review Online (NRO). As a matter of fact, it is one of the few publications to which I subscribe — the WSJ and the NY Times being two others.

That said, an article by John Derbyshire, “Teaching Science: The President is wrong on Intelligent Design,” was SO poorly written, that I wanted to at least post my counter-points to Mr. Derbyshire’s arguments. It’s not my purpose to call Mr. Derbyshire names or engage in ad hominem attacks upon him, he is, after all, a real journalist, whereas I’m just a blogger.

An avid blogger to be sure, but a mere blogger none-the-less.

And just to clarify, I’m not trying to be sarcastic in referring to Mr. Derbyshire as a “real journalist.” He is that, and I’ve read many of his articles and agreed with him on many points. But on the issue of Intelligent Design (ID), I must conclude that he is, unfortunately, regurgitating arguments and talking points which he’s acquired from defenders of the Darwinian Faith. And truly, many aspects of Darwinism must be taken on faith, as I will discuss in this post.

So, in his article, when Mr. Derbyshire calls ID a “psuedoscience” and compares it to crackpot theories which are religious or mystical in nature, I can only assume that he knows little of ID theory but has chosen merely to slam it based on comments from those who are earnestly seeking to derail a robust and increasingly popular theory related to the origins of life. But lets exam just Mr. Derbyshire’s arguments and talk to them:

• Mr. Derbyshire tries to quell the debate over the whether ID should be taught in schools by referring to the need for “Consensus Science” in the classrooms. Consensus science? Sounds to me more like “bureacratic science,” or “democratic science,” if you want to give the whole concept a positive spin. In other words, sounds like institutional thinking to me. When I Googled the term “Consensus Science” I found that nearly the entire first page of returned links were all to articles, speeches, and blog posts from academics and others who were, in no uncertain terms, denouncing this concept altogether. Michael Crichton says this of consensus science:
  

  I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.

  Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge, retired Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, and former Chief Research Scientist of the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research says this:

  Consensus is not science. Consensus tends to the politically correct. Consensus is not the sort of thing on which sensible people put their money.

  So, while this concept might sound reasonable on its face, really the concept of consensus science is more of an oxymoron than a school of thought. Ultimately, teaching only consensus science must result in the stagnation of science itself. Science must only rely on facts, not on opinion. Which is why, if there is true science behind ID theory, as I’ve explained, then it can be legitimitely taught in the classroom.

  Ironic that I, a proponent of ID theory, should be reminding Mr. Derbyshire of the way science is supposed to work, don’t you think?

  Nuff said there.

• Next, Mr. Derbyshire asks the question:
  

  And what should we teach our kids in biology classes, concerning the development of living things on earth? We should teach them Darwinism, on exactly the same arguments. There is no doubt this is consensus science… It means teaching science unskeptically, as settled fact.

  I won’t argue on the point that Darwinism is the consensus science of our age when it comes to origin of life theories. What I will argue, however, is whether or not all of Darwinian Evolution is based in science.

  The questions I constantly ask and challenge readers to ask as well are along the lines of, why is Darwinism so dogmatically defended by some, even to the point of forcing out all other viewpoints from the debate? Also, why does evolution remain so controversial, even among evolutionary scientists, biologists, geneticists, and the like. In your attempts to answer these quesions, here are a few points to consider:

  1. There must be MORE than merely a critical mass of scientists willing to question a prevailing theory. There must also be a viable alternative theory which better explains certain phenomenon in a measurable way. Can ID Theory do this? Absolutely, but not if it is to be censored like the “round Earth” theory was a thousand years back!
  2. Should darwinism, as Mr. Derbyshire argues, be taught “conservatively [emphasis his], without skepticism or equivocation,” so as not to “confuse young minds”? Well, if it were considered a law, like Gravity, or some other scientific approach which is measurable, sure. But evolution is still a theory for a reason. So, in that light, Mr. Derbyshire’s comment almost sounds as if he’s asking us not to confuse those “young minds” with the facts.

     The fact is, darwinists themselves are at odds over exactly how their theory might be used to explain the origins of life. For example; darwinism cannot now and never could explain the APPEARANCE of life from lifelessness. In addition, as noted author and Berkeley Professor Phil Johnson once said, “Evolution is not controversial because it is entirely true or entirely false, but rather because part is true and part is false.” What did he mean by that? Simply that darwinism elegantly explains how species adapt — called “Microevolution” — but never has proven where and how one species has or could have evolved into an entirely different species — “Macroevolution.”

     Now, evolutionists will tell you without hesitation that their theory is true and right, but if you ask a number of them exactly how it all happened, you’ll get as many different theories and guesses as you will individuals. How can it be “true” and “right” if so many in their own discipline disagree? Evolutionary scientists have had well over a hundred years to gather evidence, yet evolution as a theory is more controversial than ever. Truly, if the proof were there, the world would know it. But it isn’t and we don’t.

  3. Mr. Derbyshire identifies evolution as a reputable science, the basis for modern biology and genomics, but I disagree. I think evolutionists have borrowed on the reputation of truly modern and effective sciences in order to bolster their own position. The fact is, sciences such as genetics and biology do not need the theory of evolution to exist. Biology, after all, existed before evolution was proposed and genetics flowed naturally from the development and growth of that field and technology in general. But, as I mention somewhat in my earlier post, genetics also poses a growing challenge to evolution as well, because now we know that even microscopic life on this planet is enormously complex, irreducibly so. Meaning that much of life is so enormously complex and dependent upon a host of internal parts and systems all working in sync with one another that a precursor form is nearly impossible. So, how do evolutionists explain the problem of complexity? They MANIPULATE life in order to show how systems could change, failing to understand that they have just bolstered the claims of Intelligent Design, not blind materialistic forces.
  4. At the very least, lets teach the controversy. Darwinian Evolution is a theory, and MUST be taught as such. If you want to REALLY confuse kids, try teaching philosophy or religion in the science classroom. That is what proponents of evolution want. They don’t want sound, reasoned debate and a realistic look at the science, they want dogmatism.

Two last points; both important:

• As Steven Levitt, author of “Freakonomics,” tells us, if you want to understand why people are motivated to take certain action, take a close look at the underlying system of rewards. For a huge number of scientists, their research in this field is all funded by large government and private donor grants. We are talking, very likely, tens of billions spent over the past 100+ years for evolutionary research. To see Darwinian Evolution discredited might well mean the loss of jobs and tenure for tens or hundreds of thousands of researchers all over the world. And I’m not exaggerating here. Evolution is THE dominant theory on the origins of life, for it to topple would be devastating to the academic community. With that kind of positive and negative incentive, why would evolutionary scientists WANT to level the playing field? That and the fact that many scientists in this discipline area are either agnostic or athiest in their belief system. To allow a scientific theory to grow which could lend support to an intelligence of any kind beyond our own would be similarly disquieting.
• Darwinian Evolutionists have been dishonest in the way they define the term “science.” To someone in this camp, science can only be used to explain the blind, materialistic forces we can see and measure in the universe. But science cannot be used to identify and/or measure any kind of intelligence. In redefining science this way, they can then claim that anything at all that tries to disprove evolution is “unscientific.” But here’s the problem with this argument… We have several sciences which exist right now which DO have the ability to detect and scientifically measure intelligent interactions in the natural world. Forensics is one, right? If someone is found lying dead in a pool of blood in their house, what happens? The crime scene investigators are called, of course. They dust for prints, they look for DNA other than that of the victim, they look for “suspicious” marks in the room or on the deceased person’s body, and likely a dozen other things. Why do they do all that? So that they can determine the time of death? No, because they want to know if the person died accidentally, through natural causes, or was murdered. If the body has, for example, 50 stab wounds, with nothing in the room which could have “accidentally” caused the wounds, then the complexity of the injuries leads to the logical and straightforward conclusion that the person was murdered. In the same way, if life on Earth is SO complex that its appearance and growth is statistically impossible, and if the fossil record shows us no conclusive transition forms, — much less the millions of forms which we should already have found both living and dead — and if we see in that same record events such as the Cambrian Explosion, where thousands of new species appeared in a relatively short period of time, then we may have evidence of intelligent design. Certainly, as we look down to the cellular, then genetic levels today, we do NOT have strong evidence of Darwinian Evolution.

And as our knowledge of life grows more sophisticated, the fact is, traditional Darwinian Evolution is becoming gradually less able to so blithely explain the origins of all life on Earth. Not, at least, without of LOT of speculation, storytelling, and conjecture. But all of that, as Mr. Derbyshire so aptly points out, has no place in the science classroom.

Mr. Derbyshire is quick in his article to let us know that we should “not be afraid of science.” I wholeheartedly agree. He should practice what he preaches.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Well, President Bush’s comment on August 2nd has certainly touched off an interesting firestorm. What words did he utter that led to this firestorm? When asked about the debate over teaching evolution in schools and competing theories, such as a new theory called “Intelligent Design,” the President said this: “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,” Bush said. “You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes.”

Of course, proponents of philisophical materialism (Darwinists) immediately hit the airwaves to denounce the President’s “ignorance” on the subject and to insist that Intelligent Design (ID) Theory was just “another form of creationism.” Really, some of these science-types sounded almost desperate to quickly quell the controversy, which I imagine some of them really are.

What are these believers in all things material trying to hide? Or do they really just believe that the only REAL science is the study of the materialistic universe? I think you’d likely find many Darwinists who honestly believe that evolution is the likely explanation for life, the universe, and everything. But some really do want to quell this new approach called ID Theory.

Why? Because it employs real science and because, believe it or not, it is a completely valid and testable approach in terms of the scientific method.

So, for the uninitiated, what is ID? Intelligent Design is, basically, a theory which posits that life in all its forms here on planet Earth is a product of design. The theory does not try to offer conjecture regarding who the designer might be, instead, it uses modern science to show that the enormous complexity which most living organisms demonstrate could not have occurred “accidentally.” After over 100 years, evolution still cannot account for events such as the Cambrian Explosion, where thousands of species appear all at one time in the fossil record and all within a very short span of time. According to Darwin, such a thing could never happen in a series of gradual steps. So what could account for such an event?

I have no idea, but we should at least acknowledge such challenges to evolution rather than gloss them over. And we should let other scientists come to the table with competing theories; one of which happens to be ID.

So, how can we scientifically examine the possibility of an intelligent designer? Well, we have several very popular and sophisticated sciences which we already employ just for the purpose of detecting intelligence as well as intelligent causes, not just here on Earth, but out in the universe as well.

Here are a few examples:

• SETI (Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence): SETI is a program that most likely we’ve all heard of. SETI researchers use a series of radio receiver based all over the world to literally listen to “noise” generated by other stars and extra-terrestial phenomena out in space. What are they listening for? Basically, they are seeking signs of other intelligences sending radio signals into the galaxy to communicate with other species. How could we know if one noise is caused by an intelligence vs. another noise? Listen for patterns, of course, and computers are employed to do exactly that and to alert researchers if a pattern is ever detected. First we identify all the random noise which exists in a certain part of our galaxy, or another, then we wait and seek noise which may have a pattern or a rhythm that would be statistically unlikely to have occurred except through an intelligent cause
• Archeology - Archeologists work day in and day out to discern between the natural and the unnatural. They seek artifacts that could not possibly have been generated naturally in an environment and study them closely to determine their creation date, purpose, and perhaps even some characterstics of their makers. Truly, if it impossible to scientifically detect intelligence, archeologists would not be able to tell a boulder from a building… Right?
• Forensics - Not only is “CSI” a hugely popular show on television, it has spawned two other spin off shows as well, as well as numerous similarly patterned competitors on other networks. What is the central purpose of forensic analysis? To apply the scientific method to the detection of intelligence. Let’s say a husband dies suddenly in his home. Did his wife poison him? Did he die of a heart attack? Did he simply die of old age? All of these questions can be reliably, even routinely answered using the forensic sciences. We can test for chemicals not normally found in the human body. We can look for signs of a struggle, we can even examine the person’s innards to seek some natural system failure. Again, if science were unable to distinguish intelligent causes from natural ones, there would be no science of forensics.

Basically, the above sciences look for complexity. The more complex something is, the less likely it could have occurred randomly or accidentally. This, after all, is a known law in the universe. We’re talking the Laws of Thermodynamics here? First of all, as far as we’ve ever been able to tell, there is no new energy being created in the universe. Secondly, we know that energy, in all its forms, moves from higher levels of complexity to lower levels of complexity.

Thermodynamics alone poses an intractible problem for evolutionists. How can organisms of such complexity occur randomly when everything we know tells us that energy breaks down naturally, it does not build up?

Now let’s discuss a scientific theory posited by Michael Behe, a molecular biologist, which employs the ID model, called “Irreducible Complexity.” Here is Dr. Behe’s defintionof Irreducible Complexity:

In The Origin of Species Darwin stated:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

A system which meets Darwin’s criterion is one which exhibits irreducible complexity. By irreducible complexity I mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced gradually by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, since any precursor to an irreducibly complex system is by definition nonfunctional.

What are some irreducible systems?

• The human eye
• Proteins
• Cilium

In each of these systems, the complex biochemical interactions which must occur in a precise way, in alignment with other similary precise yet complex systems, could never have occurred randomly, at least not in the time currently allowed by scientists who have been researching the age of the earth. I’ve read many scientists who have attempted to pooh pooh Irreducible Complexity and ID in general, but none of them have ever successfully, to my knowledge, demonstrated how irreducibly complex systems could ever have occurred natural in random steps… Not one!

This post is getting long, so let me wrap it up by saying that I’m not one of those who wants evolution taken out of schools. I believe firmly that it should be taught, along with the debate which centers around evolution, as well as some of the challenges which still remain for this theory. I also think that other theories should be discussed. ID is one of those.

ID employs everyday sciences that we all know of, and you don’t have to talk of a designer in the science classroom, just stick to the science behind the theory. Ultimately, this theory IS gaining traction; something which has hard core evolutionists (whose religion is metaphysical naturalism), in somewhat of a tiff. How dare ANYONE challenge their beloved theory, much less the serious scientists who are now beginning to step forward and offer their challenges?

All I can is, this should be fun to watch.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

It has certainly been amazing reading the many email messages and comments that I’ve received from loyal Don & Mike fans over these past couple of months. We are birds of a feather in that, we are not ones who typically call in to the show, but we listen consistently and enjoy the personalities of the show.

Over the years, one of those personalities was, of course, Don’s wife Freda. From your comments and emails, I think we all pretty consistently understand that some of the most honest moments of the show came during those times that Don and Freda were having a “discussion” on the air. Of course, the most honest moments of radio I EVER heard was Don’s very moving discussion of his wife on August 1, 2005; his first day back on the radio after Freda’s tragic death.

I put up a post talking about that, of course, but truly, I’ve never heard a more honest and candid moment on radio ever. And as a guy who listens to satellite radio and drives three hours a day, five days a week, I listen to a LOT of radio.

But, of course, that was Mike Sorce talking, not Don Geronimo, and Mike/Don took some time to try and explain that to some of the listeners whom he knew wouldn’t understand why he was, as Mike Sorce, sending his heartfelt thanks out to Jack Diamond of Q107.3, a guy who he endlessly badmouthed as “Don Geronimo.” Some of the comments posted by readers as well as email I’ve received highlights the fact that, unfortunately, there are still many who do not understand this dichotomy.

They think that, because Don Geronimo badmouthed this person or that person, they should be able to badmouth Mike and Freda Sorce and forward rumors and myths related to Freda’s accident. And when other readers, as well as myself, respond negatively and point out how inappropriate such behaviour is, they act surprised.

How can someone not understand that the Don & Mike Show is business, whereas Mike and Freda Sorce is personal?

The fact is, the radio biz is a very serious business indeed, generating billions in revenues for media companies each year. But when the Don & Mike Show kicked off in the mid 80’s radio was just beginning to experience a big transition.

For a long time, FM stations were slowly and surely killing off AM rivals, but, if I remember correctly, even FM stations were not experiencing the boom they have in the past 10 to 20 years. What helped bring new life to radio in general and the AM spectrum in particular? Talk radio, of course.

Yes, Rush is one of the most recognized names in the radio biz, as is Howard Stern; but the Don & Mike Show was there from the beginning of the talk radio boom, and they have made their own unique mark in this business. As I’ve said before, they don’t follow normal conventions of what makes a radio show successful. They do their own thing, follow their own pattern, go where they want to go; reminding listeners along the way that, if you don’t like it, take a hike.

But the success of their show is based on the fact that Don and Mike know the ruthless world of radio entertainment better than the vast majority of players out there. In radio, as in any business, you see and hear things which may look, feel, and sound personal, but really are not. And competition in the media world is especially ruthless.

In the entertainment media world, you either show results or you are gone. It’s not personal, it’s just business.

Have I harped on that enough?

So, back to my point. When Mike Sorce went on the air on August 1, it was a first for Mike, as well as a VERY unique event in the media world overall. Rarely do we see such honest glimpses of someone in that industry. That’s why I was so blown away and so impressed; because it was so incredibly rare.

Yes, Freda and “Don” showed us many honest moments during the show over the years, but Don’s big advantage was that Freda once worked in radio and understood both its complexities as well as its demands. Don pushed the envelope with some of his on-air comments, but Freda also knew that it was a requirement of the industry in a way that most spouses do not.

So, for those of you who have had a hard time understanding the difference between Don Geronimo and Mike Sorce, I hope this helps. Don Geronimo is part of a very successful business which has thrived in a highly competitive and ruthless industry. Mike Sorce is the man who leaves the studio and was Freda’s loving husband, as well as Bart’s dedicated father.

What Don Geronimo says and does is not necessarily what Mike Sorce says and does.

And Freda’s death is part of Mike Sorce’s world, even though it also effects Don Geronimo’s world too. So, for those of you who want to act as if the various debates regarding Freda are fair game, this is why I have consistently labelled your comments as cruel and inappropriate. Your assumption that Don Geronimo and Mike Sorce are the same person is completely wrong, and Mike candidly pointed that out for you on August 1.

May those with ears to hear understand what I am saying.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

The Washington Post and several other mainstream and traditionally liberal news organizations began obsessing again over the President’s planned visit to his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Here’s what the Post had to say:

President Bush is getting the kind of break most Americans can only dream of — nearly five weeks away from the office, loaded with vacation time.

The president departed Tuesday for his longest stretch yet away from the White House, arriving at his Crawford ranch in the evening to clear brush, visit with family and friends, and tend to some outside-the-Beltway politics. By historical standards, it is the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years.

Looking at the first sentence of the quote, it’s truly a study in contradiction. How can the President get a “break most Americans can only dream of” when, for the entire time, the President will still be doing many parts of his job? How can he be taking “nearly five weeks away from the office” when his office follows him wherever he goes?

Americans, for the most part, can get away and REALLY leave the office behind for two or three, or even four weeks at a time. They don’t have to sit through daily briefings, or take calls, or go on short intra-vacation business trips, or even meet with co-workers during their vacation.

But the President, the Post reporters readily admit, does have to do this. Why do Presidents leave the office after one or two terms looking decades older? Because modern Presidents are ALWAYS on the job. Wherever they go, the job follows; and the stress as well.

Even the compartively young and vigorous President Clinton, who loved his job and was a master of political details left after two terms looking old and tired. Now, you could blame that on Republicans, whom he had to deal with from 1994 on, but it would ignore the fact that most every President who ever served followed the same pattern.

Can you see most Americans leading the kind of life a modern President leads?

Which is why the Presidency is a unique job, with unique and daunting challenges. Which means that drawing some kind of comparison to “the average American” is just bogus and, in my mind, underscores exactly why the MSM is losing readership every year.

Partisans, the liberal media, and Democrats in Washington love to obsess over this kind of thing, but most Americans (Democrats and Republicans) just roll their eyes when they read or hear this kind of journalism and get back to their own lives. It’s just partisan pettiness, and average Americans mainly just ignore it.

In the end, this weird obsession regarding the number of days President Bush spends outside of the White House serves no purpose. It wins no votes for Democrats, has no positive effect on readership, and says nothing about how effective or ineffective Bush is as President.

As a matter of fact, Bush has been a highly effective President so far. While not winning every battle, President Bush continues to score major victories when it comes to moving his agenda through congress.

So, while partisans try to convince Americans that the President is, at best, “lazy,” and, at worst, “callous” when it comes to his Presidential duties, Bush continues to focus on the priorities he has set out for his second term.

So why this whole “VacationWatch” obsession? I’m not sure, but it does reflect some of the same sensless bickering that goes on in the corporate world.

The dot com boom brought innovation to the workplace as much as it brought innovation to businesses all over the country. Suddenly you could work just as easily, and, in some cases, MORE easily, from home as you could from the office. But some companies balked at the idea.

How do you KNOW someone is working if they are not in the office? They could be in their “home office” goofing off, surfing the net, or even playing with their kids!

My answer to that has always been that you know their worth by the quality and quantity of their work. If they work from home and do a lousy job, you either pull them back into an office setting or you let them go.

But if they do good work from home and can still remain integrated with the team, then you let them continue in that setting. What matters is how effective you are for your company, right?

In the same way, what matters for a President is how effective he is for his country, not necessarily where he conducts the people’s business. If you want to argue, then, that the President’s periodic visits to his ranch have been bad for the country, then lay down your argument.

What I’ll point out in reply, however, is that we have not had a single major terrorist attack here in the US since 9/11, we have a growing economy, we have a strong rate of employment, salaries are on the rise, consumer spending is up, the deficit is shrinking again, and we’ve managed to free over 50 million oppressed human beings in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Sounds to me as if this President prefers to work smart as opposed to working long. But that’s just my opinion.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

Just when you thought that you knew all there was to know about Don and Freda, Don (Mike Sorce) revealed the contents of a letter from Freda, which he found soon after her death. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Geronimo also described going through his wife’s papers after her death. After cracking the family’s safe (Freda Wright-Sorce managed all of the family’s affairs), he said he found a letter addressed to him in his wife’s handwriting. “Dear Mike,” he read, “I dreamed last night I died. . . . I wasn’t afraid and I felt no pain. . . . Don’t be sad for me. My only sadness is my family will be sad for me. Just know that all is right and is as it should be. I am happy.” It expressed the hope that she and all her loved ones would be together again one day and was signed simply, “Freda, 10/16/04.”

Wow! I’ve heard of this happening, of course. A friend of mine in high school revealed to another friend several months before his death that he didn’t think he would be around much longer. Also, there is a legend that Abraham Lincoln dreamed of his death shortly before he was murdered by John Wilkes Booth. It’s just so amazing to hear something like this.

For those of you who think there is nothing beyond life but oblivion, events such as this one hopefully give you reason to question what you believe.

Hat tip to DCRTV.com.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

I tuned in to the show today at work so that I could listen in while working as Don Geronimo (Mike Sorce) returned to the Don & Mike Show. It was an AMAZING couple of hours as Don talked about the love of his life, about his loss, and about the support he received from members of the media all across the country.

If you heard Don today, then it should only have confirmed what the show’s fans already knew; that Don is a totally devoted husband and father. For a brief time, Don laid down his on-show persona to offer up a tribute to Freda and to send out heartfelt thanks to members of the media all across the country for the support they had lent him over the past few weeks.

Today, he gave us a completely honest glimpse of himself as Mike Sorce, as opposed to the character of “Don Geronimo” of “The Don & Mike Show.” Not surprisingly “Don Geronimo,” the husband and father is no different than Mike Sorce, the husband and father. At the same time, we were given an inner glimpse of why Don & Mike do and say certain things on the air.

Why? Because, during the show, it’s all about the show… understand? On the air, Don & Mike are doing their show, not their lives. It’s the same way for all shows to one extent or another. Today, however, for a brief period of time, Don laid it all out for us. And it was VERY moving.

Don even took calls for a time, not so that people could express condolences, but so that people could ask questions. Unfortunately, that segment underscored the shallow nature of some of the show’s listeners.

Why would someone think it’s okay to ask where Freda is buried? I also thought asking if Bart was going to leave Clemson and move closer to home was a bit dumb. Why is that anyone’s business?

Someone even called to ask if Don was going to sell the OC, Maryland property!! What, were they hoping to BUY?!

OMG people can be ridiculous! Don was very patient and only hung up on a couple of callers.

A word to the wise (some of you won’t listen to what I’m about to suggest, which should tell you something about yourself). Today was Don’s day to be open, honest, and vulnerable. But he gave ample warning that tomorrow he and Mike are going to resume the show… Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes. I recommend you NOT call the show to express condolences or to ask further questions.

I could be wrong here, but Don seemed pretty clear regarding his desire to resume the normal show. I’m sure that there will be other vulnerable moments in the future, here and there, but, for the most part, the Don & Mike Show is back in full swing. Which means that, if you call in to do what I just suggested you NOT do, be prepared to duck.

Remember, it’s Don and Mike and they’ll do what they wish! In all my years of listening to these guys, this really is the only consistent rule I’ve seen them follow. And that, in the end, is exactly why I listen to the show.

It’s great to have Don back.

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com