Thom - you look better without a "Schnurbart!" It is time to update your website... ;)

After Barack Obama declined to appear on his Sunday morning program (after appearing on just about everyone else’s), Fox News Chris Wallace bellyached in the usual incestuous way “news” is disseminated on Fox about what he considered “whining” from the administration. The truth is rarely heard on Fox, but Wallace accidentally let slip one possible truism: that on Sunday the Fox did set aside time for serious news, inadvertently implying that during the rest the week, Fox was in fact engaged in something other than news.

Not that CNN is much different, spending much of its time disseminating stories designed to manipulate viewers’ emotions, relying on polls instead of hard investigative journalism, and generally disinterested in distinguishing the trees from the forest. There are few Sunday morning network hosts who actually take the hard news disseminating process seriously and do their homework (unlike, say, Lou Dobbs, who merely repeats what his hate group friends tell “Mr. Independent” to say). The only place where “serious” news dissemination is occurring on a daily basis on the airwaves is, seems to be on NPR and assorted progressive radio stations; newspapers themselves are increasingly failing to fill the void, as they become slimmer and more emaciated by the day. Meanwhile, right-wing talk (Michael Medved is a possible exception) delves almost wholly in clichés, talking points, blatant appeals to bigotry and bald falsity.

This fundamental failure to disseminate news contributes to an atmosphere where a large percentage of the population concerns itself with one or two issues that effects them personally, others—beyond bellyaching incoherently—just don’t give a damn, and a smaller percentage attempts (often vainly) to keep informed of all the issues that one way or another is conspiring to send the country down the path of doom. Sure, the UN this week is talking climate change and renewable resources, but how many people are paying attention? How many people want to take the time to understand the complex issues involved, let alone make the hard choices that must be made that will require a change in personal as well as governmental and corporate behavior?

It is one thing to hold signs, shout-out or stomp on cars; it is quite another to persuade an entire country of 300 million people to actually think about what they need to be doing to confront crisis on multiple fronts, and act accordingly. Even something as simple as bringing a reusable “green” shopping bag to the grocery store instead of using paper or plastic seems too difficult and require too much thought-processing for most people. It is only shortages or collapses that seem to force a change in personal strategy in the short term, but beyond that there seems to be a belief in magic acts rather than finding alternative strategies that will prevent future dependence on resources controlled by outside forces.

Perhaps events occur too slowly for many people to think long-term; it’s all too incremental to notice. They think “Why do we have to change anything? Things have been this bad before, but it will eventually get better in a year or two. Besides, if all these other people are not doing their part, what difference will it make if I do?" The problem is that little by little our manufacturing is leaving the country, natural resources are diminishing, the cost of goods and services rise will wages decrease. Day-to-day existence occupies the mind, leaving little room to be bothered with the world at large, other than to repeat what they heard or read that someone else who has time to sit around and ponder has said.

This is why it is important for Obama and progressive Democrats to stick to their guns and follow-through on a bold new vision for the future that addresses the roadblocks to growth and stability. Somebody must do it, because most of the masses would prefer to follow and react than do the busy work themselves. Meanwhile, those who speak in entrenched opposition should just be ignored entirely, because these cowardly bullies, when they are ignored, tend to get even more unreasoningly agitated, and reveal themselves even more to be completely irrelevant.

As Cyrano said, "One doesn't fight in the hope of winning" (Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succès).

I believe that Cyrano is speaking for me. I am 70 years old and in poor health. The people who are important to me will never have the clout or money to defeat the American fascist-Nazi powerbrokers. I carry on because I cannot and I will not remain silent or become complicit in the killing of God's children on either side of the pond. When I meet my creator in judgment, I hope that I can say, "I TRIED TO MAKE OUR WORLD A BETTER PLACE."

And we call ourselves a Christian nation!

http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=97866

@B Roll -

I cannot show you where you are wrong about Thom's guest list - you're not. Doubtless, Thom knows Carrie Lukas and Dan Gainor personally, and thus has them both on too often for my tastes. Essentially, both of them, or someone from the organizations they represent, are on the show once a week.

However - this is THOM'S show - it's not my show, and neither is it yours. He puts in the time, and sweat equity, and that earns the bully pulpit for WHOEVER he chooses to present.

A daily segment with Ellen Ratner or someone else from Talk Radio news, an hour a week with Senator Sanders, another weekly visit with Melanie Sloan or somebody from CREW, and more-or-less quarterly chats with Ravi Batra hardly seems to me a "near-exclusion of progressive voices".

Should he have more guests of color? Perhaps so. Personally, I don't see that as a major problem, but that's just one man's opinion. I don't recall the caller you make specific reference to, but Thom often dumps calls that criticize a guest who is no longer present to defend his/her position, and almost ALWAYS dumps callers who delve into the realm of personal attacks.

You, of course, get the ultimate decision regarding what you choose to listen to. If Thom's conservative guests tick you off, slap in a CD for 10 minutes and listen to some music. The voice that you don't wanna hear will be gone by then.

At least, the one on the radio will ... the ones in our heads are considerably harder to deal with. :D

DDay,

Say, that reminds me of a wonderful PBS program I watched about Norwegian arctic explorer Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930). He had been lost in the arctic wilderness for about 3 years in perilous conditions. He celebrated the last Christmas there by turning his underwear inside out. Talk about small comforts...

DDay,

"Snips and snails and puppy-dog tails." Very endearing and loveable.

B Roll,

I have been thinking along the lines of your last post more and more frequently lately. I guess that's why I like to listen to Rachel Maddow and other more consistently progressive shows (with civil dialogue, that is.) I get SO tired of all this "modelling." Sometimes a jerk is just a jerk and NO amount of dialogue shows that he or she is even LISTENING to anyone but the voices in his/her head. (No one is so blind as he who WILL NOT see!)

Often I think progressives need more positive messages from fellow progressives (along with a little "water-cooler" talk from time to time.) But maybe Thom feels more comfortable with his format. And maybe he feels that, if he can get a "righty' to agree with him in some small way, he could count that as an agreeable conversation he could have had with his father. (Maybe that is the key. God knows, I tried to have similar conversations with my right-wing mother, to no avail. But I'm not as keen on reliving them.) Anyway, forgive me, Thom, for trying to "crawl inside your head."

Mstaggerlee

Your first three paragraphs argued against things I never said, but there’s a history that my comment didn’t go into.

If you look at the guest list going back over almost any time period you choose, you’ll see that it’s overwhelmingly weighted toward conservative guests. Some listeners have called and/or posted comments asking for 1) far fewer right wing guests or 2) more liberal and progressive guests. But the mix remains unchanged.

Tell me where I'm wrong, if you like.

My argument is against having conservative guests on the show; it’s against having some many right wingers at the near exclusion of progressive voices. I remember a caller several months ago who asked Thom to have fewer right wing guests and more progressive guests. Thom dumped the call and said that he (Thom) thought that he represented the progressive side very well. (I guess in his humble opinion.)

There is a wide range of views, ideologies and approaches on the left, and for the most part, they aren’t being heard on Thom’s show. I’ve raised this issue several times on this blog.

I’ve also pointed out that if you look at the list of guest for the show so far this year; it’s quite likely that guests like Dan Gainor or Carrie Lukas each have been on the show more than all the African-American and Latino guests combined. Latinos are almost totally absent. I can only think of one this year; a man from Honduras who had less than ideal facility with English who spoke about the coup there. Black guests are a little more common (being that Latinos are essentially at zero), but with their numbers so small, it’s a shame that several have been right wingers like Lurita Doan on Monday.

I find this problematic in a country where African-Americans and Hispanics make up around 30% of the population and with blacks being the most solid Democratic voting block in the country. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus make up a huge percentage of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Why don’t we hear those voices on this show? Cutting back on the constant flow of right wingers would make room for minority voices. I’ve raised this issue in this blog several times. Nothing has changed.

I understand what Thom is doing by modeling how to debate against the conservative and right wing arguments. There’s value in that. But I think there’s also value (that we’re not getting on this show) in hearing a broader spectrum of liberal, progressive and maybe even radical left views. Thom doesn’t speak for all of the left. In fact, today he revived on oh his old slogans when he referred to himself the “radical middle”.

thom just want to share this with you, my mentor is Dr. daisaku ikeda there is a daisaku ikeda website daisakuikeda.org think you might find it interesting

DDay,

Re: Ralph is never tongue in cheek. I admire the guy,but, he is the most humorless fellow you ever find. Initial reviews of his book are bleak.

My hypothesis is that Ralph was a big Ernie Kovaks fan (who wasn't?) When Kovacs died in an accident in his Corvair, I think that motivated Nader to do some investigation and write his milestone book, Unsafe At Any Speed (about the lack of safety regarding Corvairs.) That led to his life of activism.

But that's just my theory... and may be why he rarely seems to laugh (anymore?) LOL!