Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Afternoon Spent Listening to Talk Radio
Recently on a dull Sunday afternoon I tuned in a local talk radio program. Talk radio generally pains me, not so much because of the content as the tone. Tone and content are not fully severable, but talk radio often conveys less a consistent position than diffuse anger, dogmatic certainty, and contempt for those of differing views and ways of living.
Instead of local voices I heard Glenn Beck blasting a school in Texas for grading students solely on the basis of the effort expended. Beck raised relevant objections not only with regard to social standards but also as to students' self-esteem.
He then, however, went on to a broad indictment of U.S. public education as dominated by a squishy sentimentalism. An ill-defined "they" had abandoned all rigorous evaluation. I was left wondering where No Child Left Behind had come from. And what evidence is there that effort grading had become predominant or that effort should not be at least one criterion?
Beck has his Left counterparts. For some on the left, defenders of free-market capitalism are treated simply as "greedy," however much money they have or aspire to. Anger and dismissive contempt know no political boundaries and may be seen as symptoms of deep predicaments that grip all of us. Part of our predicament is difficulty in articulating or defending the exact nature of our situation.
A conference on religion and politics in the spring of 2009 at the New School featuring Templeton Prize winner Charles Taylor and William Connolly, author of "Capitalism and Christianity American Style," helped me clarify my own contestable thoughts on this. (For conference CDs, go to www.socres.org/religiousseculardivide/.)
In addition to consciousness of our own mortality, humans must confront the partial and inevitably finite nature of our knowledge. We carve out our beliefs "through a glass darkly," i.e., with and against a set of constantly shifting instincts, intuitions, and ideas which we can never fully capture.
Yet we must act in this world. The paradoxical need for action combined with the soft and shifting ground on which some action must be based evoke anxiety. Anxiety causes all of us some of the time and some of us all the time to cling to whatever broader goals and understandings we develop as final truths. These truths will live on even if we do not. It also often leads us to see those opposed to our worldviews as utterly stupid, perverse or dangerous.
Some further cement their sense that they are special by viewing themselves as a minority under siege, even if the only threat to their position lies in the disagreement that others (often even only a few) have to that position.
These destructive and exclusionary tendencies seem strongest in a world of rapid change, poverty, hardship and global insecurities.
Older readers of this column might compare William Buckley's intellectually playful "Firing Line" with the bombastic and hostile tone of the "O'Reilly Factor." Politics will never be a songfest. Ideas and passions are not easily
separated. It is hard to advance an idea without some commitment to the argument and without thereby risking anger toward those who don't see our line of thought.
But passions can be reconfigured; fear of death and finitude can be curbed. The hospice and right to die movements have reshaped the experience of death both for the dying and their loved ones. Christianity itself includes currents contrary to the harsh self-righteousness of Revelation, including a stress upon humility and mercy, judging not lest you be judged, heaven and hell as states of mind rather than domains of reward and punishment. Many secular and religious thinkers now celebrate the evolving forms of human and nonhuman existence.
Martin Luther King's passion energized his sacrifices on behalf of civil rights. History's great prophets, including King, strive to enhance in themselves a passion for generosity and inclusivity. Their commitment to democracy and nonviolence is inspired by and enhances an appreciation of the many ways of life and thought humanity can embrace. They acknowledge the shifting and dimly perceived foundations on which their worldview rests and the role that alternative ways of being can play in their own development. They have thereby inspired more generosity and intellectual openness among at least some of their adversaries.
This would be talk radio worthy of the name.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


85 Comments so far
Show AllWell, TED, you're obviously in a minority. RICH adds a level of analysis to the CD threads that few can touch. Odd that you'd come to the defense of someone who seems to think he has something of value to say, but then redundantly repeats the same tired verses ad nauseum... but you find no problem with that? Strange priorities. Enjoy your time away...
Why are you attacking Ted? It's me you and Rich are angry at, not him ! Didn't you read anoter post of Ted's? He apologized for misinterpreting. You could learn from Tina Bupuy, John Buello, and MLK once in a while.
Siouxrose, I've responded to Rich's posts before and have agreed with him most of the time.
I am not here to judge Shawn or Rich or anyone else, but found Rich's post to be on the snarky side, which basically proved the point I've been trying to make...as have you.
You and I have butted heads a couple of times. What I have learned is that you are not to be trusted, as you jump on the slightest impurities with relish. I even apologized to you once and got a backhanded insult for my effort.
Strange priorities indeed.
Actually, Rich, I haven't been around much lately.
As for Shawn Berry's posts - I usually just move on when I'm not interested.
I'm sick of snark, and I'm tired, and I need a vacation.
Good night.
If you don't like someone's posts, just ignore them. You only make Shawn look better by complaining like that. Disagreeing with another doesn't make them dumb. Bragging about your intelligence and calling someone who happens to sharply disagree with you as dumb only comes across as crass. If you're smarter than Shawn, then you would prove to be a very humble and hesitant to calling people who have sharp disagreements dumb. If you have nothing nice to say, then don't say anything at all and I say this to everyone, not just you.
Have a little respect for your betters? What are you going to do, horsewhip him for intruding on your private club? Did he fail to bow when you entered the room?
Using, without irony, a term intended to put down those too 'uppity' to accord the 'proper respect' for those of higher socioeconomic status (their betters), isn't progressive, to say the least.
The American adage "as dumb as a fence post" does not apply to you as your cretinous imbecility is truly sui generis. Your verbal defecations, in which you pathetically–like the fly hovering over its own stink–takes a gleeful pride in its unknowing, hapless debasement.
VASHKAR: You're quite a wordsmith! Wow... you do wonders in the way of simile and metaphor. Thank you. I enjoyed the laugh. Normally I don't laugh at someone else's ignorance, but since this poster has rammed it at me on countless occasions, it's a relief to see that others see through his... could it be an act?
Sioux,
Thanks.
Usually I would not respond to this man's moronic, irrepressible, and doggedly stupid postings. Having just got back from a long vacation visiting my family overseas, this drivel offended me more so than usual, for whatever reasons.
Being in a foreign country, the obvious comparisons about how little Americans understand their own country remains astonishing to both me and my wife. Even here on this relatively sophisticated site, the 'baseline' level of discourse –even among the most well meaning– seems woefully ensconced in an almost alternate reality. What is taken for granted even– amongst the more politically unsophisticated elsewhere– is not even, for the most part, on 'the radar' here.
Just now revisiting the site I see he is ubiquitous as 'stink on shit.' I could not resist, although in retrospect, I wish I would have. It is unbecoming to lose one's equanimity and become frustrated by fools.
I also think you are on to something when you suspect the poster's game "could be an act" as he clearly enjoys being the obstreperous pest too much. It is clearly intended to attract attention as an end in itself, nothing more, as his 'contributions' are bereft of all substance.
VASHKAR: I hope the vacation afforded you some personal rejuvenation.
I have lived outside the U.S. and do a fair amount of traveling, so I, too, notice the bubble that too many Americans reside within. It extends to them the dangerous presumption that their national status affords them the privilege not only of exceptionalism, but that of a genuine alternative reality. Its perspective is frequently at odds with Truth, or the consensual reality that becomes evident once one steps outside the bubble (which is complete with its own 24/7 noise machine designed to infect the atmosphere with propaganda, much of the covert sort). I lapsed into using the "them" pronoun because I think in more universal, humanitarian terms and find nationalism somewhat disconcerting this late in humanity's game-plan.
I was talking with an astute friend about certain elements of this forum, and when I related my experience with THE poster, my friend suggested that what appeared as simple-minded had far more practiced elements to it. It would be naive to presume that with 185,000 now employed for the purposes of low-level domestic (and foreign) spying that this forum is not on the watch list. With that being said, a variety of tactics are likely used to disarm posters and create affinity, and at other times its converse. Shades of The Pink Panther, one poster may leave a scent to draw posters away from others with more sinister agendas. I've seen a number of people attacked (and I've certainly experienced that status). It's worth noting who gets attacked and in response to which specific views. I believe some are tasked with becoming part of the "CD family" to collect data. I find it insidious, uncomfortable, and something I detest... dishonest because they PRETEND to be posting here for reasons that are patently false. If any posters smell the rat(s), they often find themselves on the receiving end of vicious assaults and related forms of character assassination.
I just viewed the film, "Taxi To The Dark Side," and it makes me realize how far into the "dark side" this nation's alleged leaders have directed it. LAW is no longer firm or certain. Orwell, Kafka, Bernays, Smedley Butler and so many other visionaries come to mind... who'd have thought the horrors they related would come to define 21st century America? Sleep easy, if you can.
Such paranoid talk does not represent people who brag and boast about lots of education and 35 years of experience. Only psycopaths/sociopaths post the drivel you posted.
MLK was attacked from the... left? Seriously? Have you been reading your high school history textbook again? Next you'll suggest that Rosa Parks was just tired from a long hard day, and her feet hurt too much to move to the back of the bus. MLK was hammered hard by weak, cowardly liberals like yourself for questioning the inherent injustices of Capitalism, for pointing out the Imperial nature of US foreign policy, for bringing up the idea of class war. Even large numbers of African-Americans viewed MLK unfavorably in the months before he was killed because he was rocking the boat too much for their delicate sensibilities.
Maybe you should go write your silly comments on Huffpost or CNN.com where you'll find legions of other "practical" chuckleheads who'll agree with your prattling nonsense. Volunteer some of your spare time with Organizing For America- Obama needs more credulous supporters to help corporate sell-outs get re-elected this fall.
I said nothing against Rosa Parks. Her case was different. MLK built a consensus. He didn't exclude anyone. Being sincere and inclusive didn't help him huh? MLK was hammered by rightwing racists and "purist left" too. Olemanriver sort of confirmed it.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/04/02-1
OleManRiver April 2nd, 2010 11:28 am
Interesting that I have little memory of accusations against ML King of the sort described here, although in retrospect I am not surprised. But then, in 1967 I was living and working near a large university where anti-war students were very active and where King was criticized for being far too moderate.
Meanwhile, I wonder to what extent his "Beyond Vietnam" speech might have influenced Robert F. Kennedy's decision to run for president as an anti-war candidate. I do remember RFK's spontaneous speech to a huge crowd in Indianapolis as he announced that MLK had been assassinated.
People should also recall that by 1967 most of the major civil rights legislation had been rammed through by LBJ so it wasn't so easy to organize around a cause that some said had been won. King was correct to find a related cause and few are more important than issues of war and peace. A year later, in Memphis, he was moving to connect civil rights to poverty and labor organization regardless of race, in a very real sense trying to create an ecumenical movement. ...
OleManRiver April 3rd, 2010 4:11 pm
As to MLK being considered too moderate back in the day (1967...), there were many who viewed peace marches, civil rights protests and passive resistance in general as ineffective and MLK was directly associated with this tactic.
One name should conjure this view, Malcolm X. But there were many others, including the Weather Underground, the four bombers of the AMRC (Army Math Research Center) building at the University of Wisconsin in Aug., 1970, etc.
I am not saying that I thought MLK too moderate at the time. Frankly, I thought back then that, tactically, both threads were important. One to keep the issues on people's minds, the other to show what could happen if changes weren't made, as in "bringing the war home."
Before King's 1967 speech most white anti-war activists were very pro-civil rights, but with an emphasis on a different agenda. After that speech and shortly after the 1968 Democrat Convention, members of the Chicago Seven mediated an important meeting between black radicals Fred Hampton & Mark Clark with a white "working class" Chicago northside "gang" called Rising Up Angry. The attempt was to enable the two sides to see their mutual interests and to recognize that "The Man" gained from their division. Probably around 100 people attended that conclave, which was very informal. Hampton and Clark were later assassinated by the original Mayor Daley's goon squads.
It wasn't that King was not admired, it was simply the view that civil disobedience just didn't cut it.
During the early 80's, attending public school in suburban Detroit, students were assesed with a report card that included a letter grade (A-F) and both citizenship and effort numericals (1-5). I can even recall teachers frequently buttressing a lagging student's grade with 'extra credit' in the guise participation points.
Glen Dreck, 'Drug' Rush Limbaugh, Sham Sannity, 'Listen & you're a Mark' Levin.... There are an endless number of right wing talk show hosts on radio and little more than a handful of liberal ones.
This article ignores the enormous imbalance between the two.
A 2007 study by The Center for American Progress documented the disparity in air time & number of shows:
"As this report will document in detail, conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format:
Our analysis in the spring of 2007 of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners reveals that 91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive.
Each weekday, 2,570 hours and 15 minutes of conservative talk are broadcast on these stations compared to 254 hours of progressive talk—10 times as much conservative talk as progressive talk.
A separate analysis of all of the news/talk stations in the top 10 radio markets reveals that 76 percent of the programming in these markets is conservative and 24 percent is progressive, although programming is more balanced in markets such as New York and Chicago."
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/talk_radio.html
Note: The study was done in 2007 - well before the collapse of 'Air America'.
Simple, left leaning talk radio has no market,it's no mystery,no huge studies needed.
That is a right-wing meme. When Limbaugh was on the air he wasn't making a profit for the first 3 or 4 years - he was subsidized by right-wingers with deep pockets. I never saw any overall numbers but it wasn't uncommon to hear announcements on Air America saying yet another station that carried them had been purchased and was converting to religious or right-wing programming. I suspect those stations were targeted for purchase just to reduce the number of stations carrying Air America.
The right likes to say there is no market for liberal talk radio because it plays into their lie that the majority of Americans support conservative policies.
If Air America made money it would still be on the air,capitalist enjoy making money.
Air America went bankrupt.
There was a lot of talk about financial mismanagement when it went under. The station also lost or fired some of its most popular talent. None-the-less, it did have an impact. Al Franken, their original 'name' radio show talker, became a Senator. Many Air America alumni became well known due to their exposure on Air America: Randi Rhodes, Thom Hartman, Mike Malloy and Rachael Maddow for example.
Wikipedia has a very good article on the whole history of Air America.
"because it plays into their lie that the majority of Americans support conservative policies."
–(crtrl-z)
Perhaps as foreign nationals, we fail to see this as being even remotely true.
We live in San Francisco, putatively one of the most 'liberal' even 'left' cities in America and continue to be astonished not only as to how "conservative" the majority of Americans are, but actually how neo-fascist they actually are.
It would be lovely to be disabused of this mordant assessment and be proven wrong.
"Americans are killers." –(D.H. Lawrence, "Studies in Classic American Literature.") ???.
(Not sure of the provenance of this quote as it is culled from memory fragment and hence speculative).
–Vashkar & Kim.
Nobody told you to live in San Francisco. You're free to move anytime. Why don't you move to Fargo where I live? We don't have neofascists in North Dakota. You'll like it out here.
Vashkar & Kim: I hope you enjoyed your vacation & that all is proceeding as it should with your anticipated addition.
A Media Matters sponsored poll is one of the main supports for the idea that most Americans aren't right-wingers.
The posting at this link covers it far better than I could:
http://open.salon.com/blog/kemstone
/2010/07/31/you_might_be_a_liberal_and_not_even_know
(One line)
As for provenance, I do not think you would (or did) intentionally fail to make an attribution.
Now back to my usual hating what you say but loving the way you say it.
ctrl-z
Deleted double post.
sabo...i think you put your finger on the "gist"....the so called centrist position is in
reality skewed to the right and in the "DANGER ZONE"...those who sanctify HIVE thinking always associate the middling with reason AND god.... and the so-called extremes, found at the ends of the BELL CURVE are ALWAYS "wrong"....this so-called reasonable thinking is nothing more than a paen to conformity (checking out the templeton prize will give a pretty clear idea of the norman vincent peale raison d'etre)....people who try to convert the lefties on this site are not engaging in political discourse, they are here to do "god's" work...PRAISE THE BELL CURVE FROM WHOM ALL BLESSING FLOW...
Just who do you have to be to get posted at CD? If an economist from Bangor, why not a retired English professor from Pewee Valley? Or a fry cook from Rehoboth? Especially if all we get is more or less aimless ramblings that add up to little more than "Can't we all just get along?"
Don't let the fascists bully you. You don't have to be a member of Sioux Rose's or RichM's secret club to post. It gets boring after a while when the same posters remain.
Another one of Shawn Berry's many aliases and transparently so!
Another one of Sioux Rose's many aliases and transparently so! Have a taste of your own medicine, liar. Is that how you treat your education and experience?
Edit: Ok I'll leave you and Sioux alone now. You can't take constructive criticism, aye? Geeeesh !
;) There can only be one Pewee Valley! Hello from The Highlands!
Ok Siouxrose and Vashkar Kim, you can have the board to yourself. Keep it !