the extremist of our country, top four to bat,(no oreily), its very sad people actually believe these people who play on fear and hate of others to make massive amounts of money.

Im happy that more and more people are waking up and realizing who these people truly are. muckraking, extremist,hateful people who plays on hated towards others races to make up there base.

I look forward to listening to this show.

High emotion sells. Getting people angry is easier than running other emotions high. That’s why these media types do it. They are “entertainers” much more than news people so they go with what attracts and holds an audience. It’s about the money not about making the world a better place.

These are smart people so it is hard to beleive they actually believe some of the stuff they are spouting BTW.

Thank you, President Obama for ridding the world of three Somali scumbags. Please dispatch warships to the area to continue the eradication of these thugs from the face of the earth.

I don’t understand how much of what Fox News presents can be called “news.” It’s not journalism, it’s vitriolic propaganda for the right. It’s called “news” and those inclined to believe the hate speech and fear mongering presented there actually think it’s objective reporting. Freedom of speech protects their right to be broadcast, but don’t call it “news.” It’s a huge part of the problem.

I hope this show is objective. These people are on the air 15 hours per week, but I have a feeling a few inflammatory soundbites are going to distract from the larger argument against the Obama policies.

It seems to me that the hyperboly from all the right wing talk shows are blowing things out of proportion. There have not been any proposals to ban or restrict guns and access to guns by the Obama Administration that I have seen or heard about. The three dead officers in Pennsylvania are the direct result of the right wing blow-hards.

Yet when the Bush administration did abrogated parts of the Constitution all these same people were silent. It is clearly documented that the probation against unreasonable search and seizure was violated by Bush. This impacted every citizen in the US when guns only impact a few. This by a gun owner: I have two handguns and two rifles.

I am presently in Germany, my permanent residence is in Austin, Texas.

Being here over the last 3 months I am not sure how representative these radio people of the U.S. population?
Can you put a number of what percentage of the U.S. population these commentators speak for?

Are the people that supported Sarah Palin in the demographic of these radical right people?

Thanks, David

This is the new “business as usual”.. During the Bush years, conservative media made a fortune by disparaging the left. It’s only going to get louder under a liberal president.

It’s like fishermen throwing chum in the water to foment a feeding-frenzy among sharks. The greater the anger, the greater their ratings…

It’s all about the RATINGS.

In response to the guest who says this has always been with us, I would like to know what effect it has if it is running 24 hrs a day on thousands of radio stations and cable stations. I think it makes an enormous difference!

A few observations:

1. I suspect that one purpose of this idiotic rhetoric is to get would-be donors to open their wallets and support the purveyors of this nonsense, and/or join relevant organizations. Anger and fear are good ways of shutting down critical reasoning.

2. But I still don’t understand, and I wish some behavioral science professional would explain, how this stuff works, since so much of this propaganda is so easily shown to be false.

3. These folks are, of course, exercising their freedom of speech. But at the same time, aren’t they the very height (or depth) of anti-patriotism?

Wasn’t John Adams called, repeatedly, a ‘Monarchist’ during his administration?

Jon Stewart said it best…it’s called losing, not tyranny.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=baracknophobia-obey

It’s funny listening to your radically left wing guests bashing rhetoric with rhetoric.

I think that these guys are absolutely ridiculous. The more frightening thing is that people believe those guys.

During the Bush years Indep. and Progressives were saying things like, 1984 is here. But, there was proof- wiretapping US citizens, the right to label ANY US citizen as Enemy Combatant… The right wing press is racist and largely insincere.

What is really terrifying to me is that somehow the vitriolic rhetoric that these “conservatives” spew is actually reaching a segment of the population that not only believes them, but actually finds ways to act on these beliefs through more hate and violence.

The talk radio hate-mongers are both malicious and idiotic at the same time. Any thinking individual should know that the message delivered by these right-wing talk show hosts is based on false-hoods and innuendo. I believe in the right to free speech, but what is the difference between this type of speech and sedition?

A caller just said that the “left wing media” used to do the same thing to W. I don’t recall anyone on NPR ever calling for armed rebellion as Rush has done. I don’t recall anything, anywhere in the media that equates with the insanity of Glen Beck. It’s disheartening to hear this conservative listener compare what’s going on on far right radio to the fictitious boogey man of the “liberal media” and it makes me think that there is far less hope that people on the right will see through the rhetoric of extreme right pundits.

We’re sitting here with our mouths hanging open. It’s clear that after listening to you for years – we’ve been misled. We’ll be turning to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh now for insightful, honest political coverage. We had no idea NPR wanted to take our guns, and merge Mexico, Canada and the US. What a bunch of baloney.

I think we need to “zoom out” here and look at some underlying factors that drive this variety of commentary:

1. Excited media figures make more money. No matter what your political stance, the more excited your presentation, the more money your show will make and therefore successful you are – particularly in modern television culture.

2. We are in a new depression and people are upset. To say the least, the current president is going to get some heat.

3. Combine those above with an ousted political party and you have yourself many upset individuals and constituents. The current rhetoric is meant to support a 2012 Republican election.

…in general I would love for folks to take a step back before stepping in to the middle of things, especially in these hard times when it’s easier to get confused. Generally, modern news media doesn’t assist this.

I listened to the first minute or two of the program and then had to turn the radio off. The hate and lies spewing from Hannity,Beck,Limbaugh, and Savage made me
physically ill and angry. I was hoping that once Obama was elected and a new optimism had taken over our country that these old men and their message of hate would die off and fade away. Of course I should have known better that the collapsed economy that their buddy Bush left us and an African American President would just provide more fodder for their bullying. How do I deal with this kind of entertainment masquerading as news? I don’t watch or listen.

Lets face it. I bet these four talkies capture more listenership in numbers than Obama captured in the popular vote. He won the majority of the votes from the percentage of people at the polls, not a majority of the citizenship.

If these guys message didn’t ring true with people, they would be out of business. Maybe thats why the liberal newspapers are going under.

I am opposed to 90% of Obamas policies, but I didn’t learn them from radio or tv talk shows. Main stream media spells it out clear enough for me. Im afraid of this “world integration” he is leading us into.

comparing rush limgaugh to kieth olberman is like comparing the earth to mars because they are both planets.
There doesn’t have an anologue on the left for all the garbage on the right.
stewart

The Unitarian Jihad has proclaimed a Fatwa against the teachings of Rush Limbaugh (&co)! He will be sentenced to spend one year at a Buddhist retreat undergoing sensitivity training and learning the ways of the Dalai Lama!

As a culture, we as Americans are followers. The more folks tear down the substance of the arguments the more folks will see the error of their ways. Our problem is that we should not be focusing on the emotionalism that the right engenders. We should focus on critiquing the substance of their arguments. Then the right is simply left with a minority of conspiracy theorists. I work in a school in SC and most of the folks down here watch FOX news. After a conversation with me they say to me. “Oh. I never looked at it that way.” Or, “Really. Where did you learn that?” Most are not radicals. They just get their info from a singularly minded source, thus they subscribe to that single mindset. Progressives have to be bigger than the fire stokers and not engage in the same tactics that they put forth.

The Right has been rehearsing what they want to say since just after election day. It is all theatrics and beyond anything that could be rightly calld “politics”. I heard long ago that many Europeans see American politics as adolescent in practice (I suppose they reserve the antics of a Berlesconi as an exception of their own maturity). And the methods and style of The Right as the perfect example of this. It is not much far from the school playground, which I suppose their audience hasn’t grown much beyond themselves.

Limbaugh, Hannity and that crowd are on a demagogical tear, seizing a tumultuous moment in our history to gather the weakest minds around their hot-air fueled rants. To them I say: “Keep digging. Wear yourselves out. You are eventually going to be exposed. You have no ideology other than that of self-aggrandizement, no plan for solving the worst problems we’ve faced in decades. Your party had power for a long time, and handed over to our guy a steaming pile of dung. Now you’re complaining that he’s disposing of it. You are pathetic examples of the worst of humanity.”

It is hard to compare the rhetoric of eight years of GWB to that of three months of the Obama administration. Compare the rhetoric of the first three months of GWB to this and you will see that the right is being much harder on Obama in these first three months than the left was in that period to GWB.

Farewell journalism. We hardly knew ye.

I am not a fan of any camp that seems wholly dismissive of the position of the other, that is just not real life. The Right and Left in this country are equally myopic and I am, for that reason, having a hard time listening to Mr. Ashbrook’s show and not thinking it is doing the very thing it is criticizing. I dont feel there is any attempt at an objective debate – only distracting soundbites that are being labeled as typical of the Right. Why wouldn’t the show also include typical rants of the Left. Both are equally hysterical and the press sells it as news. The real issue is whether there should be a call to reason, for broadcasters to stop using fear and to attempt civil debate instead. But we should be careful not to call anyone who disagrees with a President a troublemaker. Didn’t Bush’s people to the same thing? Now Obama’s people are doing the same? Mr. Ashbrook’s show seems just as one dimensional as Mr. Limbaugh’s. How about a show debating economic strategies, successes and failures of certain policies rather than administrations.

One of the things that they have not mentioned is that during the Bush Administration these same people frequently stated that we should support the President and not call him a “liar” or other negative comments. That to do so was “unconstitutional and unAmerican.” That was when it was a President that they agreed with. Now that they are no longer in power, it is fair game to call our President a fascist, communist and other negative names. So which is it?? Do we have free speech or not?

I don’t recall a gunman or other terrorist revealing his actions to listening to NPR. Hate is an easy sell for the right wing fringe looking for ratings

As far as the guns, and the implication that gun sales are connected to the current political climate. They are- but only as pertains to gun laws and the fear of those becoming more stringent, it is not some underlying link to plans to murder liberals en mass.

When Bush was in the process of steamrolling over our liberties, torturing innocent people, waging wars and ruining our economy where was the outrage from these talking head and their listeners? In fact, when innocents are shot because of being stirred up by pundits (like in churches, the cops last week, etc.) who are they listening to? Olbermann, Maddow? No, not once. It’s no coincidence that the violence stems from the rhetoric espoused by these purveyors of hate. There is definately a cause and effect. If the violence isn’t flowing both ways then purpose should be able to be established. I’m definately not against free speech but people must be held accountable for their words when people are dying.

All these far-right wing commentators are playing a very dangerous game. When you get people this riled up in an era when there seem to be more and more massacres (of family members, fellow-students, and others), when your listeners respond by buying guns, some kind of violent action is bound to happen. It will surely come from some kind of fringe group or individual but it is very likely happen. I think it is just a matter of time.

Yes, there is overheated rhetoric on both left and right. The important difference is that the left has a principled commitment to nonviolence when the ballot box fails, and the right does not.

Please name one right wing talk show that actually discusses issues. All of them seem to only scream and disparage anyone who disagrees.

If we want to return to “civil discourse” we need to create consequences for telling lies. Freedom of expression is not the same thing as freedom to say anything one wants, whether it is true or not. I’d like to see a show focus on what it would take to put some more teeth back into our laws on slander and libel.

A few of your guests made the point that one cannot reasonably trace a single act of violence to violent rhetoric–maybe, for example, the perpetrator was “crazy.” Okay–let’s stipulate to that. The perpetrator was crazy. That’s a given. But it’s an attempt to obfuscate the connection of the dots from violent rhetoric to violent acts. Yigal Amir assasinated Yitzchak Rabin in the climate of violent rhetoric in Israel comparable to the spewage from these right wing windbags confronting the US today and we had best wake up to the real danger. Timothy Mcveigh was no doubt similarly “crazy.”

Your guests try to untangle violent acts from violent rhetoric even as they note gun and ammo shortages across the country. Rush Limbaugh’s audience is arming itself to the teeth for the coming “revolution” and your guests try to argue that violent rhetoric is somehow unrelated to violent acts. Balderdash.

Aren’t there laws against inciting violence..? It seems that most of the raving right could fall foul of them. One of the callers said it was the same as Harry Reid getting up infront of a bunch of kids and calling GW Bush a liar. Er, no it’s not. Bush was clearly caught telling lies several times. There is no way Obama comes close to the things being said about him by the Fox talking heads and their ilk.
I agree with Liz Ryan Cole above, there should be a difference between freedom of expression and saying anything that comes into your (or your script writer’s) head.

Someone on the show said, “I can’t imagine who listens to this stuff.” Well, I live in “liberal” Massachusetts, yet have many neighbors that vote Democratic AND listen to right talk radio regularly. It IS entertaining, in the sense if a bloody car accident – you are disgusted and horrified but can’t look away. It passes the time during a boring commute. “What outrageous thing will Jay Severin (or Rush or…) say next?” Harmless? Perhaps. But my own view is that right wing hate radio has a corrosive effect. While it may or may not spread hate and trigger violence, it certainly adds to political and social confusion, and in the end, apathy. Where, except for NPR and PBS can you get news anymore? John Stewart?

The situation will not improve until shows like this one stop acting as fight promoters who provide the venue for the conservatives and liberals to fight and start acting like referees that stop allowing participants to make unsupportable claims. I’m not sure, however, that the average jounalist has the knowledge base to act as a referee — it’s much easier to be a fight promoter.

I live in Leftist nirvana. If I were to listen only to NPR I would hear a left bias. Contrary to one of the guests on the show, most listeners to Glenn Beck are concerned about the slide of our country away from the intention and practice of our constitution. I have never heard him call for arms against the left. I have learned how present day decisions line up with the constitution. His recent show traced the development of progressive ideas. It looked at the hyperinflation in Nazi Germany. I have heard similar concerns from economists today. Why not a show that looks at the same thing as Beck and educate the folks? The concerned folks look to Fox News not commentary to give a fair and balance report. Regarding commentators, the lefts approach to challenging Fox are poorly listened to for serious listeners. Fox is the only station which has traced Obama’s radical stance on abortion. I don’t get that on regular news. Reading the comments on this site is evidence that most haven’t really listened to the shows they condemn. To bad they might learn something.

The liberals just can’t get a break. They contol both the executive branch and the legislative branches of goverment, and yet they feel paralyzed and under siege by a handful of conservative commentators who have the right under the first amendment to point out the the socialist and reckless direction that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want to take this country down. If Obama and the Deomcratic party can’t even stand up to the constructive criticism of a few conservative commentators, then they don’t deserve the priviledge of governing our nation.

The last time I can recall that the Left in this country had rhetoric at the level that the Right has now is in the 60’s (Revolution! Off the pigs! etc.), and the domestic acts of violence fed by the white-hot speech came from left-wingers.
Where is the equivalence today? The violence is coming from right-wingers these days, fed by the over-the-top right-wing propagandists. The assertion that the rhetoric from left and right is the same these days is fatuous.
I am not advocating muzzling anyone, but I would like more varied views aired, and I don’t see how this can happen in corporate-run media without government intervention. Let the crazy rightwingers talk, but let the crazy leftwingers talk, too, and to a comparable audience.

Never, in all the Bush years, did the rhetoric from the so-called left approach this apocalyptic pitch. More often than not, the so-called left would illuminate an action already taken by Bush and point out how the action was, in fact, either unconstitutional or on the road towards being unconstitutional. Yes, he was called a lot of names. But even then, the mainstream (or corporate) press cut him a tremendous amount of slack. Now, not even 100 days in his presidency, the rabid right is speaking in tongues about end-of-the-world events based upon events that not only haven’t even happened, but aren’t even being considered.

The fact of the matter is, we as Americans live in a giant parochial bubble. We still believe – for whatever reason – in American Exceptionalism, divine providence and the myth of the rugged individual. It’s time for America to grow up, and these puerile commentators are keeping some of us in a state of permanent social adolescence. If we were to place a Barack Obama, Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton in a Canadian, German, French, British or Italian parliament, they would be in the moderate left or even possibly the moderate right. Most of the commentators and even many members of our Congress and Senate would be squarely ensconced in the far right in most other major democracies in the world. In some democracies, there wouldn’t even be a place to seat them.

So, to Glen Beck, John Savage, Rush Limbaugh, et. al. and all their listeners and adherents: grow up, calm down and listen for a change.

I am an advocate of free speech. I also believe that one should use their words responsibly – and that there are consequences for one what one says.

I wonder: do people espouse such extreme views bear any responsibility for the actions their words incite? If someone commits murder and claims they were moved to action by someone on Fox News or CNN, does the network and presenter share responsibility? Can they be held accountable? Should they be? I think of the example of someone shouting “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. Then again, I also think the farce of congressional hearings held at the request of Tipper Gore and the PMRC about the dangers of rock lyrics.

I am so glad that I am a Canadian. I would be terrified to live in a country where this kind of paranoia and hate is spouted on the airwaves and people are wandering around armed to the teeth.

I’ve always loved the way the right likes to trot out MSNBC whenever criticism of Fox news comes up. People like Keith Olbermann came into being as an antidote to the virulent hate mongering and political inaccuracies of the right wing talk show circuit. I also resent the fact that criticism of Obama by this faction of cable news is equivalent to the critcism that was leveled at Bush over the last eight years. For God’s sake, the guy along with Cheney and many on his cabinet landed us in the mess we’re in. We WERE lied to on all sorts of levels. And it’s not like people like Olbermann and Maddow give Obama and the Democrats a free pass. I feel that they do a good job of trying to make the issues of the day understood. The left has been putting up with the right’s smear tactics for too long. When we fight back, it’s made to seem like we are on the same level as the Fox news types. Not fair.

Thank you for addressing the tone of the message as being separate from the message itself.

If an event is tied to something highly emotional it is remembered more clearly… whether personal or worldwide. People remember how they “feel” but not necessarily all the details. When people feel such “fear” that is all they need to remember without digging deeper and getting the facts.

In schools we are teaching students the importance of using “I-messages” and that we cannot accurately judge a person’s motives or intentions. When anyone (in this case Rush, et al.) says things like “Obama really wants to destroy capitalism” or “He really believes….”. Instead, report the facts without trying to get inside someone’s heart. To say “Obama announced the decision to….” ” I disagree with this policy” is much different and more credible than the majority of the other comments.

I love my husband dearly but I do not agree with everything he says or does. I supported Obama and of course will not agree with everything. I believe we must trust the officials have access to better information than any of us will have and stay involved in the issues we care about most.

However, I will respect Obama’s dignity and his intelligence and never discount his character.

Beck’s 9 Principles:9 Principles
1. America Is Good.

2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.

3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson

7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson

Spread The Word

* E-mail this story to a friend!

I have been hearing some strange things from co-workers; Obama is going to take away our guns and other, even weirder stuff.I didn’t know where this was coming from, I figured Rush Limbaugh but after your show I realize it is more widespread. While it is true that it is always necessary to question and to be critical( which is a right and a duty)this stuff is neither.It is demonizing attack talk. This certainly can come from the left and when it does I think those who act this way have more in common with each other than with reasonable people, right or left or whatever.If you want to hear reasonable Republican views go to RepublicansforObama.org

I can’t believe that some people on this blog still believe that NPR is liberal or Left of center.or that Mickey Edwards was one of the “radical left’ on this show. IN the late 90’s through2001/02, Mickey Edwards was one of many voices from the Heritage Foundation who enjoyed chronic exposure behind the mike on “All Things Considered”, week after week, at the expense of any voices on the left.Never mind the war fevered coverage of Iraq and AFghanistan from Scott Simon, Morn. Ed. Liane Hansen and Neal Conant. Yes, these hosts do not go to the extremems of rhetoric as do Limbaugh et al but quite often the only difference between NPR and Rush Limbaugh is the former’s eloquence and refinement. rarely one fo substance.

By the way–It is not “fascist” to govern the country on the basis of winning a free and fair election. That’s not “fascism.” That’s democracy. The Right raves about the “Constitution.” They seem to be confused on this point. It is the Constitution that bequeathes to them the right to be an out of power minority. One wonder why they hate America so much.

I heard the same rhetoric from a radio talk show host named Chuck Harder during the Clinton administration. Harder proclaimed Clinton was a murderer, drug runner, real estate swindler, communist and every other despicable person one could imagine. Do you remember the “Clinton Chronicles”? Chuck was right, however, that Clinton was a liar and deserved his consequences. The rest was totally unfounded.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Jeff

I can’t remember how many times I heard liberals sell the line about bush deceived the country and sold out our troops big oil for almost four years straight despite the fact that the iraq war destroyed iraqi oil production and I never once remember an onpoint program that dealt with liberal hatred yet after four months of the obama administration there’s a program dealing with conservative hatred. I’ll still listen there’s uglies on both sides and I’m definitely not a fan of the commentators mentioned but onpoint is definitely losing objectivity points in my book.

It was hard to listen today’s show without heating up anger on those irrational comments from the media.
I can’t believe they can even open their mouth to say such atrocities!
WHO other than the former president has left the country the way it is? and WHO from their GOP and HOW can fix the mess left behind??

Also, there definitely are liberal agenda pushers in the media though NPR isn’t one of them Michael Moore, Kieth Olberman, Arianna Huffington, Daily Kos, and the Air America crew all come to mind. Granted they may not be as powerful as right wing fringe commentators but that doesn’t make them any less reprehensible.

Another thing that comes to mind is the massachusetts liberal who listens to right wing talk listed above. Part of the reason these commentators are successful is that they play to certain stereotypes. For example Michael Savage is flagshipped out of San Francisco not a more conservative city like Dallas, Denver or even Vegas and is an obvious play on liberal paranoia if I’ve ever heard one.

I heard a lot of false equivalencies on today’s show from both the host and Mickey Edwards. I greatly admire Mr. Edwards for his honest and intellectual reasoning, but the idea that liberals were as nasty as today’s right wing is just not possible. I was a liberal “back in the day” and I don’t remember any commentary anywhere near as volatile and defamatory as we’ve gotten from the Right. Would you compare and equate a NY Times editorial objecting to one of Ronald Reagan’s policies to conservative operatives who created and promoted the accusation that the Clintons murdered someone?

I found myself wondering today if Tom Ashbrook’s style of game show host moderating is the most effective way to elevate civil discourse. Would it be such a tragedy if we had to listen to someone a little more serious sounding?

these four horsemen of idiocy , limbaugh,hannity and the rest,
are to legitimate journalism what professional wrestling is to
the olympic ideal. they’re only in it for the money. it’s like comparing some pompadoured t.v evangelist to the dali lama.
the current rash of “tea parties” being staged all over the nation are another sign of the fear being struck in the hearts of
the gop.

“Yes, there is overheated rhetoric on both left and right. The important difference is that the left has a principled commitment to nonviolence when the ballot box fails, and the right does not.”

Brent, Weather Underground was a leftist group that believed in violence. Black Panther Party. Che Guevara. Shining Path in Peru. Plenty of examples where left is/was committed to violence. I’m no fan of right wing, but let’s not try to whitewash left ideologies in this game of “us vs. them” and “us” having a moral high ground? There are many examples where ideologues on left and right have indulged in violence.

And today, it’s the left that gives all kinds of justification for radical Islamic terrorism.

Let’s keep it real, OK?

While rhetoric is important I think the more important thing is a ‘lack of objectivity’.

I’m a conservative but I follow both more conservative and more liberal media though I try to avoid the more unreasonable media on both sides. I can tell you from personal experience that liberals are more angry about conservatives and conservatives are more angry about liberals.

However, both sides have their share of unreasonables the issue isn’t how loud or how angry they are IMO but the fact that they deliberately ignore and manipulate facts in favor of agenda.

This really scares me. America is weak right now, and for public figures to stand up and demand a revolution… it’s freakin’ scary. People are just stupid enough to believe anything they hear, and inciting a revolution is not only traitorous, it could result in the destruction of the USA. It’s one thing to call for civil action, but to bring guns into the mix? I’d like to keep my freedom, thank you.

Yes, the left boiled over now and then about the actions and character of W, but there’s a difference: leftwing broadcasters didn’t and don’t (that I’ve heard) incite listeners to violence. The right does. So what to do about irresponsible and greedy rightwing talkers? Go after their advertisers. Protest. Spread the word about what they’re supporting. Link them persistently to the words and the anger. Don’t let up until advertisers stop underwriting these shows.

*****High emotion sells. Getting people angry is easier than running other emotions high. That’s why these media types do it. They are “entertainers” much more than news people so they go with what attracts and holds an audience. It’s about the money not about making the world a better place.

These are smart people so it is hard to beleive they actually believe some of the stuff they are spouting BTW.*****

So true, and can’t agree more.

Sure this country exercise “freedom of speech”, But to a point, people have abused their freedom, like those radical right wings, in order to gain profit.

That’s why having an open mind and educating ourselves are so important, and this mentality has to start from our school teaching and parenting.

I am 77 years young! I remember the McCarthy era, when there were black lists and “Are you now or have you ever been?” This is the climate that the RIGHT is trying very hard to create and become a part of our lives. I witnessed the impact on the entertainment community! Wake up America…don’t let this happen again. By constantly repeating their destructive talk…the public feels it is the truth. America…WAKE UP!

I hate radio and only listen to NPR, but I have to say I was disappointed in the show today. It’s easy to use a smooth, calm voice and still present a divisive position.

The Right is going ballistic, and it is not pleasant to listen to this; but the Left went just as ballistic under the Bush administration and will ramp up again in the future no doubt. It doesn’t sound like crazy ranting if you agree with it. But trust me, it is crazy ranting (maybe a moment to listen to teens calling Obama the Messiah on YouTube?).

While other view points can be hard to listen to, some soul searching is needed by both sides. There are just as many climate change wackos (remember the Green Peace guys?) as there are gun wackos. Religious zeal has just moved from the pews to the public square. Both parties have good points, but I’m not interested in having either of these positions shoved down my throat. Fortunately I can still vote with the power button on my radio.

The overdramatics of some of Glen Beck’s (and others) presentations (like the gasoline gig) are clearly theater but it seems in the age of television it may take pure theater to drive home some simple points. As an audience we have been numbed and seem to be grasping for more and more sensationalism. So why not in our “news”. In electing Obama, Americans wanted change to politics as it has come to be defined and so far the typical leadership response goes something like “We need to do this, this way, this time, but next time we are going to do it the way we promised (see Earmarks, see Military allocations, see Transpearancy)” Sounds like we need a twelve step program as well as a stimulus plan. I think the growing sensationalism mirrors the growing frustration in American homes that the simple mandate for change is being ignored. We cannot begin to understand the impact of complicated financial actions but we are not so uninformed as to fail to understand that our interests (see the country as a hole) are not being represented by either party. These guys like Beck may be feeding this frenzy but they did not create it. To continue to ignore the growing frustration in America where the real danger exists.

I almost lost it when that guy from Connecticut called, cut off the former congressman and tom, then claimed that he had heard the same bias from On Point. Yes, some programs on NPR may be a bit too liberal too be considered objective, but Tom has always made a point of staying between the arguments. Sometimes I have even been shocked when he would shoot down Jack Beatty with a neutral retort. Still, Mr Ashbrook is one of the best commentators we have on the radio now, and it angered me to hear him so carelessly grouped into the leftist conspiracy.
Onto more substantive material, the right had no problem when our constitutional rights were violated by Bush over and over again, or when our troops were sent into two needless wars, or when it became legal to tap our phones and read our emails, or when it became OK to imprison ordinary citizens, ad nauseum.
As those of us with an ability to critically reason know, all rhetoric is bull, but this is blatantly unpatriotic. if liberals claimed what conservatives are now claiming during the Bush years, they would be in Guantanamo.
We all know who the real fascist was, and he just finished his 8 years

I think that your show got it wrong, or at least a lot of your “guests” did. Calling Bush or Clinton a liar or a jerk is not the same as suggesting that someone is trying to subvert the constitution and is about to round up children and put them in concentration camps. Hopefully, it goes without saying that someone has the right to say any of the above; but there are differences between what the right and the left are saying. They are not mirror images of each other. It would seem that the real problem is not whether a person is making somewhat extreme statements but whether they have facts to back up their accusations and claims.

Further, the right are not only on talk radio, they are all over the TV mainstream so-called journalism shows (where they are never called on to back up their claims) Further Buchanan, Beck and the like are basically saying that the time is oming soon when proper thinking people will have to fight the govenrment and its foriegn allies. The silly way your guest attempted to balance off the right and left by saying, well left wing groups such as the black panthers did the same sort of demogogory is silly.

The Pnathers said that Afro-americans needed to protect themselves from government and police violence because the govenrment not only wouldn’t do so but was the source of a lot of the violence. In fact, it turned out that the government was involved in secret violence against left wing groups (see Fred Hampton; see the secret FBI programs, see the CIA actions aginst the Panthers, see the various local police force attacks. And that is not even to mention the police involvement and sanctioning of the Klan in lynchings against Afro-americans).

If your guests want to claim some sort of equvilency between commentators who call for the killing of left wing or gay people with the Panthers or elements of the civil rights movement that called for self protection against govenrment sanctioned violence, you need some new guests.

I appreciated the discussion that was held about guns and gun ownership today. There needs to be more discussion of this topic. I live in the Mountain West where hunting is prime and gun ownership seems to be the topic of the day. So far, the NRA has so cowed western legislatures and congressional delegations that no one is willing to stand up and talk about the “responsibility” that goes along with the rights. Just today I read a small piece in the local paper about a 7 year old who shot her sister with a loaded gun she found while staying at their grandfather’s home. This is not an uncommon occurrence.

Every time the topic of reasonable regulations such as gun locks, gun storage, gun registration, closing loopholes, a ban on assault weapons and better enforcement come up the NRA and other gun advocacy groups begin whipping up the “fear factor” about gun control. Proper gun storage, gun locks or both would have prevented the 7 year old and her sister from that tragic incident.

I appreciate the fact that a discussion about this topic was held on your show. I hope there will be subsequent shows talking about responsible gun ownership and reasonable gun regulations.

Right-wing rhetoric has grown chilling. To see Glenn Beck narrow his repulsive, porcine eyes at the camera and claim tyranny has come to America is a new low in American television.

At bottom, right wing blather is the awful voice of ingratitude. To sit in the freest, wealthiest, most powerful and successful democracy in the history of the world and contend your government is tyrannical or “fascist” is simply shallow, contemptible ingratitude.

Today was a first. I had to turn off your program after hearing a couple of the excerpts from the talk shows. I refuse to listen to anything these four or O’Reilly has to say. They are not contributing anything positive to this country or the society. It is reprehensible that this hate and fear goes out over the airwaves every day and it is even more frightening how many people listen to this worthless nonsense and believe it and spread it. If you truly love this country and believe in it you would want only success for it. It might be well to remember that continual hate and fear propaganda was used by Hitler to brainwash the German people.

It is truly upsetting to what lengths the radio and television networks will go for ratings and money. People all over the world have access to these programs over the Internet. What kind of a message does this give to the world about us as a people?

honest politics is an oxymoron, no? What’s disheartening is not this hour’s broadcast, but the 70-some ignorant comments by arrogant card-carrying leftists and rightists claiming that they know best.

If you’re a “republican” or a “democrat”, you’ve sold out, and shut off your brain. Whatever happened to letting policies stand for themselves? Whatever happened to thinking for yourself?

Do you clowns honestly need to belong to a party before having opinions and beliefs?

“go back to sleep america, your government is in control”

- Bill Hicks

@June

You go girl! Avoid anything that doesn’t completely agree with your ideologies. Its the path to enlightenment.

@On Point

Shut off your comments for shows like this. The comments above demonstrate one thing: 9 out of 10 americans are team players, not independent thinkers.

I would encourage your Boston area listeners to turn the dial from 90.9 to 96.9 occasionally. I listened to Jay Severin on the way home from work this evening.

He began each line with “Barak Obama wants to deliver..”

1. raced based preferences (he mentioned education only once but it came across as being all encompassing preferences)

2. a “guesstimate” of the census in order to exaggerate the number of non-tax paying homeless people who are “sucking” working peoples’s wealth.

3. He also mentioned that Obama was a “domestic enemy of the Constitution”

4. He said that that the Naval Seals who took part in rescue mission may “lose their lives” because of “Captain Obama’s” decision to cut military spending resulting in our lost “supremecy” of the airspace.

5. he wants to legalize all “criminaliens”

6. That the Somali pirates were after 72 “Virginians” (Yes, he did say “Virginians” not Virgins)

This was all in the first five minutes of the show. He said he wasn’t working from notes, he was working off “the top of his head”

You can hear his empahsis on lost supremecy throughout, and this is where the “enemy” part factors in. His use of the phrase “Captain Obama”, as if a black man is now sailing a vessel that the white man is a slave on. I don’t know how contrived this is or whether it is sincere or what, and I don’t know if it matters.

I hope On Point will do more shows tracking right wing radio and Fox News. We need our journalists and those with a genuine interest in our public discourse to identify and call out hate speech and toxic, cynical rhetoric.

The notion that rhetoric like this comes from “both sides” must be resisted with ardent determination. It is simply false to claim that the media gave prime-time sounding boards or hours each working day to people who said anything comparable to some of the clips you’ve played today. The notion that accusing Bush of lying is the same as calling Obama a “nazi” is ridiculous.

And what no one seems to want to point out is that “conservatives,” who bore us with their teary-eyed, phony, patriotic bathos, are willing to respond to a loss at the polls with violent, threatening rhetoric, as though the essential principles of democracy meant something to them only when Republicans were winning at the polls.

To compare Obama — day in, and day out — to Hitler or fascists is a terrible trivializing of fascism, which hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat in WWII. These people — these Becks and Hannities and the jackasses that listen to them — they’re not patriots.

Where is the “party of ideas”? Joe the Plummer joining Sara Palin for a little klan rally down south was they last we saw of it.

interesting to read for anyone to check it out about freedom of speech

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7127423.stm

point this part people can take note

Disciplines

Appeals to truth-seeking won’t justify unconditional press freedom because, as the philosopher Bernard Williams wrote in Truth and Truthfulness: “In institutions dedicated to finding out the truth, such as universities, research institutes, and courts of law, speech is not at all unregulated.”

Any search for truth needs structures and disciplines. It’s undermined by casual disregard of accuracy or evidence. Unconditional freedom just is not optimal for truth-seeking.

Appeals to the right of self-expression also won’t justify unconditional press freedom.

The great 19th Century philosopher John Stuart Mill argued in his book on liberty that freedom of expression for individuals should be limited only by the requirement not to harm others.

He generalised this thought about individual freedom to cover the press. He writes: “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as existing generations; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.

“For if the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: and if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.”

This is not a good argument for unconditional freedom of expression for powerful institutions. Press freedom is not analogous to individual rights of self expression.

Individuals are powerless and they do limited harm if they are casual about accuracy. Yet we do have laws even for them against libel, slander and inciting hatred.

Powerful organisations: governments, businesses, the media which are casual about accuracy can do great harm.

We don’t allow companies to lie about their products, or public authorities to invent their accounts.

Yet if the powerful conglomerates that dominate the global media today had unconditional freedom of expression, they would be entitled to be casual about accuracy, thereby harming others and undermining democracy.

So the claim that press freedom is just like individual freedom of expression, although very fashionable, is unconvincing.

That leaves the needs of democracy as the most convincing reason for press freedom.

These needs don’t justify unconditional press freedom, because democracy needs a press that informs citizens accurately.

Of course, if requirements for accurate reporting were too tightly drawn, the press would be intimidated.

Nobody can be sure of getting everything right-even with zealous “fact checking”.

So a press that serves rather than damages democracy needs to aim for accuracy in its reporting: its claims should be truthful, even if they cannot be guaranteed to be true.

And this standard can be achieved. The media achieve it well in reporting football results and stock prices.

In complex reporting, it can be achieved by providing evidence and qualifications, by telling readers and listeners when the information is uncertain, by editing that corrects errors promptly, and that explicitly distinguishes reporting from commentary, gossip and features.

The right structures

Only the media that report responsibly in this way allow readers and listeners to judge for themselves and so support democracy.

How can this standard be achieved? Some demands on the press would do too much – notoriously censorship, state or other control of the media of their content is risky and counterproductive.

Other demands are too minimal. Merely allowing individuals to complain if misrepresented, as for example the British Press Complaints Commission Code does, achieves little.

Good reporting is a public good, not a consumer product, so complaints procedures for individuals can’t secure or even protect it.

Better standards could be achieved without risking censorship by specific regulation to secure accurate reporting, or at least truthful reporting.

I’ll finish with one example. Accuracy could be supported by requirements to declare and disclose conflicts of interest on reporters, editors and owners.

Why should those who work in the media be exempt from the disciplines faced by others working in other powerful organisations? Press freedom, I suggest, needs more than a slogan; it needs the right structures.

Sorry I just want to make the point: people need to really delve into the content of the message on a psychological level. We all seem to be in basic agreement that these demagogues are not uneducated- that there is some self-awareness. It’s hard to know how much is contrivance versus “talking off the top of one’s head” I do think it is odd that Jay Severin had to tell his audience tonight that he was not speaking from notes- why would he need to do that? Does Tom Ashbrook tell his audience whether he is looking at notes?

Listen to Rush Limbaugh
Obama wants to “cut us down to size”
Lost supremacy

I was extremely disappointed in today’s program. I was also very upset over Tom Ashbrook’s dismissiveness of anyone who brought up that the sheer volume from the extreme right far exceeds anything coming from the left. How can you even equate 2 more liberal minded shows on 1 cable channel and one struggling left wing cable network with the sheer numbers exposed to the lies and hatred of the Beck’s, Rush’s and other hate spewing loudmouths?

I want someone to please tell me who in the liberal media had a 5 day a week platform to tell the truth about the rape of our Constitution by the previous administration, because I would have loved to listen in. Other than Countdown was there any voices of reason. Where were the voices of reason when we were led into a very expensive war? Who pointed out the real cost of the war was being swept under the carpet by a go along Congress? Who bothered to point out that Reganomics didn’t work when Reagan was in the Whitehouse and he had to come back and ask for tax increases?

Please tell me where those voices were. I know they were not on NPR, they were not on AM stations, they were not on Network television, very few were on cable television. Once in a while they could be found on C-Span when the airwaves were not taken over by military talking points.

I am outraged by certain of Obama’s policies. The difference between me and the likes of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity is that I was equally outraged by these policies when Bush promulgated them. (I’m referring mostly to claims of executive power and state secrets in cases involving wiretapping and torture, as well as the misguided TARP plan.) Their outrage would be so much more believable were it not so selective. That, plus the violent intimations, the easily debunked scare-mongering rumors of brainwashing coercion of young people, and the hysterical cries of “fascism,” “Marxism,” and “socialism” (make up your minds, eh?) leave these commentators looking like they are not speaking from a position of good faith. Their rhetoric is not only inflammatory, but it is also frequently factual false, which is dangerous in and of itself.

Also, please do not tolerate false equivalencies. People on the left criticized Bush for things he ACTUALLY DID. People on the right are criticizing Obama for things they fantasize that he might do. People on the left called for a return to constitutional government but rarely called for anything resembling a violent revolution, unless you count an invasion of paper mache puppets as a violent revolution.

I have a question to conservative, it is the following: For 25 years I have listened to conservatives argue that Hollywood and Rap/Rock music on the radio and TV is a major cause or contributor to violence in our culture. Young people listening to it are damaged by the topics. The term is “cultural pollution”.

My question is if this is true? If it is does talk radio have the same effect? Either you were wrong about radio and TV using violent and disrespectful language being detrimental to people, or you were lying (how do you like that “false choice” logical fallacy?).

So does violence on the radio and TV lead to real world violence or doesn’t it?

C Temple –

I agree with your take on the media; however, I disagree with your characterization of todays show. I don’t think anyone was dismissive of the idea that this rhetoric is one-sided. I do think we should be firm in our refusal to accept such equivalencies. They are not credible. But I think Tom handled the discussion with care and wanted to leave ample room for other interpretations.

I’m as pro immigrant as anyone I wrote both my senators and the president on immigration reform and even donated to the McCain campaign when it was almost killed because of McCain’s sponsorship of immigration reform. Also, it’s not social conservatives many of whom have strong ties to the latino community it’s security conservatives who have been responsible for the nasty anti-latino rhetoric.

All that said today’s program was smoke and mirrors. Gun sales are up people must be mad at Obama, one guy who reads conservative books shot people this is ridiculous. Also, that guy who was going to go shoot up synagogues, yeah I’m sure it was all those conservative radio commentators like Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Matt Drudge, Dr. Laura and Joe Scarborough that motivated him(rolls eyes).Conservative radio may be many things some of them no doubt bad but anti-Semitic is definitely not one of them.

Furthermore, dehumanizing people inevitably makes it easier to commit acts of violence against them. That’s inarguable, though tracking the specific link between racist rhetoric and racist violence may be difficult.

You’ve all said everything there is to be said. But it’s all demagoguery. But calling Obama a far-left Marxists is ridiculous. People in power in this country are peas in a pod. There’s nothing this country seems to want to do grow out of adolescence. I did like how the guest mentioned the lack of any rational discourse. I guess the anti-intellectual movement thrives on TV ratings.

it does seem like there is a double standard in terms of characterizing violence. If an Amercian male kills himself in the act of killing others, and has politcal propaganda of hate in his house we don’t call him a terrorst or if he makes a videotape we call him troubled or depressed or paranoid
But we would have no problem calling people who do the exact same things terrorists when they are muslims

its very scary ppl should be free to say their discontent, however, there comes a time when things are way over the top. Some say that this was done by librals however there was never the same amount of danger involved. It seems as if the ppl who are saying this want something bad to happen. It reminds me of an on air Klan program but only this is mainstream. I think much of what is said is causing an increase in hate. People who are in such positions have a duty not to yell and call for a hanging. PPl sound racist VERY racist

Lee –

Good point. In fact, much of this rhetoric might be compared to the rhetoric of terrorist groups.

In effect, these voices from the absurd right wing fringes (now given airtime on Fox) are saying that if they don’t get their way at the polls, they’ll shoot people.

They may not mean it literally, but at some point it starts to effect how the government does business and how we talk about it. It’s a form of subtle intimidation, and we’re gutless and unworthy of liberties if we tolerate it.

Journalists too must stand up against the know-nothing pundits and talk show hosts. In fact, journalists are more in position to do something on this issue than anyone.

I learned some new things listening to your show.I have never heard republicans compared to Nazis or the KKK before. If I listen to these right wing shows I might go out and kill people. I really enjoyed your former Republican congressman. Could you tell me what choke collar he was wearing. I couldn’t even tell when you pulled on it. I enjoyed your guest from the southern law poverty center. What a fair and balanced panel of experts. When can we get rid of these right wing nuts and send them to a reeducation camp for a chance at a normal life? I am so grateful my tax dollars are used for such a wonderful show. Keep up the good work!

Hey Christopher,

How about we use all those “tools” to fight terrorism that G.W. put into place? Let’s tap their phones, look at the library books, torture ‘em even, hey their ticking time bombs right?

About 6 years ago I got a call late at night advising me I should shortly expect a call from Rush Limbaugh (if I remember right) on air, thanks to his suggesting I might have something enlightening to say. I fell back to sleep but hunted down what I thought was the same show. The subject was auto licenses for immigrants. It was post 9/11, I thought it would help national security (to screen out terrorists), so I called in pro license. The host (Limbaugh?) made great fun of me soon after, and the next day, but stumbled around a bit at the time, saying had he misread the party line? Was he not advocating the approved position? I thought, who calls his tune?
If we tend to be fearful and conformist, the dangers of fearmongering need persistent focus.
On guns, I once was babysitting in the early ’70s when a four-year-old got a revolver out of his parents’ bedstand and pointed it at me. I gave up babysitting. The child also tried to push a bureau down the stairs. I was very cool then, warming up now.
I believe the constitutional right to bear arms had more to do with defending the colonies against, say, the British, than against parties of the opposite stripe, Red or Blue. If al Kaida invaded, so to speak, we would be ready. I worry that Obama, who probably knows more than I do, is waiting for some egregious AK-47 event to inflame us all, politician that he is.

I think that, yes, prejudice most likely plays a part and that is not acceptable but that it’s more of a fuel to issues that people are ready to jump on.
The wide spectrum of issues being addressed also give a wider range of people reason to be concerned or angry. The speed in with which things are being handled also may be intimidating people.
But really, if anyone, (black, white, old, young, inexperienced or otherwise) were to take actions that restrict freedom in a person’s view it would be their concious duty to take action. Regardless of whether we need to “take back” our rights etc. we need to more importantly MAINTAIN those rights. Including rights to bear arms.

Here’s my two cents:

Ya know how Fox tried a conservative version of the Daily Show, and it flopped? It turns out that the right isn’t very funny.

I think that a key difference between the left and the right is that the left engages in substantially more intellectual discourse. Admittedly, Olbermann uses the right’s style, but that’s more the exception than the rule. NPR is the rule.

If anybody from the right reads this, you might scoff. But please, consider Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck — they shove their opinions in your face. They shout down guests. They incite. NPR does none of these things.

Yes, you might not agree with their opinions, but ultimately the left has rational discourse, the right does not.

[...] Point with Tom Ashbrook did a segment on conservative hate speech being spewed by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, right-wing talk radio and their counterparts on Fox [...]

Tom,

My hat is off to you for this program, the first to take on the crazy talk that is rippling across the nation. I hope you will follow it up with some further analysis, perhaps exploring approaches that are effective ways to respond constructively to the frantic right. It is not enough to point out that it is out there. Response is as important as recognition. The nation is in a great place to respond.

Brett, How about no cents, or sense? Could you be any more disingenuous? Stewart isn’t funny and is even less entertaining. Have you heard Air America or Rachel “Madcow”? There’s no intellectual discourse there. All of these talking heads are entertainers; judging by the ratings, some are more entertaining than others. They tend to be center-right.

Obama’s constant fear-baiting is excellent fodder for criticism and thank goodness some of taken up the call. Obama has engaged the state’s secret provision three times already. He’s taken secrecy to a whole new level. Will Obama break any other promises? How much power in the hands of government officials is enough? 50% of the population doesn’t pay any income tax. Obama is promising to increase this. Maybe your income will be redistributed? Maybe your phone is tapped? Maybe you drive too nice a car? Is it really a surprise that people are scared?

I am waiting for a radio-equivalent of a town hall therapy session where we can come to a consensus regarding constructive ways to deal with the loony left and their president. Let’s start with the pseudo-science behind man-made climate change.

I find the right wingers terribly humorous and pathetic. Anyone with a brain can see how imbecilic these people are, as well as the millions of halfwits they have listening to them. I say, if one is a Republican and wants to stand on so-called principles, do us a favor and don’t take government subsidies on ANYTHING. Also, while you’re at it, keep in mind that Hollywood despises you as well, so don’t go to movies. By the way, most academic institutions think less of you as well, so save us some time and stay at home polishing your pistols and learning less each day.

By the way, if you think what I just wrote to you right-wingers is in any way disingenous, go and read the polls. Most educated people are NOT conservative, much of the arts community is NOT conservative, and most of the technology sector and other cutting edge fields are NOT conservative.

Do yourselves a favor and travel! It will help open your minds. While you are at it, take a class on political systems, so you can at least get the terminology right. It is pathetic to have people labeling Obama a fascist. I mean he is barely part of a corporatist state. God, these people are dense!

To Arnold:

You “deal with” the “loony left” by dealing WITH them. Us.

As opposed to demonizing us and assuming that we hate America and want to destroy it. That is a false assumption. The widespread belief among so-called “right-wingnuts” (we have our epithets too) that this is true is essentially a divide-and-conquer strategy. We share some concerns. The right has concerns I think are entirely fictional (FEMA concentration camps, Obama being a Marxist) and the left has concerns Arnold thinks are entirely fictional (anthropogenic climate change, for example). We may all agree, however (I hope!), that high government officials breaking laws in order to spy on their own citizens is a bad thing. We could also agree that bailing out Wall Street to the tune of trillions of dollars serves nobody but Wall Street. If we were being honest with each other.

The demonization of certain words and philosophies and the deification of others (”Socialism bad, capitalism good”) in the lexicon of Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and Coulter serves only to limit and impoverish our political discourse. The assumption of evil intentions of an entire school of political thought serves to divide and conquer us, the non-establishment, the un-rich, the unwashed masses, those of us in the audience rather than in the studios. It tightens the grip of both Democrats and Republicans on the reins of power, since neither really question the basic assumptions of government as run by financiers, bankers, and war profiteers.

There is common ground to be had here, but those leading the conversation on the right certainly seem to be doing their damnedest to make sure we never find it. And those leading the conversation on the left either can’t find their voice, or are deemed “too radical” to be heard in mainstream media (i.e. Amy Goodman or Glenn Greenwald).

Speaking of which, Tom, when are you going to invite Greenwald or Goodman on your show? Bill Moyers did it. You heard about those Izzy Awards, right?

A few months before my brother died, he befriended a kind-hearted woman, who wasn’t stupid but had an narrow, fearful viewpoint of the world. This woman spent a couple of months caring for my brother while he was dying and had the TV going full blast on FOX News nearly the entire time. She would turn it on first thing in the morning and go to sleep with it. She totally believes every word that is spoken on that channel and has no idea what intellectual discourse is.

When our family (none of us watch that much TV, much less FOX) went to visit my brother, we had to grit our teeth and endure all the yelling of O’Rielly, Hannity, etc. This was early 2008, so the news was all election sprinkled in with hours of drivel and conjecture about Keith Leger’s suicide. We mentioned to the woman that we are all Democrats and tried to steer clear of politics. But it never failed… she would ALWAYS bring the subject up, usually with a racist smear of Obama.

When Obama won she told me she cried and was really scared. She hasn’t kept in contact and now I bet I know why, after listening to the OnPoint show today. She is probably afraid we (liberals) and the Obama administration are in a big conspiracy against her way of life. O’Rielly probably has convinced her to bar the doors. It’s sad that an otherwise nice person can be completely incapable of listening to other viewpoints.

On Point’s coverage of “right wing” media and their rhetoric is just as divisive as provocateurs like Beck and Rush themselves. The majority of “right wing” commentators are there to make the liberty movement and true conservatism look ridiculous.

On the other hand, programs like On Point bring on a member of SPLC telling their audience that people who don’t like the corruption of our hijacked federal government are racist cop-killers.

I was thoroughly amused to hear that FEMA mass detainment facilities and the North American Union are “conspiracy theories”. Apparently Mr. Potok doesn’t read many government policy papers, reports or legislation.

Matt Tuers,

Do you honestly believe there is no difference between “provocateurs” like Beck and Limbaugh and what you heard on yesterday’s show?

It must have required considerable effort on your part to extapolate from the discussion the understanding that people were drawing a direct, causal relationship between people who are distressed by government “corruption” and “racist cop-killers.”

If you go looking for base motives, you’re likely to find them. Part of the toxicity of right-wing rhetoric is that its tone of exasperated, fist-pounding outrage and sarcasm reinforces and actually produces cynicism about all of our institutions, a cynicism which fosters the most ungenerous interpretations in place of interpretations that are merely skeptical.

The reactionary “conservatism” of right-wing talk is not so much a political philosophy as it is a forum for giving vent to middle class anxieties and resentment. Its chief characteristic is a suspicion and a resentment of those cultural institutions we rely upon for information (science, journalism, education). At some point, you might want to ask yourself why of all things reactionaries choose these targets.

I think the success of NPR now, is, ironically, due in part to the attempt by Bush and the Right to kill NPR by removing government funding. That has, of necessity, required NPR to develop a business model of direct funding from listeners. As the internet displaces news papers and undercuts their funding with on-line classified services like craigslist and ebay, and network TV news gets undercut by the proliferation of cable channels, NPR shines like a jewel and enjoys relative tranquility in the stable FM radio spectrum. Keep up the good work!

An analogy might be drawn between the tendency of Republicans to evade or abdicate the responsibilities of good governance with the debasement of public discourse represented by reactionary “talk”. Strangely, both activities tend toward a more authoritarian style of governing and talking about governance.

Just as Republicans seem almost to go out of their way to discredit the government’s ability to make life better by means of intolerable incompetence or know-nothing policies, reactionary “talk” undermines and substitutes itself — and ultimately discredits — for healthy, skeptic critiques of the state and state power.

Nothing could be more convenient for the workings of the state than the rodeo-clownification of dissent: if everyone thinks of those brave enough to “speak truth to power” as cruel, weak, loud-mouthed fools (as we must about Beck, Hannity, Savage, and the rest), what becomes of true dissent?

One final word, and I will cease my fist-pounding monologue. It was great to hear from the Republican Congressman on this issue.

I hope that On Point will consider doing more shows about the so-called “loyal opposition” and how they frame their complaints by including more conservatives. The show last year with Peggy Noonan was another great contribution to this discussion. Frum, Brooks, and many other conservatives have weighed in on this issue.

We have a well tuned faschist country controlled by people in power for their benefit, regardless of how the Constitution “Bill of Rights” tries to protect us.
Although I support capitalism, It is most important to understand we have Extreme Capitalism which has infiltrated our government, media, & lives.
I do support a government which regulates capitalism.
I do support keeping money out of politics.

Most TV shows, Movies, religion & News have been designed / manipulated as a conditioning propaganda tool.

Once people open their eyes and say something their life is savagely attacked.
They say people are too stupid to manage the government, well if we had a REAL free press, and not Indoctrinated from birth, the people would understand and make better decisions.
These pundits spew retoric and are trators to our constitution.

Who at On Point put these right wing fascists on air?

When is On Point going to interview Norm Chomsky and other Linguists on “Manufacturing Consent”?

The meaning of words are constantly distorted.
I expect a more realistic and logical debate from “On Point” ! This is “Angry America” show was nothing more than propaganda with a bull horn.

It seems there is (a) extreme cynicism about access to true perspective and information; and (b) a well-fed fear that our way of life is under siege (”our” being middle class America). As to (a) information, I would say it took more than a college education (during the Vietnam war) to get to navigate the line between spin and info. It takes a lifetime of effort, probably always will. As to (b) the threat to our way of life, I’d say the American way of life has changed radically often, not less so within memory, but established, entrenched institutions are creating huge drag right now. The nimbleness we need isn’t there in big retirement funds, nor in big investors that help to float political campaigns.
The fear (part b) has a valid response which the media can help, therapeutically and pragmatically.
Someone fears that we might lose more money to taxes (in exchange for better health, better education for the 21st century jobs? — the “50 percent who pay no taxes”? where on earth did that come from; not in my back yard)).
The fear we’ll lose the expectation of sizable home and sizable car (expectations and desires built up by advertisers and lobbyists, I’d say — my own American dream is national pride restored, community reinforced). We need to shake the rafters a bit, I’d say. Man was not born with that exact scenario in mind, not even American man.
The fear of being squoze beyond belief has its validity. What does not yet replace that fear (at least to the right wing) is a vision of a future that is sustainable and just. I wonder if one looks at the rest of the planet, should we feel we have the right to the way of life we enjoy, the way it taxes the planet? There are better ways. Let’s not be afraid to find it.
A huge factor is the invisibility of modern threats. The idea may be: If I had a gun, when the threat does appear, I will shoot it dead. Failing that, I will grab it and lift it and hurl it to the ground. Meanwhile, unemployed man sits at home, confused, and frets.

Christopher:

I would offer, with all due respect, that you have fallen into the trap. This whole debate over corruption and liberty have nothing to do with true liberalism or conservatism.

People like Glenn Beck, Arianna Huffington, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Ashbrook (and his carefully chosen guests)…you name the commentator on either side…are there to reinforce this false left-right paradigm so that Americans NEVER come together to stop real corruption and real threats to our republic.

It’s a divide and conquer strategy with you and I fighting over our favorite football team while the teams themselves have dinner together after the game and laugh at what suckers we are.

Matt Tuers –

I don’t dismiss what you’re saying in this post, and I think you are reminding us of an important reality.

However, something I’ve been attempting to argue is that one of the true dangers to our republic is a debasement of reasoned dissent, something that unquestionably is happening.

Ad hominem attack, spurious evidence for claims, rampant sarcasm and snarky parodies are all fun and fine, but when they’re routinely substituted for thoughtful reasoned critiques of the government our democracy is threatened.

The idea that the tone or style of Tom Ashbrook’s show — or any show on NPR — is at all similar to Rush Limbaugh’s is not to be taken seriously, Matt. You seem like a smart person: I’m sure you can do better than that. But you’re larger idea that the media sometimes work to divide middle-class everyday people from one another is true to be sure.

Another question is what constitutes “corruption.” Some “conservatives,” for example, now claim that the income tax is a form of thievery, even though a constitutional amendment permits it. What do you mean by “corruption”?

Apology, After hearing your show “Angry America” a second time, I feel the show was more balanced than previously thought, Although the clips of S.H.,G.B.,R.L., & M.S. are where some of my frustration lies. Please keep up the quality journalism, debates and logical analysis. Maryland.

And by the way, Matt Tuers –

I have fallen into no trap. I am Christopher, unrepentant tax and spend liberal. Last of the good guys. Nobody traps me, and I assume you used that expression because even you have grown tired of the tiresome and witless cliche “drink the koolaid.”

I’ve thought about these issues as best I can, and I try to make my arguments fairly and clearly. You don’t have to disagree with me, sir, but I am not trapped by anything or anyone.

I have stopped watching cable and network “news”. I was hooked on it and always had it on. Content low, stress level high. Now I use internet, Wall Street Journal, NPR. I also don’t open my 401K statementS. These aversion techniques are slowly reducing my anxiety. I work in manufacturing. We in the real world are finding ways to survive. The talking heads can keep each other company, I’ve had my fill.

Just a word of thanks here for the outpouring of comments on this topic. I produced the show, and I’ve read all of them. I know that Tom has taken in many of them, as well. I appreciate the robust dialogue and hope you’ll continue to build this online community!

I’ve never been on this site before. Just reading the first couple of paragraphs, my thoughts on your question “What do you think when you hear President Obama called fascist, Manchurian candidate, terrorist sympathizer? ….” are twofold:

1. Those who are calling Obama a fascist are usually those who supported his predecessor, the prime example of fascism I’ve ever seen in the US in my lifetime, based on these criteria: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
Glass houses, people. (The jingoistic slogan “Country First” on the late-campaign McCain-Palin signage only reinforces this hypocrisy.) The nastiness epitomized in the 90’s by the likes of Lee Atwater, ym’’sh, Newt Gingrich, and of course Rush Limbaugh, combined with the anonymity of the Internet, give these blowhards an onion level they’ll never have in real life. It’s so easy to be snarky when you don’t have to do it to someone’s face.
2. Those fitting the description of 1. above will, and often do, call me a “liberal” like a nasty playground name whenever I raise these objections in the blogosphere. It doesn’t take only a doodyhead, I mean liberal, to disagree with these dittoheads and blowhard wannabes.

Of course, they have the right to say such blather. The Constitution guarantees, absolutely, your right to be an {anus}. However, I believe it was Thoreau who said, “Just because you have the right to say something doesn’t mean saying it is right.”

The only antidote to the Chrito-fascists in the right-wing media is education.

LIBERAL EDUCATION!

Oh, and let’s not forget the drive-time dullards Imus and Severin.

I try to listen. I try to find the truth and validity to their assertions, but they are limited, linear and myopic.

Thank you, Tom, for a great show, fascinating and scarey! It would have been graceful of you and your guests not to try to defend yourselves against the conservative right callers you took. They’re not interested, and we already know how smart you are!

I am a fan of On Point and NPR.

I voted for Obama with enthusiasm. A month ago, I considered myself very “liberal”.

I am sure this will not be well received by the relentlessly dedicated “Obamanians”, but the truth hurts. I was fooled as well.

Here is a film.

This film is not anti-Obama.

Before dismissing this film as a “conspiracy theory”, please refute the facts via this forum that the film portrays. Please tell me the substantive factual inaccuracies.

Have a look. Here is the link to the high quality, full length video via YouTube and “ChangeDaChannel”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

PS – Tom, how about having this filmmaker on the show?

I live in Switzerland, and listen to NPR on the web every evening. It is my major form of entertainment as well as news. I feel connected and informed thanks to NPR. Like several of your other listeners, I am ADDICTED to NPR.

I was very disappointed that you cut the Bryant Park Project, though. It was my favorite program, and I think it was way ahead of the other programs in terms of innovation and technologies – it also made me feel much younger than my years, and I really miss it.

Thanks and keep up the great work.
Carol

Welcome Vivien to your new role at NPR. I’ve been a listener for years and am one of your biggest advocates. Why do I listen to NPR? Let me count the ways. Information, news reports, and in-depth stories are well researched, intelligent, witty, educational, factual & fun and make me a better person for having listened. Listening to NPR makes me a citizen of the world and gives me a purview to a world beyond the mere emotional sound bites others try to sell.

Warm regards, a loyal and life-long NPR fan

To follow up on my earlier message – you have been talking a lot about adapting to changing media and methods of delivery – all the more reason you should not have cut Bryant Park Project – it was the way of the future and your way to bring in the younger audience you’ve been talking about.

When I drive across the great American doughnut hole and run the radio dial, I get Jesus, Texas, Jesus, Texas, Jesus, Texas. Christianity and country western music dominate. Where is NPR? At night in a motel, the Fox channels always come in brightest and strongest. Where is PBS? Oh, sorry, it’s there behind the snow somewhere, one station so poor it can’t run anything remotely interesting. So it’s no wonder that everywhere in the heartland, folks believe that PBS is boring.

Is this an accident?

I think there has been a conscious conservative push to weaken the strongest sources of stimulating and questioning reporting, in favor of making their programming the only points of view on the airwaves. Keep the public stupid and docile, and it will follow you like sheep.

So how about it? How about a quantitative study of the media available in the vast stretches of American mono-culture, where “thinking” has become a “liberal” word.

And how about considering that democracy demands well rounded citizens capable of considering radically different points of view in synthesizing their own? If it is the job of government to educate, why shouldn’t the government make the full programming of NPR and PBS available everywhere? It would be a banquet for inquiring minds which now have so little now to chew on, and it couldn’t help but make the nation a much more tolerant and innovative place.

I’m from Michigan but have spent the last 5 years in New Zealand and Australia.

After discovering I can listen to NPR online, I have the web feed running more often than not.

Great station. Very informative and open to the opinions of all. Keep it up.

Thanks,
Ian Sinclair – Melbourne, Australia

Vivian: My suggestion: get a transcript of several of Nino Totenberg’s pieces, and highlight every adjective and adverb. See if you can still steadfastly stick to your claim that NPR has no bias–ever. Please don’t be defensive about this; it’s unbecoming and unhelpful. NPR is good but could be better.

These media pundits are people who hold very extreme beliefs, but also have great privelege, and are able to broadcast those beliefs to a mass audience, through the support of large broadcasting companies. Their beliefs are no less extreme than those of people who claim that 9-11 was an inside job orchestrated by the federal government. The difference is that 9-11 “truthers” don’t have their own shows on major television and radio networks. As much as president Bush was criticized by the media, I don’t recall any of the more liberal pundits calling Americans to rise up in some sort of new confederacy. And, if you look at the reception that Bush received from the public during both of his inaugurations, versus the reception that Obama recently received during his inaugrution, it becomes clear that these extreme “conservative” beliefs are not held by a majority.

Tom! Oh my gosh. As soon as I heard your intro – I knew I’d be listening to another program or nothing at all. If ANYONE had answers to these questions, we wouldn’t be in this situation in the first place. Your guests, don’t know who they are, but are guessing as much the people who are recommending, voting and pushing changes right now. Only in retrospect can we evaluate what success.

I’d rather hear about the good things people are doing through these times. We need inspiration NOT more speculation.

Thank you

LET HILLARY CLINTON HAVE THE LAST WORD

Regarding angriness, debate and protest, I have found no better statement than this, made by Senator Clinton during last years’ campaign. Please listen to the whole one-minute segment.

http://www.prairieroads.org/tbc/audio/hillaryClinton_Right_to_Disagree20084x.mp3

I said Hillary’s comments should be the last word (and I still think that’s correct) but I’d be remiss not to post a link to this article from the April 15 online American Spectator (yes, gentle readers who think it a mark of wisdom to shun utterly any journalistic source your politically correct instincts tells you is evil and despicable–I said THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR).

The title is “Thoughtcrime Redux” and it does a good job of explaining what’s going on with the topic at hand:

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/15/thoughtcrime-redux/print

America isn’t so much angry as it is scared.
Obama’s use of fear to grab power has people running to their gun shops. No doubt Bush used fear as well, but at least he did it to protect American ideals. Obama is fundamentally risking the fabric of this great nation and that’s scary.

Gee, thanks for the token RINO republican, MIckey Edwards. Are we really to believe you are sampling both sides when a “republican” Okie switched to northeast liberal ivy leaguer refers to Limbaugh as a “buffoon”, when he (Limbaugh) expresses the views of millions of conservatives who see this spendathon as a virtual destruction of the American way of life? Your show loses credibility, and some credulity when you pander to liberals with your guests claiming to get both sides of the picture. If you’re going to get the conservative side of things, try booking a real conservative.

I very much enjoyed the program. I listened via Podcast on 4/15 since your show is not carried by any NPR stations in eastern Tennessee. While it was helpful to be reminded that inflammatory political speech has been common in many historical eras, I do believe the pervasive easy access to today’s bombastic prophets of doom represents a much greater poison to the collective thought of our citizenry. Mickey Edwards is correct that there is grandstanding and exaggeration on both political extremes and neither is worthy of respect. But it is far, far easier to see and hear the extremists of the right wing since they are carried multiple hours of every day on radio and TV in nearly every media market. While there may be a more equal presence on the Internet of hyperpartisan thought from both sides, that is not the case on radio and television.

The confessed murderer of the hated “liberals” at the Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN in August 2008 is known to have had a bizarre thought process, and no one condones (at least publicly) his actions. But there is no doubt that besides his known preferred authors such as O’Reilly and Hannity, this man had ready access to nearly 24-hour continuous conservative diatribes on the various Knoxville talk radio stations. The dominant talk radio station in Knoxville, WNOX, allocates just 30-minutes twice a month to center-left points of view (one local attorney-political activist). Every other hour of every day is filled with either a nationally syndicated or a local-based right-winger, some rational but most bomb-throwers of the highest order. There is no radio station within usual reach of Knoxville — a market of nearly a million people — that carries any progressive talk programs. Even the area public radio station refuses to carry any NPR talk programs such as On Point, Talk of the Nation, The Diane Rheem Show, To the Point, etc. (which tend to be mildly progressive though efforts are clearly made to be balanced), focusing instead on classical music apart from the morning and afternoon NPR news broadcasts.

When I once suggested via a letter to a local newspaper that local talk and public radio should carry just two or three hours per day of talk programs with a moderate or progressive lean in order to provide a little balance, my request was met with silence on the part of the radio stations and with indignation by rabid loyal listeners from the right-wing. These respondents pointed out that there was absolutely no need for any more “liberal” radio (or TV) programs in the Knoxville area for we already had too many such programs being beamed at us, namely ABC, CBS, NBC, & NPR network news broadcasts, The Daily Show, as well as Prairie Home Companion and Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me!

The various right-wing TV and radio hosts and pundits no doubt are grinning all the way to the bank as they inflate and exaggerate their stories to gin-up bigger and bigger audiences. Some of their loyal listeners likely recognize the showmanship and hyperbole contained in their broadcasts. But at least in this part of the country, that level of insight on the part of listeners is not the norm. I’ve spoken with and listened to far too many of the right-wing radio/Fox News fans here in Tennessee who take seriously and solemnly, at face value, virtually everything said by the nattering nabobs such as Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Boortz, Beck, Hewitt, etc., etc., etc.

As former Congressman Edwards — a learned man of fine character and conscience — said on On Point, we cannot afford to stand by silently, waiting and hoping for this dangerous trend to pass. Insightful people of good will and good conscience from all political persuasions must speak up in support of rational, fact-based discussions and debates. Far too many of our citizens are forming their heart-felt opinions on the basis of lies, exaggerations, innuendo, and fantasy. Many of these citizens are indeed arming themselves (even more than usual). This situation does not bode well for the future of our country.

While many on both the right and left disagree, I do believe that a restoration of the fairness doctrine needs to be seriously considered. The marked imbalance of political speech and the explosion of conservative talk radio did not begin until the fairness doctrine was eliminated in the 1980’s. Some will say we can’t put the genie back in the bottle, but something needs to be done to facilitate genuinely fair and balanced news/talk broadcasts across the country.

Great show! I listen regularly here in Toronto, Canada. We don’t have talk radio that can compete with this. Not by a long shot. I listen while working. I’m a security guard. I hate my job. I hate my pay even more. And I hate capitalism, which is nothing less than oppression and exploitation.

It’s frightening to watch a free people, who have access to more information than Heinz has pickles, willingly embrace ignorance and propaganda the way so many Americans do. For the record, I don’t see Canada as being terribly different. And that’s as our capitalist classes want it. Canada has all but been absorbed in the United States. Canada is mostly a sentiment. Health care? There’s no reason to expect that a socialistic system like that will survive within an overall system that is very capitalist (which is to say neoliberal). Our main parties, namely the Liberal and Conservatives (whose members I refer to as Coniberals) are mostly continentalists who are happy to take their (integrationist, free market) direction from corporate Canada (and America), via well funded (rightwing) think tanks like the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (referred to, rightly, as the shadow cabinet), the C.D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute.

It’s astonishing to listen to, and hear reports about, people who shout and shake their fists at President Obama for (seemingly) taking them in a direction that might meliorate, just a little, the grievous harm inflicted not only on America, but the world, by neoliberals (pro free market ideologues) and their abuse of liberty or, in other words, by those who such protesters would regard as Obama’s political opponents and their political choice!

Obama, of course, is perfectly establishment. No one, and that included John Edwards during the Democratic Party leadership contest, even gets into the contest to run America unless he or she is establishment, or corporatocracy-approved. Obama’s perfectly Conservative (as in neoliberal). It’s fair to say so as long as one decides to judge others by their record and by their present actions. The nation that would teach the world all about democracy (and it certainly is) is a one (business) party/ two faction state. I call members of that party Republicrats, because that’s what they are.

The rednecks (listeners of O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Buchanan et al) are angry with Obama, not just because they are stupid tools, to be blunt, but because the uncaring capitalists and their allies in the establishment – educational institutions, think tanks, business and media – who are happy to inflict those tools on us are so disconnected from regular folks and so sure that they, like their masters, are on top of things, connected and able to buy their way out of financial and literal hurricanes and meltdowns, they therefore don’t give their usual, mindless, cruel frat boy antics a second thought. They are like PlayStation’s kids at the game console, delighting in the orgy of explosions, violence and mayhem that thrills them into the stoned stupor that they’ve come to depend on for their mental and emotional comfort.

And they are our neighbors. And that’s the state of civilization today.

When a regular Joe screws up, he usually only causes grief for himself and those close to him. When members of our elites screw up, they cause untold grief to many. They screwed up a long time ago when little by little they built a monstrous system that devours all, including those who helped create it and who help feed it. No individual can fix things by deciding that this system of things is wrong. The wisdom that was needed, didn’t come. But the consequences aren’t stayed. The time to worry about the catastrophe is before it happens, not after.

The many need to wake up and toss our uncaring elites and their corporatocracy overboard. But in the Darwinian game of ‘riches for the strongest’, in which the abused majority is angry about losing in the game, rather than angry about the game itself, I don’t think we can expect a proper uprising in which the system is targetted for destruction.

Individuals are another matter, depending.

Split “A Divided America” http://www.hulu.com/watch/37403/split-a-divided-america Documentary

Thought provoking …
I will try more, to talk with a more inclusive and open mind and not let the system divide my thinking.

Arby, WOW, did you hit the nail on the head! A great mind in a security guard uniform. A lot of time to think in your profession, no doubt.

I agree with 99.9% of what you wrote, but I have never been able to articulate as well as you. Good job! Your post should be spread all over the ‘net.

Thank you. I wish you peace and good will.

JPB

Thanks kindly JPB.

Re ending drug wars in Mexico. I think outlawing sales of assault weapons in the US is a great idea, but the drug lords will just buy weapons from China.

There is any even easier and better solution — make it legal to grow and sell marijuana in the U.S. Tax it. Like alcohol, which is a much more dangerous drug, it should be illegal for minors and illegal to import into the US.

Take away the US market and the Mexican drug cartels will have nothing to fight over and all the other troubles caused world-wide by the illegal drug trade will disappear.

Heroin? Cocaine? Make them US government the only legal importer and supplier. Offer high quality treatment for every addict who wants to quit and provide free drugs to those who can’t or won’t. For life. The problem will disappear in a generation. If there is no profit in selling drugs, there will be no reason to lure the next generation into drug use.

I have a feeling that President Obama would personally love to bring several actors from the Bush administration to justice over the torture issue and other human rights violations. But as President, he does not have the luxury of acting on his personal beliefs alone. He has to weigh his beliefs against what would be the right thing to do for the country, and he knows very well that pursuing special prosecution of Bush administrators would be a very divisive act. As much as I’d love to see Rove and Cheny and Gonzalez and others sweating in court and even donning federal prison garb, I don’t know if the damage it would cause would be worth it. Watergate divided the country and caused enormous stress amongst the citizens as did the Clinton circus.

The liberals have owned the traditional media for decades. It’s a positive step to see conservatives have a voice on the public airways.

I finally listened to the podcast. I have to say I’m disappointed that no one differentiated the “why” between the last 8 years of protest and today.

You can’t honestly look at the Bush administration and its election stealing, dropping the ball before 9/11, illegally invading a country, lying to the American people, approving torture, suspending habeus corpus, suppressing free speach, politicizing federal prosecutors, grossly mishandling Katrina, dismantling our economic regulations, sheer incompetence, and many more issues, and think that they were just “crazies”.

In comparison, Obama has been president 4 months and-right way or or wrong way (we can certainly argue that!)-has been working his butt off to try to clean up the messes Bush left for us all. You want to protest the welfare state? Taxes that will eventually go up? Billions in bailouts to failing banks? ALL of these are thanks to our prevous president.

Congressman Edwards has his fingers in his ears and humming “I’m not listening” when he compares “both sides”.

from experience i can tell you the VA system is wonderfjul. No matter where you go, your records can be retreived, and you can retrieve them also. You can get several things done in one day as each practioner can check you records and send you where you need to go. Everytime i see someone. they know all the need to know. i do not have to keep repeating the same story over and over. I have seem great progress at the VA and am thankful for the wonderful care I receive

These conservative clips illustrate an effective — if morally bankrupt — propaganda tool: preemptively co-opt the anticipated lexicon of dissent. Whether true or not, call the opposition by the very names that would — in a rational world — be attached to one’s own cause.

Bush’s original bailout was certainly ‘corporate socialism’, but before liberals could make the accusation stick, the neo-cons accused and characterized liberal actions as ’socialist’.

Years ago, just as Bush became overtly ‘fascist’ in his policies, the right’s talking heads universally began referring to the ‘Islamo-fascism’ of our ‘enemies’ in the Middle-East.

That’s why it’s important to take good note of the actual language used when folks “protest too much”.

These “talking heads”; Limbaugh and his cronies all the way down to the local, small city talkers, speak in generalities. They very rarely speak in specifics. That’s how they get to their listeners. Everyone thinks what they hear is what they themselves are thinking, perception is truly reality here.

They talk in “tones” that incite fear and insecurity, they play patriotic songs as their introductions, they smirk and laugh and say “you all know what we’re talking about” without giving an idication of what they are truly talking about. Lots of innuendo, lots of stretching the truth, lots of bits and pieces of the truth while lying about their own drug addictions and divorces, obfuscating their own wealth, making sexist and racist remarks without any feedback from their sheep listeners and giving their own far right, prejudiced OPINIONS based on the almighty dollar they receive for saying it. They stroke their listeners, stroke their callers and feed them the pablum they so need to stay blind, deaf and dumb sheep.

Funny they never mention Ken Tomlinson and his “oversight” for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 2004/2005 when speaking of the Fairness Doctrine.

If one wants too look how the extreme of what hate on the airwaves can come to remember that in Rwandan the radio was used too fuel the hatred and to signal the genocide that took place in that country.

The extreme on both sides of the political spectrum are always going too be yelling at us and bending the facts for their agenda.

However it seems that the right wing (nuts) are a whole lot more successful in this endeavor. I find some of these people Glenn Beck and Michael Savage in particular to be quite frightening. Savage is everything his name sake implies. The days of William F Buckley are long gone and with people like rational thinking.

Now everyone is screaming at each other.

Having Gergen as a commentator is typical of NPR and a joke. He simply claims that he has known cheny for decades, is friends w/cheny and cheny is an honorable person so he shouldn’t be investigated and/or prosecuted.

First, how could anyone seriously make the baldfaced claim that cheny is honorable, espically after his campaign of lying and dishonesty to get the american people to support a war w/irag?

Please get real analysts who will deal in facts not spin dudes attempting to protect corrupt politicians and the corupt actions of the government.

My radio is tuned to ON POINT but I am busy with yardwork. However, as I was passing through the house I heard someone on today’s program mention the terrible situation of auto-industry retirees being stuck with pensions as low as $18,000/year. It may cheer them up to know that I was laid off (as a 62-year old research physicist, after just short of 40 years in the same aeronautical research department) with a pension of $4100/year (yes, forty-one hundred). Fortunately I had saved and bought a house and have no mortgage. But, thanks to the powerful teachers’ union, my school taxes result in property taxes which now exceed my annual pension by $500.

(By the way, although I never had children, these school taxes will continue to the grave so as to support teachers’ salaries and benefits that permit world travel in retirement. I recently enjoyed an affordable vacation, seated on a balcony in Wegmans’ supermarket with a small bag of chocolate candy, a store-supplied newspaper, and a view over a colorful display of produce. I could go on, but I must go back to picking up sticks.)