Kate,

quote:

It seems like a political hot potato.

No Doubt. Which is exactly why reacting without thinking first was a bad idea. If Hartmann didn't want to discuss this, all he should have done is say something like "currently, that's a political hot potato, so if you don't mind, I'm not gonna discuss this". Instead, he by implication called Truth an anti-Semite.

Not helping, there, Thom.

I'd return the question to the initial call. Why *should* Thom Hartmann talk about AIPAC as his listener prompts him to discuss it?

And, as for why he would not want to discuss AIPAC on his program, I'll give it my best shot, although I don't occupy Thom's mind, so I may be missing something:

Implicit in any situation where some open dialogue is possible is the reality of the world in which the dialogue takes place. Thom's persona is a moderate persona. Moderate talk radio acquiesces to much of the status quo. "The radical middle" promises a centrist position. Thom is not on Mount Olympus slinging bolts of lightning. He's just a guy who has articulated a centrist position that plays well to his broader listener base, most of whom are not clamoring for him to take a strong position against AIPAC's considerable lobbying influence.

Part of Thom's "radical middle" philosophy involves a rationality that really requires him to eschew the more dramatic assertions he allows people to make, and develop, on his message boards.

So, he's human and showed some irritation at a listener's question. So what.

On a related question, ... have you ever wondered why Helen Thomas doesn't have a front seat, and the first question, at a presidential press conference these days? I figure it has something to do with those who control the sound bites, who have a central philosophy that Helen declined to integrate into her approach to the public dialogue.

Thom's radio program exists in a much smaller media world than the one that existed before the Helen Thomases of the media were moved to the back of the bus.

Hi Kate- Actually the fact does not remain, because I have said the fact that Thom has administrative control is not relevant to the question of Thom being consistent to his stated values. If Thom is indeed under unusual pressure from this group, then that needs to be found out.

Hi, Mattnapa,

That horse is dead as far as I'm concerned. You'll have to find another correspondent to help you to continue to beat on it. I've resolved the stated conflict in my own mind, and that's good enough for me.

I think the more interesting question is whatever happened to Helen Thomas. But that's just me.

Hi Kate. You're really going out on a limb on this one. You call Thom a "centrist." But the truth is he calls himself a progressive, and we all know that. You apparently don't understand his term "radical middle." It doesn't mean Americans are mostly a bunch of mealy mouthed "centrists," it means that most Americans are radical, i.e., progressive, when you poll them on the issues--which is true.

But your reference to Helen Thomas suggests you are okay with Bush putting her at the back of the room and not taking questions from her because she's the only journalist with the temerity to ask the tough questions that need to be asked. How illiberal. How neo-con-ish.

quote:

So, he's human and showed some irritation at a listener's question. So what.

We're talking about a PATTERN here, not just one call. A pattern of utter refusal to talk about the pernicious influence of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby on US policy, an influence that could get us into war with Iran and possibly World War 3. So it goes a bit beyond irritation with one question.

quote:

On a related question, ... have you ever wondered why Helen Thomas doesn't have a front seat, and the first question, at a presidential press conference these days? I figure it has something to do with those who control the sound bites, who have a central philosophy that Helen declined to integrate into her approach to the public dialogue.

So power rules, huh? Might makes right. Oh that's a wonderful philosophy...or rather, anti-philosophy.

Memory Hole,

I find it unsettling that a long tradition for Helen Thomas has been eliminated. Every president, from John F. Kennedy through Bill Clinton, paid respect to Helen Thomas in the press conferences in this way. It was the end of an era of hard driving journalism when she was moved to the back of the bus.

I believe I did a better job of highlighting my attitude toward the Helen Thomas point in my longer post earlier in this thread. I personally find news makers' actions more important that this endless discussion about how Thom was rude to a phone-in listener and how Thom could have done a better job in that exchange.

I figure a good thread could be developed on what exactly "radical middle" means.

I have watched Helen Thomas ask tough questions through several presidencies. She has earned the right to be recognized.
However,
I watched her badger and interupt a Bush press conference to the point of embarrasment. She has an obvious bias and let it be known that she would be the one to answer to. Others in the press were dumbfounded.
Reporters are still reporters and should have the courtesy to allow the proceedings to continue without resorting to Jerry Springer tactics.

quote:

I have watched Helen Thomas ask tough questions through several presidencies. She has earned the right to be recognized.
However,
I watched her badger and interupt a Bush press conference to the point of embarrasment. She has an obvious bias and let it be known that she would be the one to answer to. Others in the press were dumbfounded.
Reporters are still reporters and should have the courtesy to allow the proceedings to continue without resorting to Jerry Springer tactics.

She can be persistent with follow-up questions. And she has a right to be. Bush is a dissembling sociopath who frankly doesn't deserve "courtesy." He's been giving the middle finger to the majority of the people for seven years now, doing the bidding of the financiers and helping to destroy the planet. No, this is not a man who has earned any sort of courtesy. He is a war criminal, a despot, and a liar. And the white house press corps are a bunch of "courteous" lap dogs--Helen Thomas excepted.

quote:

Originally posted by memory_hole:
Hi Kate. You're really going out on a limb on this one. You call Thom a "centrist." But the truth is he calls himself a progressive, and we all know that. You apparently don't understand his term "radical middle." It doesn't mean Americans are mostly a bunch of mealy mouthed "centrists," it means that most Americans are radical, i.e., progressive, when you poll them on the issues--which is true.

But your reference to Helen Thomas suggests you are okay with Bush putting her at the back of the room and not taking questions from her because she's the only journalist with the temerity to ask the tough questions that need to be asked. How illiberal. How neo-con-ish.

quote:

So, he's human and showed some irritation at a listener's question. So what.

We're talking about a PATTERN here, not just one call. A pattern of utter refusal to talk about the pernicious influence of AIPAC and the Israel Lobby on US policy, an influence that could get us into war with Iran and possibly World War 3. So it goes a bit beyond irritation with one question.

quote:

On a related question, ... have you ever wondered why Helen Thomas doesn't have a front seat, and the first question, at a presidential press conference these days? I figure it has something to do with those who control the sound bites, who have a central philosophy that Helen declined to integrate into her approach to the public dialogue.

So power rules, huh? Might makes right. Oh that's a wonderful philosophy...or rather, anti-philosophy.

It's difficult to get across what we are saying to each other in this environment sometimes. Your last question to Kate is absurd, but you wouldn't know that, I imagine, unless you've spent some time getting to know her.

As far as what "radical middle" means, and "progressive," when I first stumbled across Thom about four years ago, I thought "radical middle" was a cute oxymoron and an intentional razor swipe of satire on Thom's part. Middle Class used to mean something on the order of bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie. Since the venerated Roosevelt's New Deal, it has come to mean something more along the lines of well fed cattle working in various bureaucratic settings, whether corporate or governmental, to me. The entrepreneurial small business professional class has diminished both in size and political clout since then. Even the term "progressive" implies a Westernized philosophical view of ignoring, even despising the indigenous cultures of the planet, and a resulting view of humanity's relationship to its biological environment that pays little respect to anything but the feeding and care of itself. Nothing radical whatsoever, in my view, everything moving in lock step towards an social arrangement that has all the characteristics of an authoritarian society with a little side entertainment thrown in, called politics, where people get to imagine they have something to say.

I will not comment on Thom and his views, because I am not that familiar with where he is these days. When I first came to the board he hadn't become the national figure he is now, and he did have time on occasion to come to the board and exchange ideas. That changed gradually, and I suspect from what I've observed this board really has little to do with what Thom is about, even though the administrator does her best to present his on air views by starting threads related to what he's said. It's foolish to me to talk about what someone said on the air in his entertainment facility as a talking head, without that person being there to clarify.

If Thom doesn't want to talk about the Israeli Lobby, and he actually is a "shill" for AIPAC, would that change anything for you, or anyone on this board?

What's of greater concern to me is whether we can be allowed to talk about the issue without being banned. I don't want to judge Thom, but I do want to be able to have an intelligent and open discussion. Is that possible here?

How about this article: The Israel Lobby -- by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. It raised a tremendous cacophonous response. Can we talk about the article and all that's come of it? Or does Thom have to say we can by doing it himself on his radio programs?

Some YouTube links:

Prof. John Mearsheimer on the Israel Lobby

Pro-Israel lobby has warped U.S. policy Pt.1

Pro-Israel lobby has warped U.S. policy Pt.2

Hello Ren,

quote:

Ren - It's difficult to get across what we are saying to each other in this environment sometimes. Your last question to Kate is absurd, but you wouldn't know that, I imagine, unless you've spent some time getting to know her.

I am only responding to her words. I "know" her in the vague sense of knowing she's one of the old-timers on this site, she's liberal, and she tends to be laconic.

quote:

As far as what "radical middle" means, and "progressive," when I first stumbled across Thom about four years ago, I thought "radical middle" was a cute oxymoron and an intentional razor swipe of satire on Thom's part. Middle Class used to mean something on the order of bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie. Since the venerated Roosevelt's New Deal, it has come to mean something more along the lines of well fed cattle working in various bureaucratic settings, whether corporate or governmental, to me. The entrepreneurial small business professional class has diminished both in size and political clout since then. Even the term "progressive" implies a Westernized philosophical view of ignoring, even despising the indigenous cultures of the planet, and a resulting view of humanity's relationship to its biological environment that pays little respect to anything but the feeding and care of itself. Nothing radical whatsoever, in my view, everything moving in lock step towards an social arrangement that has all the characteristics of an authoritarian society with a little side entertainment thrown in, called politics, where people get to imagine they have something to say.

I appreciate your astute comments on the American middle class. I agree with what you are saying. My sense is that Thom adopted the phrase "radical middle" as a clever sort of device to reframe the debate, without having to use the tarnished word, "liberal" or the old left/socialist term, "progressive." For rhetorical purposes I think that is smart. On the other hand, it is absurd to think that 6.5 billion people can live anywhere close to the standard of living of the typical individual in the US "middle class." And there is nothing particularly "progressive" about elevating the US "middle class" as if it were not problematic from the standpoint of its major contribution to planetary greenhouse gases, resource depletion, habitat destruction, and a host of other issues.

quote:

I will not comment on Thom and his views, because I am not that familiar with where he is these days. When I first came to the board he hadn't become the national figure he is now, and he did have time on occasion to come to the board and exchange ideas. That changed gradually, and I suspect from what I've observed this board really has little to do with what Thom is about, even though the administrator does her best to present his on air views by starting threads related to what he's said. It's foolish to me to talk about what someone said on the air in his entertainment facility as a talking head, without that person being there to clarify.

I don't think of Thom primarily as an "entertainment facility" but as someone attempting to host serious discussion of issues of national and international import. Outside of universities, there aren't many spaces for that within our corporate controlled media nowadays. As for him being there to clarify, the point is precisely his refusal to dialogue, on the air or on the forum, on this issue. So I disagree that it is foolish to discuss this, (1) because he is not an entertainer, and doesn't pretend to be; and (2) because he is the one who has chosen, repeatedly, to cut off all discussion of this topic, for reasons unexplained, and to ridcule and caricaturize those who raise it.

quote:

If Thom doesn't want to talk about the Israeli Lobby, and he actually is a "shill" for AIPAC, would that change anything for you, or anyone on this board?

I would not have so named this thread. It is somewhat inflammatory and over the top. This discussion should not center solely on Thom, it should be about liberals and progressives and their inability or unwillingness to discuss AIPAC/the pro-Israel lobby. Because Thom has a lot of company among liberals and leftists on this, let's face it. And so I applaud you for widening this discussion to Mearsheimer's book and its reception. Thanks for the links. When I get time I'll check 'em out.

Wow, I am basically amazed at the whole context of this conversation.

When I think of all the posts that have been absolutely disgraceful and down right hateful toward Muslims and Islam, and here we seem to be 'tippy-toeing' around whether or not we can have a discussion about AIPAC.

Regardless, of whether or not Thom wants to discuss this on his program, I certainly don't think we should have to be worried here of having open debate on the topic.

What is everyone worried about?

It appears some topics are not to be debated.
Apparently Thom needs to get permission from some of the posters as to what he'll talk about.

Memory_hole, hi,

quote:

I am only responding to her words. I "know" her in the vague sense of knowing she's one of the old-timers on this site, she's liberal, and she tends to be laconic.

I've known Kate for going on four years now and I wouldn't know how to categorize her, other than she's obviously intelligent, she can be provocative with her questions and with ironic turns of phrase, and she will do that in ways that can open things up if folks don't get their feathers ruffled so badly they can't get their minds in order.

quote:

I don't think of Thom primarily as an "entertainment facility" but as someone attempting to host serious discussion of issues of national and international import. Outside of universities, there aren't many spaces for that within our corporate controlled media nowadays. As for him being there to clarify, the point is precisely his refusal to dialogue, on the air or on the forum, on this issue. So I disagree that it is foolish to discuss this, (1) because he is not an entertainer, and doesn't pretend to be; and (2) because he is the one who has chosen, repeatedly, to cut off all discussion of this topic, for reasons unexplained, and to ridcule and caricaturize those who raise it.

I used to think something along those lines about what Thom is doing as well. Maybe the problem for me is I'm not an aural information gatherer. At any rate, I've never been any good a listening to people talk without being able to respond and clarify, and that's the issue I'm concerned about. But you must know he has, at least four years ago when I first tuned in, noted that what he's doing is entertainment, he has credited Rush Limbaugh with being very good at entertaining his listeners, and so I wasn't aware that he may actually have gone to another level from there, since then.

Personally, I see what he does as a form of introduction to topics. If I were to stop with what he says, I'd be very dissatisfied with the picture I'd have. If you feel he's doing more than that and he's cutting off debate on important topics like this one, then you have a valid concern, and one I would be concerned about it I were Thom. Either I'd want to know that people were taking me too seriously, or that I am being intellectually dishonest in presenting myself as open to discussion on any topic.

As you may be able to guess, I'm not a proponent of the declining Middle Class issue which many folks seem to think is a danger to this country. I remember Thom talking about that four years ago, and I hear others mentioning it, so I'd guess he still is. I disagreed with him then. I don't know how I could have expressed the complexity of my disagreement in a few sound bites during a call in debate. And that's one of the problems I see with putting what he does much beyond the entertainment level.

My impression is that the history of radio is rich, and full of legendary figures like Roosevelt and his Fire Side Chat, quality dramas, and trusted news voices. But, it never was equal to the newspaper. The internet's success so far seems to be the streaming content from radio networks like AA, and streaming video and audio from other large and small networks.
I feel that in order for the internet to be great, with a lot of subscribers and selection, as it says in the text Intro To Business, there would need to be a new controlling legal authority. It is now obvious to me that Thom's reservations about what, or what NOT to comment upon are legal by-products and largely a function of his perceptions of local, regional and sensible broadcasting laws. His knowledge is great, and his command of many subjects is still unquestioned. If he chooses to express sensitivity one way or the other, well, we ALL must!!!

I started this thread on the broader topic a while ago, so it is hardly taboo here.

It didn't seem to generate much interest at the time - maybe people need provocative titles to engage their interest - but feel free to take it up there now. I'd rather you discussed it as an issue, rather than under this title, and perhaps you would prefer to, too? After all, the issue is potentially much bigger than Thom. And you might get more responses from people who are genuinely interested in the issue, rather than those who seize any opportunity to bash their host.

I wonder, Sue, if it's just the thread title that develops interest in the topic, or if it some sort of self-propelled motivation to discuss a topic.

I figure the real death to a conversation is when someone at the front of the room says, "here's a topic. Discuss." The people in the back of the room are prompted to discuss, ... what? And what happens when the angle on the discussion shifts away from the comfort zone of the person at the front of the room.

Perhaps, there's an NLP fix for message board behavior. lol

The question of the Jewish lobby is one thing, Thom's reaction to this gentelmen's two phone calls on the subject is another.

This is not a new perspective on Thom, nor a new topic on this board:

Six pages starting last July 24, last post Sept. 30:

Unacceptable for Thom Hartmann to cut me off before I could respond near end of show

With the NIE report out, then Israel and hardcore Bushies, neocons Podhertz, Bolton, and of course Cheney countering the 15 US intelligence, and Russian group, one could ask what happened to the AIPAC power? or is the NIE report a correction to the power pendulum [AIPAC on the pendulum, but so is all the US debt held by the asian economies that don't want to see their investments evaporate] The LRB article Ren posted [LRB is always good] also had a bit more on the authors, Mearsheimer review I'm still reading, and found myself having to take a primer on some of the theories espoused, and look up the originators referenced too. It's a work from 2001, or '02, so it's interesting to see how the foreign policy following his book fits [or doesn't fit] btw, I've thought for a long time the number one product of the US is entertainment. Books, music, tv, movies, radio, all sports, theater, and yes-internet too, and of course the most expensive entertainment of all- politics, total it up and I bet it's almost as big a chunk of gdp as the military industrial complex. Part of my tutorial Ren probably knows it.

quote:

I wonder, Sue, if it's just the thread title that develops interest in the topic, or if it some sort of self-propelled motivation to discuss a topic.

There is certainly an art to good titles to attract the eye and get people interested. It's easy for the gutter press, they just appeal to the lowest common denominator with sensational titles. Attracting good debate seems a lot harder. The title can frame the debate, though some people ignore the frame, and even the first post, and stick to their own framing of the issue.

It would be interesting to compare and contrast the different headlines put on exactly the same story by different sites (whether literally, for example an AP story, or individually written articles about the same news). Perhaps I'll start a discussion off in the "cracking the code" section, but feel free to beat me to it if you come across an interesting story. It should be possible to Google a story to come up with a selection of articles.

quote:

I figure the real death to a conversation is when someone at the front of the room says, "here's a topic. Discuss." The people in the back of the room are prompted to discuss, ... what? And what happens when the angle on the discussion shifts away from the comfort zone of the person at the front of the room.

"Discuss" makes me think of school, and is a real turn off for me. It is normal on sites inviting discussion to add a question to a story. I think that helps some people get started on talking about the topic, but I'm not fond of thinking of questions for that purpose. It feels so artificial to me. So I only add questions occasionally, when they occur to me naturally.

quote:

Perhaps, there's an NLP fix for message board behavior.

It would be great if there were, but I suspect that if I tried consciously using the techniques that Thom has mentioned here, there would be enough people here familiar with them that one of them would spot it and alert everyone else.

I wonder how long it will be before you all use NLP techniques to make the forum a better place.

neocon Jews don't represent Jews democracy was mentioned somewhere...America doesn't have it, and it seems Israel has a similar problem

quote:

One of the defining traits of war-loving neoconservatives is that their unrelenting and exclusive fixation on the Middle East places them loudly at the center of any foreign policy debates. That tenacity -- combined with their reckless exploitation of "anti-Israel" and anti-Semitism accusations as instruments in their political rhetoric and their corresponding, deceitful equation of their own views with being "pro-Israel" -- often casts the appearance that they are some sort of spokespeople for the "pro-Israel" agenda or the Jewish viewpoint.

Manifestly, they are nothing of the sort. Even among American Jews, they comprise only a small minority, and their generally discredited militarism is widely rejected by most Jews as well. It is always worth underscoring these points, which are so frequently (and deliberately) obscured, and this comprehensive poll provides potent -- actually quite conclusive -- evidence for doing so.

quote:

Originally posted by douglaslee:
With the NIE report out, then Israel and hardcore Bushies, neocons Podhertz, Bolton, and of course Cheney countering the 15 US intelligence, and Russian group, one could ask what happened to the AIPAC power? or is the NIE report a correction to the power pendulum [AIPAC on the pendulum, but so is all the US debt held by the asian economies that don't want to see their investments evaporate] The LRB article Ren posted [LRB is always good] also had a bit more on the authors, Mearsheimer review I'm still reading, and found myself having to take a primer on some of the theories espoused, and look up the originators referenced too. It's a work from 2001, or '02, so it's interesting to see how the foreign policy following his book fits [or doesn't fit] btw, I've thought for a long time the number one product of the US is entertainment. Books, music, tv, movies, radio, all sports, theater, and yes-internet too, and of course the most expensive entertainment of all- politics, total it up and I bet it's almost as big a chunk of gdp as the military industrial complex. Part of my tutorial Ren probably knows it.

Hi doug, no, I hadn't seen that interview with Waltz yet. He's from Ann Arbor, MI, where I grew up, same high school but many years earlier, as he's about my father's age. That interview goes back to 2003, so the period of analysis about the after effects of invading Iraq some eight months later.

His contribution to International Relations theory looks interesting, so I'll be looking into this one. Mearsheimer considers himself a neorealist, and Waltz's key contribution is just that: Neorealism.

Interestingly, one of the main challenges to neorealism is Democratic peace theory.