Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe nation's economic failures are also media failures, as Jon Stewart and Glenn Greenwald can tell you. So it is particularly sad to see the hard times take down a program that has been consistently, presciently skeptical about corporate and government abuse. Liberal radio host Peter B. Collins has announced that this will be his last week on air:
To make money in syndication, we need to be on 20+ stations and at least one of the big 3, NY, LA, Chicago. As an independent, self-syndicated show, we've had to compete with Air America, Dial-Global and Nova M programs, and for various reasons, the PBC Show didn't break through. Air America is the brand that most people connect with progressive talk radio, and their bankruptcy and sequence of blunders has, unfortunately, defined our collective efforts in a negative way that has provided an easy target ...
Collins tweaked Air America, where he occasionally guest-hosted, for signing TV host Montel Williams, who joined the channel in a surprise announcement last week:
Air America just announced that Montel Williams will be their new offering in the Thom Hartmann time slot, which tells us that Jerry Springer's flameout was just their first attempt to retread a tabloid TV host as a "progressive" radio host.
Meanwhile, in the last month, liberal channels were dropped in once-promising cities like Ann Arbor, Miami and Washington D.C. The trends have been down for at least two years, Collins added: "The total number of stations offering progressive talk in the US peaked at about 105 in 2006, and is now around 70." Collins' show had broadcast in several states, including California, Washington and Massachusetts, but it was not enough.
I think Collins' show was noteworthy for focusing on substantive political and policy topics, with a spirit of strong liberal opinion and aggressive accountability for those in power -- from both parties in government to financial elites to the media itself. He regularly featured guests from a broader spectrum of opinion and experience than you'll hear in traditional broadcast media. The show also frequently hosted writers from The Nation -- whenever I did the show, Collins was incisive, thoughtful and knowledgeable. Finally, at a time when so much of the media still fails to honor the basic tenet that the Constitution and federal law must bind government action, Collins deserves special recognition for his early, dogged work reporting and advocating accountability for torture, surveillance and abuses of the rule of law during the Bush administration.
The show's website has archives and more information.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
MELBER: ....in the last month, liberal channels were dropped in once-promising cities like Ann Arbor, Miami and Washington D.C. The trends have been down for at least two years, Collins added: "The total number of stations offering progressive talk in the US peaked at about 105 in 2006, and is now around 70."
Hmmmm.....if lib radio program can't make it in can't-be-any-deeper-blue D.C., what should one concludes?
Posted by Happy at 03/16/2009 @ 2:41pm
((Okay, try again))
Wouldn't fret talk radio, Mr Melber. It's not that impactful apparently.
One of THE most successful talkers, a conservative, just got called an "idiot" by the Republican Governor of South Carolina and "irrational" by the Republican former Speaker of the House.
And his views on some issues polls in the 20s, even 10s.
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 2:42pm
Thanks for that update, Ari, even if it's a bit of sad news.
On the upside there's this little tidbit showing up at the Washington Post on Sunday:
tinyurl.com/cvplxh
Excerpt:
By Billy Wharton Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page B01
It took a massive global financial crisis, a failed military adventure and a popular repudiation of the Republican Party to make my national television debut possible. After 15 years of socialist political organizing -- everything from licking envelopes and handing out leaflets to the more romantic task of speaking at street demonstrations -- I found myself in the midtown Manhattan studio of the Fox Business Network on a cold February evening. Who ever thought that being the editor of the Socialist magazine, circulation 3,000, would launch me on a cable news career?
The media whirlwind began in October with a call from a New York Times writer. He wanted a tour of the Socialist Party USA's national office. Although he was more interested in how much paper we used in our "socialist cubby hole" than in our politics, our media profile exploded. Next up, a pleasant interview by Swedish National Radio. Then Brian Moore, our 2008 presidential candidate, sparred with Stephen Colbert. Even the Wall Street Journal wanted a socialist to quote after the first bailout bill failed last fall. Traffic to our Web site multiplied, e-mail inquiries increased and meetings with potential recruits to the Socialist Party yielded more new members than ever before. Socialism -- an idea with a long history -- suddenly seemed to have a bright future in 21st-century America.
Whom did we have to thank for this moment in the spotlight? Oddly enough, Republican politicians such as Mike Huckabee and John McCain had become our most effective promoters.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/16/2009 @ 3:21pm
During his campaign, the ever-desperate McCain, his hard-charging running mate Sarah Palin and even a plumber named Joe lined up to call Barack Obama a "socialist." Last month, Huckabee even exclaimed that, "The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead, but the Union of American Socialist Republics is being born."
We appreciated the newfound attention. But we also cringed as the debate took on the hysterical tone of a farcical McCarthyism. The question "Is Obama a socialist?" spread rapidly through a network of rightwing blogs, conservative television outlets and alarmist radio talk shows and quickly moved into the mainstream. "We Are All Socialists Now," declared a Newsweek cover last month. A New York Times reporter recently pinned Obama down with the question, "Are you a socialist, as some people have suggested?" The normally unflappable politician stumbled through a response so unconvincing that it required a follow-up call in which Obama claimed impeccable free market credentials.
All this speculation over whether our current president is a socialist led me into the sea of business suits, BlackBerrys and self-promoters in the studio at Fox Business News. I quickly realized that the antagonistic anchor David Asman had little interest in exploring socialist ideas on bank nationalization. For Asman, nationalization was merely a code word for socialism. Using logic borrowed from the 1964 thriller "The Manchurian Candidate," he portrayed Obama as a secret socialist, so far undercover that not even he understood that his policies were de facto socialist. I was merely a cudgel to be wielded against the president -- a physical embodiment of guilt by association.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/16/2009 @ 3:21pm
The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us.
Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system......
The president has, however, been assigned the unenviable task of salvaging a capitalist system intent on devouring itself. The question is whether he can do so without addressing the deep inequalities that have become fundamental features of American society. So, President Obama, what I want to know is this: Can you lend legitimacy to a society in which 5 percent of the population controls 85 percent of the wealth? Can you sell a health-care reform package that will only end up enriching a private health insurance industry? Will you continue to favor military spending over infrastructure development and social services?
My guess is that the president will avoid these questions, further confirming that he is not a socialist except, perhaps, in the imaginations of an odd assortment of conservatives. Yet as the unemployment lines grow longer, the food pantries emptier and health care scarcer, socialism may be poised for a comeback in America. The doors of our "socialist cubby-hole" are open to anyone, including Obama. I encourage him to stop by for one of our monthly membership meetings. Be sure to arrive early to get a seat -- we're more popular than ever lately.
End quote.
Even as the "system" chokes on it's own exhaust so to speak, you gotta love the fact that new ideas will at least get an airing.
Finally.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/16/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/16/2009 @ 3:21pm
The ONLY reason the Right uses "socialist" and "socialism" these days is...
"liberal" and "liberalism" just aren't scary enough.
Further proof Reaganism is dying away...as "liberal" was good enough for the Gipper! heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 3:27pm
Thanks, kool.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/16/2009 @ 3:28pm
My pleasure, CKA.
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 03/16/2009 @ 3:31pm
But for all the anti-tax swagger and the occasional stunts by personalities like KFI's John and Ken, the reality is that conservative talk radio in California is on the wane. The economy's downturn has depressed ad revenue at stations across the state, thinning the ranks of conservative broadcasters.
For that and other reasons, stations have dropped the shows of at least half a dozen radio personalities and scaled back others, in some cases replacing them with cheaper nationally syndicated programs.
Casualties include Mark Larson in San Diego, Larry Elder and John Ziegler in Los Angeles, Melanie Morgan in San Francisco, and Phil Cowen and Mark Williams in Sacramento.
Two of the biggest in the business, Roger Hedgecock in San Diego and Tom Sullivan in Sacramento, have switched to national shows, elevating President Obama above Schwarzenegger on their target lists.
Another influential Sacramento host, Eric Hogue, has lost the morning rush-hour show that served as a prime forum to gin up support for the recall of Gov. Gray Davis. Now he airs just an hour a day at lunchtime on KTKZ-AM (1380).
"It's lonely, it's quiet, and it's a shame," Hogue said of California's shrinking conservative radio world. "I think this state has lost a lot of benefit. I don't know if we can grow it back any time soon."
The immediate question facing the state's conserva
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/16/2009 @ 3:41pm
Obamanation and the Demoncrats are the only ones that can rescue liberal regressive talk radio from the trash heap of history. Thats why Durbin sneaked in his bill to aid them with the FCC.
However, without mandated federal money and forced advertising its dead on arrival! Got to get that Communist propoganda out there to combat Rush!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/16/2009 @ 4:17pm
The ONLY reason the Right uses "socialist" and "socialism" these days is...
"liberal" and "liberalism" just aren't scary enough.
Further proof Reaganism is dying away...as "liberal" was good enough for the Gipper! heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 3:27pm
Hell. Socialism won't be scary enough soon. As we just saw Republican's socialize losses.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 03/16/2009 @ 4:21pm
You know Liberal Regressive talk radio reminds me of Union now paid off by Obamanation and the Demoncrats with porkulus money, but what does the public think of them? (the same)
"Contrary to union leaders' expectations, the vast majority of workers have no interest in joining a union.
A Rasmussen Reports survey finds 81 percent of non-union workers do not want union representation. That compares to just 9 percent of workers who say they do want to join a union.
Even among workers whose employers are laying off employees, interest in joining a union is low: Only 9 percent want to be members of a union."
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/16/2009 @ 4:21pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/16/2009 @ 3:41pm
you're glee is premature. Conservative AM talk radio still dominates in So Cal.
Hedgecock and Sullivan going national are expansion, not contraction.
Larry Elder (who I love as the best black radio commentator in the business) was replaced by Mark Levin. So that is hardly a decrease in conservative airtime.
Ken and John are libertarians and are two of the most popular in So Cal.
KGIL dropped Ed Schultz (lib), Alan Colmes (lib), and Dr Drew Pinsky (lib).
http://www.scba.com/Article.asp?id=1157052&spid=
KFI640 is #3 in the LA ratings
KABC had dropped to 30th but they are back up to 22nd
http://www.arbitron.com/radio_stations/home.htm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/16/2009 @ 4:31pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/16/2009 @ 4:31pm
You win...you always do! You don't even blink, do you. Nature Goulet!!!
Posted by ADHD at 03/16/2009 @ 5:41pm
It's official -- what we the sentient public, doctor and dentist patients in waiting rooms across America and the eight diehards still subscribing have long known: Newsweek is a horrendously biased left-wing rag.
Newsweek announced on Tuesday that they are partnering with liberal radio uber-failure Air America to syndicate their show Newsweek On Air. They are the first outside "talent" to join with the newly rechristened Air America Media (AAM).
Longtime Newsweek On Air producer and host and Newsweek Contributing Editor David Alpern said of the conjoining, "AAM Syndication is a great partner for Newsweek On Air. We look forward to maintaining the same high-quality content, balance, and listener interest that has won our program various awards and a place on so many station schedules, some for nearly all of its 27 years on the air."
After more than a quarter century of their "balanced" programming, I would venture to guess that most of you have never heard of Newsweek On Air. This state of anonymity will likely continue with their Air America Media partnership. It seems they sought to collaborate with an entity whose listenership mirrors their readership – minimal and declining rapidly.
Can't believe the nation missed this one bright shining spot of the liberal national media!?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/16/2009 @ 6:52pm
>>>Hmmmm.....if lib radio program can't make it in can't-be-any-deeper-blue D.C., what should one concludes?
Posted by Happy at 03/16/2009 @ 2:41pm<<<
That black folks prefer music to the chatter on the radio - like most people!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/16/2009 @ 6:53pm
AM radio has been slowly dying for some time now. The wingnuts can have it. It really is 'their speed' anyway.
FM will survive longer. XM already has begun to dominate.
And of course, the Internet - which the left already discovered LONG before the right - will continue to be the REAL force in 'media'.
Posted by Lillian at 03/16/2009 @ 7:07pm
That black folks prefer music to the chatter on the radio - like most people!
Posted by Metteyya at 03/16/2009 @ 6:53pm
Good of you to admit, white liberals aren't capable of supporting lib radio programs...yet, rather amazingly, you can keep black folks ignorant of things that really matter....oh, that's right, you control the high-standard public school system!
Posted by Happy at 03/16/2009 @ 7:28pm
Lib radio fails for the same reason the Edsel, the Yugo and the buggy whip failed...
no interest in the product, no business generated by the product, no demand for the product, and therefore no economics to justify its existance.
It really is that simple.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/16/2009 @ 8:57pm
If the left is in power the right wins the airwave war and vice versa.
Look at Olbermann's ratings at media bistro,
down,
down,
down,
they go.
Posted by bleedingheart at 03/16/2009 @ 9:02pm
"no interest in the product, no business generated by the product, no demand for the product, and therefore no economics to justify its existance. "----Posted by YourJomamma at 03/16/2009 @ 8:57pm |
Kind of sounds like the Dubya Administration too!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 9:12pm
.yet, rather amazingly, you can keep black folks ignorant of things that really matter....
•• monkeys, all of them.
oh, that's right, you control the high-standard public school system!
•• actually, the stupid ass funding system does.
Eructed by Happy at 03/16/2009 @ 7:28pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/16/2009 @ 9:42pm
Kind of sounds like the Dubya Administration too!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 03/16/2009 @ 9:12pm
Yup, and soon Obama will enter those same waters...
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/16/2009 @ 9:53pm
Haw haw haw...
Monday, February 02, 2009 DC's Liberal Radio Station Axed Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 7:37 AM Washington Post's Howard Kurtz reports:
The area's only progressive talk station is changing formats, dropping such syndicated liberal hosts as Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller and Bill Press in favor of financial news, starting next week.
The move by Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who purchased the station, WWRC, and others in Washington last summer, leaves the city without a liberal radio outlet. Program Director Greg Tantum says he thought the station could work because of enthusiasm over Obama, but that ratings collapsed to a level that could not be measured after the election.
But ratings nearly doubled, he says, at Snyder's conservative station, WTNT, which features Laura Ingraham and Bill Bennett. Tantum said he will move Schultz to WTNT to give him another shot.
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2009 @ 10:39pm
Funny how the recession only seems to hit liberal radio - nothing to do with their point of view, I suppose!
But really, guys...the longer we get to see the liberal rags like the NYT and the WaPo hold on - the longer we get our daily dose of schadenfreude as these liberal rags go under slowly...bleeeding....bleeeding....bleeeding...
ah, so good!
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2009 @ 10:41pm
I particularly savor this part:
"Program Director Greg Tantum says he thought the station could work because of enthusiasm over Obama, but that ratings collapsed to a level that could not be measured after the election. "
Translation: They made as many phone calls as they could, but they couldn't find a single fucking person who listened to WWRC liberal radio in DC!
LOL!
Well of course they couldn't! They're all listeing to National Propaganda Radio (NPR) , NBC, WTOP, or MSNBC!!! What do they need another liberal station for?
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2009 @ 10:46pm
I think this speaks for itself.
CABLE NEWS RACE FRI., MARCH 13, 2009
FOXNEWS O'REILLY 3,185,000 FOXNEWS BECK 3,074,000 FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,557,000 FOXNEWS BAIER 2,151,000 FOXNEWS SHEP 1,879,000 FOXNEWS GRETA 1,522,000 MSNBC OLBERMANN 1,223,000 CNN KING 1,046,000 CNNHN GRACE 1,045,000 MSNBC MADDOW 954,000
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2009 @ 10:53pm
I guess what the liberals need now is a 'Fairness Doctrine' to FORCE people to listen to liberal propaganda!
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2009 @ 10:54pm
I guess what the liberals need now is a 'Fairness Doctrine' to FORCE people to listen to liberal propaganda!
Posted by pontificus at 03/16/2009 @ 10:54pm
Just like 1984.....Big Brother loves us all as we absorb our daily doses!
Posted by Happy at 03/16/2009 @ 11:28pm
"I guess what the liberals need now is a 'Fairness Doctrine' to FORCE people to listen to liberal propaganda!"
how does this person show his face in public?
Posted by darladoon at 03/17/2009 @ 12:00am
Haven taken the high ground against American citizens rights the Demoncrat congress has a new LOW point to explore! Investigating highly successful LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies!!!
– House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) told CNSNews.com he is going to invite Maricopa County (Ariz.) Sheriff Joe Arpaio to testify in his committee about alleged abuses by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office in its enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. But a spokeswoman for Arpaio told CNSNews.com that the sheriff -- who has not yet received an official invitation to testify -- currently has "no intention" of appearing before Conyers' committee.
The spokeswoman said, however, that Arpaio "welcomes" a Justice Department investigation into the way his sheriff's office has handled enforcement of federal immigration laws.
As CNSNews.com reported last week, Acting Assistant Atty. Gen. Loretta King sent a letter to Sheriff Arpaio on March 10 informing him that the Justice Department was initiating an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO).
The investigation, King wrote, will "focus on alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the MCSO, and on allegations of national origin discrimination, including failure to provide meaningful access to MCSO services for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals
The Demoncrats and Obamanation have just got to make it easier for mexican drug cartels and illegal aliens to benefit from Norte Americana society! They do their best work using the FBI and ATF!!!
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/17/2009 @ 12:36am
MEXICO CITY -- Mexico said Monday it will increase tariffs on about 90 U.S. products in retaliation for last week's decision to end a pilot program that allowed some Mexican trucks to transport goods in the United States.
Economy Secretary Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said the U.S. decision violates a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement that was supposed to have opened cross-border trucking by January 2000.
"We consider this U.S. action to be wrong, protectionist and a clear violation of the treaty," Ruiz Mateos told reporters. "By deciding to protect their trucking industry, they have decided to affect other countries and the region."
The measure will affect about $2.4 billion in trade involving approximately 90 agricultural and industrial products from 40 U.S. states. Ruiz Mateos said the department later this week will publish a list of the products, which he said were chosen to represent a large number of U.S. states and significant trade items.
He did not specify how much tariffs would be increased, but said "the retaliatory measures are the cost the United States is going to have to pay for failing to fulfill its obligations under
When can we expect MORE of this diplomatic GENIUS from Obamanation and the Demoncrats? Do we really have to guess?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/17/2009 @ 01:30am
If it weren't for cartoon characters and multiple-voting dead folks, I'm afraid liberals would have very little following at all.
Posted by jophis at 03/17/2009 @ 02:55am
When can we expect MORE of this diplomatic GENIUS from Obamanation and the Demoncrats? Do we really have to guess?
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/17/2009 @ 01:30am
The US should offer to pay the "fines" by returning the illegals buy the bushel and bill Meical for the prison costs, the welfare costs and the hospitalisation costs school cost, instate tutition costs over American citizens....
And bill them for all the trash that gets left along the borders.
Mexico would owe mmore than it is "demanding"...they nare in no position to demand ANYTHING from the US...and Obama had better not screw this up, too.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/17/2009 @ 06:32am
Posted by jophis at 03/17/2009 @ 02:55am
There are 69,000,000 "cartoon characters" and "dead people" in America??!?!?!?
(aka President Obama's vote last November)
Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 07:37am
"Contrary to union leaders' expectations, the vast majority of workers have no interest in joining a union. A Rasmussen Reports survey finds 81 percent of non-union workers do not want union representation. That compares to just 9 percent of workers who say they do want to join a union. Even among workers whose employers are laying off employees, interest in joining a union is low: Only 9 percent want to be members of a union." Posted by comancheamerican at 03/16/2009 @ 4:21pm |
Well, to use the logic surrounding the shredding of the 5th amendment, if this is true, why not support the Employee Free Choice Act? After all, if nobody wants to join a union, what does the Employee Free Choice Act matter?
"I guess what the liberals need now is a 'Fairness Doctrine' to FORCE people to listen to liberal propaganda!"
Nope. Just need a President and a Congress...oh wait, they have that. I wonder how that happened with the failure of liberal talk radio and the great success of conservative talk radio. Head spinning...reaching explosion...must reach utility belt...
Posted by onthehelm at 03/17/2009 @ 08:17am
Even among workers whose employers are laying off employees, interest in joining a union is low: Only 9 percent want to be members of a union."
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/16/2009 @ 4:21pm
That seems to be in direct contrast to a new Gallup Poll which indicates that 53% favor the general idea of a new law making it easier for labor unions to organize workers. (EFCA). The poll shows that 34% of Republicans favor it and 60% oppose it. 52% of Independents favor it and 41% oppose it. 70% of Democrats favor it and 23% oppose it.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 08:57am
The problem that the left wing radio I listen to, Ed Schultz and Thom Hartmann especially, is that with the Republicans out of power, they seem to find themselves without low hanging fruit to target. It's as though they no longer have a purpose. Hartmann rants daily about Ronald Reagan, who left office over two decades ago. The Obama administration is making mistakes - look at the current AIG mess - but left wing radio can't attack the adminstration of those who they came close to deifying last fall. The best thing that could happen to left wing talk radio, if it can just hang on, would be a Republican takeover of Congress in 2010. That would give them easy targets again.
Posted by jsens at 03/17/2009 @ 09:26am
for last week's decision to end a pilot program that allowed some Mexican trucks to transport goods in the United States. Posted by comancheamerican at 03/17/2009 @ 01:30am
This is good news for American truck drivers like myself. By and large Mexican trucks are rolling rattle cans. And Mexican truck drivers are not generally well trained. Canadian trucks by comparison are usually maintained in top condition, usually much better than American trucks. And the drivers are well trained and competent. Again more so than their American counterparts. Many American truck drivers deliver loads in and out of Canada with no reservations or problems, and the reverse is the same. But try and find an American or Canadian truck driver that wants to deliver loads to Mexico..
If Mexico wants to participate in a free, equitable and open exchange of trucks going in and out of Canada the United States and Mexico, they are going to have to make massive improvements in their trucks, drivers and roads. Not to mention safety considerations and equal pay. As it is Mexican truck drivers will work for peanuts, which drives down the wages for American and Canadian drivers.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 09:32am
Posted by jsens at 03/17/2009 @ 09:26am
I can't disagree with you much on that post. Except to say that Thom Hartmann is beginning to criticize and question Obama on many issues. Hartmann has indicated that Obama is no liberal, and certainly not a socialist. Hartmann has had the "Brunch with Bernie" segment on his show on Fridays for many years. Which I rarely miss. Bernie Sanders is a socialist and probably one of the few politicians who really care about the direction of this country. I always learn something new when I listen to Thom's show.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 10:00am
Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 10:02am
Yes, they are different questions. But pugnants like Comanche use the polls they quote in an attempt to indicate that the American worker doesn't want Unions and/or don't want anyone else to have one. The fact is workers whether they need a union or not are generally sympathetic to the idea of unions and the right to use collective bargaining.
This is probably because most working people realize that unions were the driving force behind a strong and vibrant middle class. Most people (hopefully) realize which side their bread is buttered on even if they don't wish to or need to participate in a union.
A union tide raises all boats.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 10:27am
One of the many reasons lib talk radio is dissolving is because it is tedius and boring. I have listened to Air America off and on and the format is essentially 100% one sided as in there were no "guests" from the right to have debates with the host. Contrast that with Conservative talk radio that, more often than not, has guests from the left to debate - it makes for interesting conversation. The main exception on the right is Rush but that's because his personality carries the whole show and that is his format. Liberal radio has the feel of kids in a closed club that are afraid of getting outside their insular little circle. Solution? Break out - mix it up with the other side - get some excitement going...don't be scared...
Posted by pyeatte at 03/17/2009 @ 10:39am
Posted by pyeatte at 03/17/2009 @ 10:39am
Partially agree.
After all, except for maybe Randi Rhodes, the Left wouldn't DARE put on the air, a truly deranged paranoid like Glenn Beck (radio AND TV no less)!
Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 10:41am
Posted by pyeatte at 03/17/2009 @ 10:39am
Thom Hartmann has consevative guests to debate on almost every show and puts people who disagree with him at the head of the line on phone calls. Not to mention Alan Coombs who has nearly no call screening and takes on right wingnuts daily. Try and find a conservative radio talk show that ever has dissenting opinion. If they do, they are schills who pretend to be liberals so the host can show how stupid and insane they are.
Your post is an outright lie. As usual. I listen to XM radio in my truck 6 days a week for hours at a time. Both conservative and liberal. And left wing radio shows are much more likely to present dissenting opinion.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 11:21am
A union tide raises all boats.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 10:27am
A union tide sinks mankind; robs him of responsibility, accountability, and self initiative.
Thankfully, for decades now Americans have abandoned this failed marxist concept.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 11:23am
I'd really like to see Rachel take on Colbert,Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 11:03am
Why would Rachel Maddow want to take on Colbert? Colbert is a liberal of the highest ironic and sarcastic order. Do you not have any sense of the absurd? Colbert does. Right wingers for a long time thought he was on their side!
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 11:26am
Now Randi Rhodes and Glen Beck, that would be a wild radio show.
Posted by pyeatte at 03/17/2009 @ 11:30am
Thankfully, for decades now Americans have abandoned this failed marxist concept.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 11:23am
Actually people who paticipate in and form Unions show a high degree of responsibilty, accountability and most especially, self initiative. We are the ones who look after our own best interests and negotiate the value of our time and labor with a bunch of self centered and selfish capitalists. We are the ones who lay it on the line regardless of the consequences to insure that the working class gets a fair shake and has the opportunity to improve the lives of themselves and their children.
We are the ones who are responsible for overcoming and defeating draconian sweat shops and child labor. We are the ones responsible for the working class being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and educate our children and level the playing field so that everyone has a chance to participate in what's left of the American Dream.
American workers deserve the chance to succeed and the EFCA is a step in that direction.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 11:45am
And by the way, Unions and Guilds predate Marx by hundreds of years. The struggle continues.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 11:49am
Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 11:30am
Otay, Sorry. I was worried there for a minute.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 11:52am
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 11:45am
There is no possibility that you and I will ever see this subject along any lines of agreement.
I would be a very happy person if I ever lived to see the end of unionism in this country.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:00pm
Posted by pyeatte at 03/17/2009 @ 11:30am
Randi Rhodes would eat Glen Becks lunch. If he could get a word in edgewise. He would end up a quivering mass of right wing contradictions with Randi standing over him with black leather, studs and a whip. Beck would be simpering and begging for more.
What a picture eh?
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 12:01pm
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 11:45am
"We are the ones who are responsible for overcoming and defeating draconian sweat shops and child labor. We are the ones responsible for the working class being able to enjoy the fruits of their labor and educate our children and level the playing field so that everyone has a chance to participate in what's left of the American Dream."
At one time unions may have been necessary to curb employers who failed to make a workplace safe or who employed children. We now have OSHA and child labor laws, and unions are no longer necessary for these purposes.
What unions have become in recent years is a bane on American industry. Union featherbedding, manifest in job banks, ludicrous work rules, and other wastes of wealth have driven the US steel industry to oblivion with the US auto industry (the unionized part) soon to follow. There is nothing that an unskilled union laborer in Detroit can do that an unskilled laborer in South Korea, China, or, for that matter, Alabama or Tennessee can do for 1/3 less, with take-home pay to match. Most of the ill-effects of unions do not affect take-home pay, they affect efficiency of production, waste of wealth for political contributions they DO NOT support, and overhead costs that the workers DO NOT see any tangible benefit from. Politically protected unions actually are a major Democratic Party scam that directly benefits the Party at the expense of the workers, and workers know this, thus polls that show most workers DO NOT want unions.
What the Union Thug Empowerment Act (EFCA) will do is enable intimidation and coercion of the vast majority of American workers who DO NOT want a union to kill their job and send it overseas.
Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 12:09pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:00pm
Why would you want to see and end to unions? Are you super rich? Are you greedy? Can you just not stand the idea that others don't have to kiss your ass? Do you fear that workers may be as good or better than yourself? Do you fear a loss of control? Are you a control freak who fears that others may not respect you unless you can lord over them?
Sorry about all the questions. I just can't for the life of me understand why people like you feel the need to limit the opportunity of others to satisfy or overcome some feeling of inadequacy in yourself.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 12:15pm
Now Randi Rhodes and Glen Beck, that would be a wild radio show.----Posted by pyeatte at 03/17/2009 @ 11:30am
Yep, though Beck is moving WAY past Rhodes on the Paranoia Meter....
already into the RESE/PLUNGER-land of "Obama building concentration camps for conservatives" mode!
Posted by Mask at 03/17/2009 @ 12:18pm
Right wingers and conservatives find much glee in the disappearance of any voices of dissent. I can see how that would make them happy, being the fair minded and good natured folks that they have proven to be.
The only voices on radio will soon be Rush, Billy Cunningham, Mark Levin, Shawn Hannity. I seem to be hearing that this is a good thing from the conservative posters here. Is that wrong? Did I miss something? It seems that you are saying "Dissent is bad! Shut up and go back to work! Make me rich!"
OK. So, let's silence the voices. Let's shut down those liberal news outlets... and then we'll kill all the unions... and then... and then....
Well, the Reichstag was mostly wood, I think, but I'm sure you guys will come up with something. Brown is the new blue!
Oh. You lost the election. The party of no ideas. Except to get 'them' to shut up. THAT'S the solution. That'll make night into day. America. Land of the Fee.
Posted by ficheye at 03/17/2009 @ 12:21pm
Why would you want to see and end to unions? Are you super rich? Are you greedy? Can you just not stand the idea that others don't have to kiss your ass? Do you fear that workers may be as good or better than yourself? Do you fear a loss of control? Are you a control freak who fears that others may not respect you unless you can lord over them?
Sorry about all the questions. I just can't for the life of me understand why people like you feel the need to limit the opportunity of others to satisfy or overcome some feeling of inadequacy in yourself.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 12:15pm
No, not rich, not even making middle class income any more.
Not about control. It's about freedom. My experience with unions is that they rob you of your freedom to succeed based upon your own merits. If you try and succeed, the union will quash you and keep you down with the "average".
They do not want people to do above what is minimally required by the language of the contract.
It is a core personal belief that you can never rise to be all that you are born to be by working in a union.
I have nothing, nada, zilch, good to say about unions. I have repeatedly said that I hate unionism and the way I feel it robs individuals from trying to be better than their current situation. It may bring short term improvement. But that is offset by the long term loss the individual suffers by not persuing personal excellence.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:32pm
What the Union Thug Empowerment Act (EFCA) will do is enable intimidation and coercion of the vast majority of American workers who DO NOT want a union to kill their job and send it overseas.
Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 12:09pm
To start out with the acronym for your fantasy "Union Thug Empowerment Act" would be UTEA not EFCA. Thought I would point that out.
Secondly, You are using "fear" of jobs being shipped overseas because union patriots want a fair shake for American workers. Tariffs on anti-american multi national corporations that ship jobs overseas to take advantage of what is essentially "slave labor" will solve that problem. If a job is shipped overseas that would have paid let's say $15.00 dollars an hour here, was done for $1.50 an hour over there then the tariff to import it back here would be $13.50 based on a formula that takes these labor costs into account.
That would prevent any incentive to use slave labor to manufacture their products. In the short term this will increase the price of goods and/or services for the American consumer. But in the long run it will bring manufacturing jobs back to this country and provide good paying jobs for Americans represented by a Union in order to enable them to pay the slightly higher cost of the product that is produced with a fair wage being paid. Labor is usually only 10 to 15 percent of cost.
The added benefit will be that countries who were using slave labor to attract business will be forced to start treating their workforce fairly in order to compete.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 12:43pm
There go our neocon friends again...waxing all poetic and stuff on the mythic, epic, titanic power of labor unions--who, from what I last saw here in reality land, have a grand whopping total of about 14% (or so) of the labor force.
Bwahahahahaha.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/17/2009 @ 12:56pm
But they have tools and stuff, Schnell! Can you defend yourself with a stock-certificate? Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 12:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
:) I guess the upside of pages like this is I get all fuzzy and warm and nostalgic and stuff. Like, you know, like back in the day, when we had factories AND unions.
Whattaconcept!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/17/2009 @ 1:04pm
Just throwing it out there to all the "rugged individualist", ayn -randie, neo-con, and labor-hating types:
Query: Are corporations creatures of the state?
More later.....gotta go to WORK!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/17/2009 @ 1:12pm
But that is offset by the long term loss the individual suffers by not persuing personal excellence.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 12:32pm |
That is bullshit. Do you not have any faith in the individual worker wanting to improve his lot? Or do you feel that desperation breeds productivity? If a worker has nominal stress and worry and see's a light at the end of tunnel they are much more productive, happy and compliant. A happy worker is a productive and contributing worker. Who may even have enthusiasm for the success of the business they are contributing towards. An underpaid and stressed out worker has nothing but feelings of a contrary nature towards management. It breeds an adversarial attitude that is not conducive to productivity and cooperation.
Union collective bargaining insures that the workplace is safe and that employees needs and concerns are addressed in a manner that makes them feel that they are part of the process and not a victim of it.
This is simple stuff..
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 1:12pm
I think that this subject matter is revealing in that it is the beginning of 'The Quickening'... A new Republican philosophy that does not seek to apply the edicts of the constitution, and instead seeks to apply suppression against dissent.
Having been lost, they are now found by realizing that crushing dissent is the first action on the road back to power. In this case, being gleeful that 'liberal' radio' is diminishing points to an acceptance and embracing of a new policy.
Is this just a fluke, an outpouring of small minded sentiment here at The Nation? Or the shadow of things to come?
They seem to seek to throw away all that has come before. They have lost the control they once had and the only way to regain it is through radical means... and if that means the reiteration of the insane "The constitution is just a goddam piece of paper", we can expect that more is soon to follow.
And what that says, finally, is that deep down, it has never been about justice and equality ... it's been about power. And that means winning - at any cost.
Posted by ficheye at 03/17/2009 @ 1:14pm
Anti, what is it, specifically, that prevents people that work in unions from pursuing personal excellence?
I keep seeing the same, "You'll never be all that you can be" argument, but I don't understand the mechanism, if you will, of this subjugation.
It certainly doesn't fit with my experiences of unions (carpenters, concrete rig drivers, and Hollywood production people) and their drive for achievement.
They seem just as motivated as I am to do right by their kids and their communities.
Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 12:44pm
When I worked in unions, we were harrassed by the union not to ever outwork others; never to do more than we were absolutely required to do. Never to perform a task if it was outside your job description-even if you had the time and the ability.
I was told as a shop steward to write grievances every day against management. Because I was told that "just by being management, they have to have done something against workers". I was ordered to fight dismissal of workers who were so flagrantly violating company rules that even employees wanted them gone. I saw the union order key workers in the Teamsters to "arrange" accidents for management members as a way to send messages of power.
Anyone who voiced a desire to climb the ladder into management was harrassed and told that their life would be questionable if they left the union for management.
I could cite much more. My youngest son is in the firefighters' union and hates it. My wife talks constantly about the threats and intimidation that goes on with her county workers' union.
The only union members I ever knew who were happy about it were the casino workers. They had such a sweetheart deal that few ever wanted to do anything. I don't get that attitude
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 1:17pm
If Mexico wants to participate in a free, equitable and open exchange of trucks going in and out of Canada the United States and Mexico, they are going to have to make massive improvements in their trucks, drivers and roads. Not to mention safety considerations and equal pay. As it is Mexican truck drivers will work for peanuts, which drives down the wages for American and Canadian drivers.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 09:32am
Well, here is the result of the pressure by unions on Obama
"Mexico to impose sanctions on US exports ByAlan Beattie in Washington and Adam Thomson in Mexico City
Published: March 16 2009 20:53 | Last updated: March 16 2009 23:30
A long-simmering trade dispute boiled over into sanctions on Monday after Mexico said it would raise tariffs on $2.4bn of US exports in retaliation for ending a pilot programme to allow Mexican trucks on American roads.
Mexico said it would increase tariffs on 90 industrial and agricultural goods, likely to include politically sensitive farm products, after Congress last week killed a pilot programme allowing a limited number of Mexican trucks on American highways. Mexico obtained a judicial ruling in 2001 under the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) allowing it to impose such sanctions, but has held off since the US introduced the pilot scheme.
The sanctions, which Mexican officials say are set to be imposed later this week, will be one of the largest acts of retaliation against US exports. US goods exports to Mexico totalled $151.5bn last year. On Monday, Gerardo Ruíz Mateos, Mexico's economy minister, said: "We believe that the action taken by the US is wrong, protectionist and in clear violation of Nafta."
http://tinyurl.com/c2lf2m
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 1:27pm
Exactly how much arugula do we drive TO MEXICO?
Posted by snowball666 at 03/17/2009 @ 1:39pm
"NAFTA is beneficial to US agriculture and has provided substantial American export growth since its implementation on January 1, 1994. US agricultural exports to Mexico have grown faster than total US agricultural exports to the rest of the world.
Between 1993 and 2005, total US agricultural exports increased from $42.9 billion to $63 billion, a total gain of 47%, or $20.1 billion. During the same period, US agricultural exports to Mexico increased from $3.6 billion to $9.4 billion, an increase of 161%, or $5.8 billion, representing over 27% of all export growth. Locally, Colorado agricultural exports to Mexico grew from $73.3 million in 1993 to over $237 million in 2004, representing a 224% growth, exceeding the growth rate of US agricultural export.
Mexico purchased 8% of all US agricultural exports in 1993 and grew to over 15% in 2005. Colorado's exports of beef products to Mexico grew from $27.3 million in 1993 to over $187 million in 2005 representing an increase of over 580% during this period.
While a wide variety of US agricultural products have benefited from NAFTA, the best performers include: beef, including offal, corn, soybeans, cotton, fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, dried/dehydrated vegetables, feed ingredients, wheat, sorghum, grocery products and pork."
http://tinyurl.com/dj597l
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 1:52pm
some more on exports to Mexico.
This report from the State of Wisconsin and interestingly, the #3 country Wisconsin exports to is China.
http://tinyurl.com/c4orat
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 1:59pm
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 12:43pm
"You are using "fear" of jobs being shipped overseas because union patriots want a fair shake for American workers. "
It's not a 'fear', it's a FACT. Ask any ex-worker in the industries that have been destroyed by unions in America. All of these jobs are now being done overseas, better and more cheaply.
"Tariffs on anti-american multi national corporations that ship jobs overseas to take advantage of what is essentially "slave labor" will solve that problem. If a job is shipped overseas that would have paid let's say $15.00 dollars an hour here, was done for $1.50 an hour over there then the tariff to import it back here would be $13.50 based on a formula that takes these labor costs into account. That would prevent any incentive to use slave labor to manufacture their products. In the short term this will increase the price of goods and/or services for the American consumer."
Not the short term. In the forever term. In essence, you are taxing the general population to pay people in certain unskilled jobs more than they are worth. And there is no incentive, EVER, for these types of artificial markets to conform with reality, so long as they are politically protected.
"But in the long run it will bring manufacturing jobs back to this country and provide good paying jobs for Americans represented by a Union in order to enable them to pay the slightly higher cost of the product that is produced with a fair wage being paid."
Using this flawed logic, we could create arbitrarily high wages for ANY job. The fact is, unskilled labor has a certain value to the economy that cannot be altered by government fiat. There's a reason why unionized industries fail, it's called fundamental economics.
Posted by pontificus at 03/17/2009 @ 2:00pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 1:27pm
You just don't get it, do you? I'm surprised at myself that I even try. I'm not usually this patient. Must be that I just reread "The Life of the Buddha" by Bhikkhu Nanamoli. Crap, I had planned on working on my '74 Ironhead chopper today so I could cruise the boulevard next week. But I got wrapped up in this thread instead. Oh well, I guess sometimes spiritual growth supercedes an awesome ride on a classic harley..
It matters not whether Mexico starts a trade or tarrif war. Let um. They need us more than we need them. Better that than having a fleet of carnivorous Mexican trucks rampaging death and destruction on America's highways.
Screw NAFTA, that is a free trader wet dream anyway. Thanks Bill!
ANTI, if you can't see the common sense in tariffs to protect jobs and ensure a sustainable wage for American workers just look at China. They have a strong protectionist trade policy and are doing quite well with it. In fact they are probably buying up property in your neighborhood as chinese tourists flock to this country on junkets to buy up all our cheap real estate.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 2:43pm
ANTI, if you can't see the common sense in tariffs to protect jobs and ensure a sustainable wage for American workers just look at China. They have a strong protectionist trade policy and are doing quite well with it. In fact they are probably buying up property in your neighborhood as chinese tourists flock to this country on junkets to buy up all our cheap real estate.
Posted by chaoszen at 03/17/2009 @ 2:43pm
Actually, I do prefer tariffs over income taxes. So that is something we agree on.
The problem here is when you try and violate an existing agreement without negotiating at least some kind of compromise.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/17/2009 @ 3:10pm
how does this person show his face in public? Posted by darladoon at 03/17/2009 @ 12:00am
Darla, poor ponti was attacked by a chimp years ago.
He doesn't have a face.
As he said, "Haw haw haw".
Posted by ficheye at 03/17/2009 @ 5:34pm
we constantly hear how german and japanese car companies do so well paying their american workers as little as possible, which they are able to do in absence of unions.
what do they do in their countries? for one thing they have strong unions. a second is that they pay their people far more than they do in Alabama, etc.
in fact they pay their people more than Detroit pays them.
they come here to pay less and to face fewer regulations, and no unions. compared to them, WE are third world.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/18/2009 @ 5:01pm
one more thing, it's the bosses who shipped the jobs overseas, not the unions. to blame them is to blame the victim.
unions are made up of workers. in this case AMERICAN workers. why do the cons hate AMERICANS so?
Posted by emile duBois at 03/18/2009 @ 5:08pm