Thanks to the efforts of Arthur King, I was tapped this morning for an interview on WGAN’s morning news show, hosted by Mike Violette and Dennis Bailey, standing in for Ken Altshuler. The topic was the Jonathan Gruber matter, and they were taking the cue from my most recent post on it.
You can listen to the podcast for the segment, which was about 15 minutes, here.
Ethics Alarms 
Awesome! You absolutely owned the floor! I will have to listen to it again; I thought I heard a bit of dickishness on their part, but they may have just been playing devil’s advocate. I don’t need to tell you that you operate on a high wavelength, but you really need more exposure. I believe that, given the additional forums you’re worthy of, you could leave an impact that would reverberate through the ages. The world is populated by small
small WHAT???????????
What the hell is wrong with my phone? It interrupted my tempo and ruined the moment. Anyway, i was saying that the world is overpopulated by small people, eating away at it like a cancer or a plague of locusts. I’m so sick of smallness. I believe that compatiblism is deeply flawed, and so believe that everyone is capable of having integrity, leading a virtuous life
I too.
And cultivating in themselves the desire to try to leave the world a little better than when we entered it. I don’t understand people who are so goddamned selfish and small that they don’t care about the country their extended progeny will inherit. Squirrels exhibit more noble behavior. I hope you live a long life, and your voice and words scold and challenge a great number of these lilliputian parasites to grow up.
Is there any possibility that Gruber and / or Obama agree with joed68 remarks,
“the world is overpopulated by small people, eating away at it like a cancer or a plague of locusts. I’m so sick of smallness.”
and thinking by themselves something like,
I have been cultivating with myself “the desire to try to leave the world a little better than when we entered it. I don’t understand people who are so goddamned selfish and small that they don’t care about the country their extended progeny will inherit.”
And thereby not only have a good night rest and a clear consciousness, and maybe even stronger, are proud about what and how they accomplished their successes?
Sure. Elitists and autocrats and hypocrites often are sure they are the good guys. They know best, so why not do whatever they have to to bend the weak, lazy, greedy and moronic—in their view— to these superior dictators’ wills? The problem is that the nation’s values reject that philosophy. We have a right to self determination and autonomy, and if a leader doesn’t like our choices or values, and doesn’t have the skill to persuade us to follow him or her paths legitimately, then too damn bad.
But this raises the question, How can one tell if he is the really true good guy or the elitist, autocrat and hypocrite?
NB. And an answer, a solution to this question that is only acceptable by the true good guy is not sufficient. We need an answer that makes the elitist, autocrat and hypocrite guy realize that he is not really the good guy.
Something like 2 Samuel 12 comes to mind.
“How can one tell if he is the really true good guy or the elitist, autocrat and hypocrite?”
Easy. The good guy trusts the public to make up its own mind, after the best arguments have been heard. The bad guys believes that his favored ends justifies the means used to achieve them.
But he sincerely believes that, or at least he believes he sincerely believes that. It’s on the public to make that distinction. The bad guy is preoccupied with burying with burying the truth as deeply as possible.
If you can’t have your way without controlling the choices of others by force or deceit, you aren’t the good guy.
Unless you deceit yourself as Charlie Chaplin did in The Great Dictator.
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4 for his final speech.
Exactly. If you find that you have to MAKE other people be good, then you’re not the good guy you’re looking for.
That takes work, a great deal of honest self-appraisal, and the courage to do both. Unfortunately, these sorts need to expend huge amounts of energy towards the polar opposite. They’re maintaining a psychological juggling act, a house of cards that falls to pieces whenever their delusions are challenged. And woe betide the challenger. See narssisistic supply and narcissistic rage.
You ought to get your own show, Jack. Your thick tongued Boston accent was showing, too!
Only for the New England fans.
That was great!
I truly wish that you lived in Texas or I lived in Virginia. I can’t tell you how much I would love to sit across a table from you with a cup of coffee (or a beer, depending on the time of day) and just talk about stuff. Any stuff…lots of stuff. Oh, well, that is likely not to be, but that interview was amazing.
Thanks. I’m going to start publishing my travel schedule here so I can see and meet you and others. I just have to get in the habit.
Looking forward to it.
Or better yet, a big, fat spliff!😄
Spliff? What is?
A massive joint. Jack LOVES him some pot!
Jack, that’s the best and the most of you I have heard yet!
Thumbs-up to your publishing your travel schedule!
That was a great listen. I was able to name the rationalizations as soon as I heard them.
Good show. I almost wish it had been longer. I’ll admit I haven’t even heard of this podcast before, so I don’t know the record of the interviewer, but they seemed to want to defend Obama. Is that how you took it?
It’s a Left-Right format, but I didn’t they had their heart in it. The attempts to duck administration accountability were pretty tame.
The sidekick, in particular, comes off as an apologist. Semantics? Really? It didn’t take long for Jack to break out the old rationalization list, though. My guess is if he had been on longer, he could have called out many more examples. Good to hear your voice, Jack!
They bailed before they went into a complete tailspin. Most rational people question themselves at every turn. Many people of that persuasion don’t have that burden. They feel sure they hold all sorts of high ground, so they enter a debate supremely confident. I think Jack rattled their cages but good.
Well done, Jack. As a guy who does a lot (and when I say a lot, I mean at least weekly) of radio in interviews like yours, albeit on a much less important subject from the standpoint of the country, I would offer one piece of advice – give your interviewers a chance to follow up with you.
As important as your points are, when you talk non-stop it encourages people to tune out. Keep your points strong and no longer than 30 seconds (15-20 is better if it’s possible), and give your hosts a chance to engage. At the same time, don’t let them dominate you. It is, as most things, a balancing act, but keeping it easily digestible is especially critical for you.
You want your hosts engaging you for two reasons; one, in this case, at least one of them were clearly skeptical of your position, which is gold for you, and second, they are more likely to ask you back if your comments are made in digestible chunks.
It is my experience that the public gets just as annoyed with long-winded verbal expositions as they do with long paragraphs – they tend to throw up their hands. You don’t want that. Of course, the fully engaged people who agree with you will listen to it, but you also want the skeptic engaged.
In fact, I’d argue that the skeptics are by far your most important audience component. Those who are skeptical of your point that the administration was at fault for this deception, and not just one policy wonk, are the ones who need to hear you explain otherwise. People want to blame the wonk. They need to blame the wonk. Don’t let them have an excuse by making it easy for them to tune out and blame the wonk.
Great job, overall, in your argument. My suggestion is just to recognize that broadcast is not significantly different than blogging, in the sense that attention span is a critical aspect.