Sadr’s Surge
It looks like those who insisted everything is getting better in Iraq spoke too soon. Didn’t they realize how dumb it was to gloat just because things were sounding better for a minute?
When Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki first issued his disarmament ultimatum to Muqtada Al-Sadr’s militia (the Mahdi Army), which was kicking Iraqi troops asses in Basra and Sadr City, I couldn’t help but chuckle. Mahdi is pretty strong, and it has firm support in those two areas, unlike the US-backed forces. They were not about to surrender. But when Maliki gave a 10-day extension, he might as well told his own troops to surrender.
It turns out they’re starting to do that anyway. Buried at the bottom of a pretty good LA Times article today:
There were reports of some weapons handovers today, but not the kind Maliki was seeking.
In Sadr City, about 40 members of the National Police went to the main Sadr office to offer their weapons. They said they did not want to battle fellow Shiites.
In exchange, they were given olive branches and Korans, according to witnesses.
Does anyone still think we’re “winning”?
Update: Oh, it just keeps getting better. After yesterday pledging “no retreat” in the fight against the Mahdi Army, NPR is reporting that Maliki himself today had to literally retreat when his own bunker came under mortar attack.
Also, here’s some more from the LA Times on the backwards arms surrender, pictured in the photo above.
Hmmm. Here’s a report from independent (reader financed) war journalist Bill Roggio writing in The Long War Journal: Sadr orders followers to end fighting:
The lede:
So, to answer your question… In this case, yes, we are winning. As it pertains to al Sadr, it would appear we have won.
Obviously, I wasn’t talking about “in this case”, I was talking about the war. The US has “defeated” Sadr at least 3 times before like this, so I don’t think you can sensibly declare that “we have won” as far as Sadr is concerned.
Besides, the numbers Roggio is using are primarily from US and Iraqi military sources, which means of course they are exaggerated. Even according to those figures, though, Roggio says Sadr only lost 2% of his fighting power. And the fact that Roggio didn’t mention Sadr’s people were negotiating inside the Green Zone and that Baghdad might have met some of his demands is kind of sketchy, don’t you think?
Here’s what the latest New York Times article has to say on the matter:
This smells like a deal was cut to me. Sadr certainly was not defeated outright on the battlefield — that much is obvious.
So can we put you down for believing Sadr is finished and the US won’t be having any more trouble from his folks again, Todd? Or was my assessment of our side not winning the war apt?
Hmmm. I missed this. I was being a smart ass in my first post.
Although it is my opinion from reading indie reporters Michael Yon and Michael Totten (both funded exclusively by readers and merchandise sales). I also read The Long War Journal. All offer balanced coverage of the war from outside the green zone.
All are reporting the surge is working. Both report from the ground in Iraq. One speaks Arabic (Totten). Anyway, if the mainstream media is one’s source, chances are you are getting reporting from the relative safety of the green zone.
It appears ‘Sadr’s Surge’ is over…
What a difference a month makes . . .
Wow, a Right Wing newspaper thinks Maliki beat Sadr!? Say it ain’t so, Todd. Well, if that don’t prove me wrong…
I’ll ask you again, Todd — are you saying that Al-Sadr and his forces are down for the count? We won’t be hearing from them again? If not, then your point is moot.
todd Reply:
April 25th, 2008 at 2:04 am
I think it is likely over, but I don’t think this news story proves it. That’s why I used the phrase ‘appears to be’. If you had read this ‘Right Wing’ (interesting use of capitalization, btw) newspaper story entirely, you’d see it doesn’t entirely support my opinion, noting at the end that the Sadr militia in Baghdad is still entrenched.
The answer to the question at the end of the quote I included is in the paragraph following. It may surprise you. I know it did me.
todd Reply:
April 25th, 2008 at 2:14 am
Are you still tobacco free? My best thoughts are with you, man.
Also, I have a few suggestions for the blog which may not have occurred to you:If one must be registered to post comments, I think it makes more sense to put the CAPTCHA in the registration process, so it only has to be messed with a single time. There really is no need to spam safeguard the comments if they only allow registered users.Create a running website/blog comments/suggestion thread similar to the comments rules you posted, for comments such as these from others.Thanks for adding the blockquote indents to the comments WYSIWYG, would you mind also adding bullets and/or numbering?Can we have the preview button back?
todd Reply:
April 25th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Shoot, I added <UL> and <LI> tags to that last post, but they were stripped by the HTML parser.
Also, I have a few suggestions for the blog which may not have occurred to you:
If one must be registered to post comments, I think it makes more sense to put the CAPTCHA in the registration process, so it only has to be messed with a single time. There really is no need to spam safeguard the comments if they only allow registered users.
Create a running website/blog comments/suggestion thread similar to the comments rules you posted, for comments such as these from others
Thanks for adding the blockquote indents to the comments WYSIWYG, would you mind also adding bullets and/or numbering
Can we have the preview button back?
Big Brother Reply:
April 25th, 2008 at 11:41 am
The CAPTCHA thing is just to add another hurdle to commenting. I have to use it, too. It’s good for us all. Stop whining.
I should not have capitalized right wing when used as an adjective. That was an error, but it’s kind of par for the course that you would interpret it as bias, as you interpret everything I say. I always capitalize Right Wing and Left Wing when used as nouns, which is appropriate grammar. Dude, I’m a copy editor.
Yeah, still tobacco free. Yesterday was really hard, but I’m still not smoking.
Brian,
Ferpetessake man! I wasn’t interpreting anything as bias, I know you’re a copy editor, which is why I was busting your ‘nads about the misuse of the capitalization!
Did you read the story? Did you find the Iranian angle news, as I did?
<whine>
I can take typing two extra words per post (you’ve not noticed I can be verbose?) - it just doesn’t make sense, if the purpose is to stop comment spam. Registration has already accomplished that.
</whine>
Congrats on making it past the hump! Some days I had to read and repeat those 6 steps more than others. For me, the knowledge that I didn’t HAVE to smoke, that I NO LONGER smoked and that GOOD HEALTH was sure to follow made that first week easy (by comparison to the first few days every other time I tried to quit (I don’t believe I ever made it to a week).
May I suggest you plan a week anniversary party this Sunday with your family & friends. Celebrate your independence from Tobacco Inc’s insidious brainwashing! Another good motivator is to ’spend’ your normal amount on cigarettes after your first month or week. Calculate how much you saved for that period with a small purchase. Cigs down here were $3.50/pack when I quit a 1-2 pack a day habit, so I was losing approx. $150.00/month! That’s like $1800.00/year, I imagine you were losing much more than that each month.
There should be a thread dedicated to your discussions. Make is read-only for everyone else.
I will join the discussions occasionally, even if it means Big Bro will tell me I’m superstitious and delusional. The whole al Sadr thing is such a joke. Since the Bush Administration decided to stay in Iraq indefinitely, al Sadr should have been killed long ago. I totoally disagree with the decison to keep military forces in the Middle East. After September 11, wouldn’t it have made more sense to build up an intelligence network around the middle east? Then if anyone posed a serious threat to the US, knock them off one by one, from the top down. Then spend all that money on keeping us safe at home, through improved screening technology at airports, seaports, borders?
That being said, if you decide you’re going to keep American troops there, then fucking do what is necessary to win. Quit fucking around with the politically correct pansy "what would people think?" bullshit.
LOL. Oh my god it’s hilarious how wrong the "Sadr is likely over with" position is turning out. Todd, did you do a serious look around before linking to that Telegraph commentary? Did you see this AP article? Does this sound like Sadr is defeated? Note the report that he still commands 5,000 "highly trained commandos" among an army of 60,000 and that he is "emboldened by its strong resistance to an Iraqi-led crackdown." And he’s reportedly considering a renewal of strikes on US and Iraqi forces. Enjoy your success, fellas.
Do you read what I write, Brian? Read my first response to your post #6.
Big Brother Reply:
April 26th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Yeah, Todd, I quoted your response. I read it. And I read that stupendously uninsightful commentary in its entirety (won’t get that time back, sadly). I get the feeling you don’t actually evaluate the veracity or believability of sources you use, so long as they support your pre-ordained viewpoint. That piece is written in the language of a prejudiced schoolyard bully. How can the columnist expect serious people to take him seriously?
I’m just pointing out how wrong you actually are, for all to behold. It’s like being drastically wrong is a hobby to you.
Todd, you have to remember something, my analytical record is shining compared to yours on Iraq. You’re the guy who thought Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, not me. I knew it was unarmed, and I knew our government knew it was unarmed. I’m not the one with a penchant for gullibility.
Oh, and bullshit you were just critiquing my grammar with the "Right Wing" remark. You are so transparently dishonest — you must realize it. I make grammatical mistakes in these comments all the time, yet the first time you point one out is a politically charged term? Sure, that’s believable, Todd. You’re ever-so believable. LOL!
todd Reply:
April 26th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
You are as civil as ever, Brian. Iraq did have WMDs. Iraq had WMD programs that went undisclosed to UNSCOM until his son in law defected, then they were disclosed. They had a VX nerve program and UNSCOM found traces of VX on some delivery systems. Iraq had a culture of secrecy and Hussein wanted his neighbors to think he still had the capability to do some nasty harm to potential attackers. But you really aren’t interested in dialog on this, are you? You’d rather maintain your sneer from on high. That’s fine and speaks a great deal about you.
Regardless, the piece I linked noted one of the reasons for Maliki’s success in Basra was Iran’s non-involvement. That was news to me.
As for you BS call, puh-leez. All I wrote was ‘interesting use of capitalization, btw’. You are the one who felt the need to discount the link by characterizing it as ‘Right Wing’, (haven’t you said such labelling is a PBM violation of the first order?) and the fact that you used Caps Stood Out To Me. So I noted it. But hey, if you must characterize it as yet another disingenuous tactic on my part, go right ahead. It only reflects poorly on you.
Big Brother Reply:
April 26th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
So, just to be clear, Todd… You believe:
1. Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
2. George Bush volunteered for Vietnam duty.
3. Embryos are people.
4. Climate change is not caused by humans (if it’s even happening).
5. A magical force is guiding what appears to be "evolution".
6. You are perfectly fair and I am dishonest in the extreme.
Am I missing anything?
Mind you, I don’t actually believe you believe any of these patent absurdities, because in fact I think you’re too smart. So please don’t take offense. But I must say it is pretty offensive that you insist on insisting upon such ridiculousness just for the sake of stirring shit up here.
But it’s pretty clear nobody is taking you seriously, so that’s a relief…
todd Reply:
April 26th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Well, I see where Pete gets his penchant for misrepresenting the position he argues against. I find it revealing that you characterize all of the points listed as patent absurdities, despite that most of them are not even accurate characterizations.
First, I do believe what I write because I’ve spent a lot of time over the last 15 years or so following the news and reading up on the issues of the day. I’ve become less religious and less ‘Conservative’ as a result. That isn’t to say I’ve rejected my faith or belief in individual liberty, just that I’ve rejected ‘religiosity’ (such as kissing one’s crucifix at night) and Big Government.
When I state I’m a laissez faire classical liberal, I mean it. The principles which undergird it shape my skepticism and my trust. Those principles are derived from logic based reasoning with a fairly good understanding of sound epistemology. Indeed, it is my belief now after spending a few weeks engaging you to the extent you’ve addressed issues, that your own epistemological understanding is lacking, which is why you can so confidently declare my opinions as ‘ridiculous’.
As for your points:
#1: Undoubtedly he had WMDs (chem and bio) if the UNSCOM report of 1998 is to be believed. He also had been trying to acquire nuclear weapons. In late Sept 1991 the UNSCOM team had a 4 day standoff in a parking lot because Iraqi security forces wouldn’t allow them to leave with documents pertaining to these nuclear plans. This is documented in the 1998 report. I can provide a source link, if you’d like.
#2: I read a story during the 2004 Texas Air Guard controversy which quoted a fellow pilot of Bush’s as saying they inquired about a volunteer program called "Palace Alert" which was to use F102 fighters in Vietnam, which Bush flew. That isn’t volunteering for Vietnam, but that is where I got the notion Bush wasn’t hiding from combat, as Pete & Ventura intimated.
#3: How on earth do you get this from anything I’ve said? Please quote me, or admit you are putting words into my mouth.
#4: Climate change has been happening for the life of this planet. Ice and soil core samples reveal a climate which oscillates in large, long timescales and has smaller oscillations along the larger ones. Moreover, the earth has feedback mechanisms which help balance the climate from too extreme shifts (though some have happened within a few decades, the little ice age which emptied Nordic settlements in Greenland are an example). I read one paper which described the effect of large cold water dumps into the gulf stream from melting glaciers - where a surface ‘lake’ on a glacier finally pours into the ocean, the cold water cooling gulf stream waters, pulling the stream deeper into the ocean, which effectively cools Europe. (I think I got that right, I read the paper a few months ago)
Also, increased CO2 emissions mean faster plant growth (if you’ve known any serious indoor growers, they are likely to have CO2 rich growing areas), which means more CO2 to O2 conversion (that Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen).
So, if humans are affecting the climate, it remains to be seen how drastically, CO2 is a minor ‘greenhouse gas’. Personally, I’m okay with a warming globe, it means more land for farming and less cold climate disease.
#5: See #3, can you quote me on that, or are you seriously this intellectually dishonest?
#6: I don’t know. I think I’m fair. I do aspire to understand what someone is saying without making assumptions or sweeping generalizations, but I’m not always consistently so. I don’t think you’re dishonest by design, but I do think you’ve got some amazing blinders on when it comes to people who disagree with you and that you don’t always practice what you preach when it comes to civil discourse. That is what I gather from reading over our past exchanges, anyway. You are contemptuous and arrogant with those who disagree with your core set of beliefs (so is Pete) and do your damnedest to shout down or intimidate them into silence.
Listen to Pete’s last hour on religion - there were only 2 or 3 people who called in to disagree and he distorted and talked over every one of them. Why is he so afraid to let people have their say? The way he cut people off and shouted them down would make Hannity proud.
Anyway, it has become increasingly obvious you don’t posses the class to address opinions you find offensive or with which you disagree with any civility or humility. I heard Pete say Friday he started reading up on stuff because he got sick of you always hammering him on issues. I chuckled when I heard that, because it confirms my observation you’re a verbal bully.
I may be wrong, but you’ve given me little reason to believe otherwise. Do you think you have been entirely fair and honest? Have you practiced whet you preach? Is there any way in which you’ve behaved which you regret and should be sorry for? If there is, you have a funny way of showing it.
Big Brother Reply:
April 27th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
That sums it up, Todd. As long as it benefits you personally, no big deal. Nice attitude. Hell, as long as there are just two positive impacts and no negatives, you should be all-for global warming, Todd, not just "okay" with it. I mean, why aren’t you arguing that scientists should find some way to warm the globe, like maybe a way to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere?
In truth, of course, you know it will cause massive death and devastation — probably genocide — and any benefits will be swamped by the negatives, including the loss of up to 50% of the world’s species. But you don’t give a fuck about that, right? Even it were a certainty? If you do, why do you exclude it from your assessment of global warming’s effects, and only list the so-called positives?
You can say whatever you want about my style of argument; the real difference between us is that I don’t take stances because of how the position benefits me personally. We’ll always disagree so long as I’m arguing for the collective good and you’re arguing for personal gain. And I guess we see how it might give you a motive to push untruths against the public interest.
I mean, it can’t be coincidence that you (a) disbelieve in the near-certainty of human-induced climate change and (b) want global warming to happen. For those of us who don’t want it to happen (because we think it will hurt people and animals), we have no incentive to believe it is happening other than to address it in case it is happening. For those who want it to happen or who are indifferent, the incentive is to deny it is happening, so no one does anything to stop it. Which is why nobody has a shred of respect for you, Todd, and why you deserve none.
todd Reply:
April 28th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Brian,
I’d love to have a substantive discussion on climate science. However, you seem incapable of making substantive statements to support your position. If you aren’t personally attacking me (isn’t that a violation of comments decorum), you are making statements which have to basis in fact, at least so far as I can tell.
Needless to say, your first paragraph is a total distortion and, as Pete likes to say to callers, reveals your ignorance.
You should try asking questions to get clarification rather than making assumptions about what I think on any given topic. To whit: When I lead a paragraph "Personally,…" that is merely another way of saying "It is my opinion that…", and in no way is meant to imply global warming would ‘benefit me personally’, though it might with lower food costs.
Second, it is my belief that global climate change occurs whether we do anything or not. SCIENCE seems to indicate the globe has been through climate cycles well before humans emerged and will continue no matter what we do. Does that mean we cannot affect climate? No, but it does mean we don’t have the power to regulate climate outside the climate change cycles indicated by the geological record.
This is so hysterical, I don’t know what to say. How do I know it will cause massive death and devastation? We have records of climate change in human history (Medieval Warming Era and Little Ice Age) and didn’t see it.
Do you have ANY science to support this view of genocide or massive devastation? (computer generated scenes from Al Gore’s movie don’t count).
Well, as I noted, I haven’t said warming would benefit me personally. I think I’d rather be living in a time when the planet is warming than when it is cooling, that is my point. I believe humankind will collectively benefit from a warming climate. I’d be glad to support that opinion with the science I’ve read and am happy to read anything which challenges my view on the same grounds (ie, scientifically and logically).
As for your style, it is just garden variety intellectual dishonesty. I’ve seen it before. As I said, you aren’t interested in dialog with those who disagree, otherwise you’d have asked for clarification rather than foolishly accusing me of ‘pushing untruths against the public interest’, which has been your style since I first posted here: Accuse your opponent of lying and just hammer the point, no matter what the facts.
Interesting that you provided nothing to back up your claims in #3 or #5 above. What shall we make of that? Do you have an answer or shall we assume you don’t and are too full of yourself to admit you were WRONG?
Love and kisses,
Todd
shaneInTX Reply:
April 28th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Unfortunately for you, Big Bro, some of us do take Todd seriously. And right now, he is owning you on every debate.
In fact, Todd has gotten you so out of sorts that you are violating just about every rule set by YOU about politically labeling people, name calling, personal attacks, and discouraging intelligent debate. So keep right on thinking no one who doesn’t agree with you is taken seriously. It must be nice to live in your little mental enclave.
Big Brother Reply:
April 28th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Shane, if you would be so kind, please point out any rules I’ve broken and where. I really don’t want to violate any of them, and I think I have not. So if you would be specific, instead of just making empty claims.
And you’re welcome to believe Todd is "owning" me. I wish that were the case — then I’d at least feel challenged.
todd Reply:
April 28th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Brian, if you would be so kind, please point out where I asserted or claimed #3 and #5 above before you ask it of others?
Hugs,
Todd
I have to agree with some of what Todd said.
"Listen to Pete’s last hour on religion - there were only 2 or 3 people who called in to disagree and he distorted and talked over every one of them. Why is he so afraid to let people have their say? The way he cut people off and shouted them down would make Hannity proud."
Unfortunetly, Todd is right. I was getting upset to the point of changing the station, but I didn’t. I know this is a 3 hour show and its "Pete’s show" but for those who agreed they were heard, Pete preaches, "if you disagree, call in, I’ll put you right on" which I believe he does, but he takes them right off, most likely hears their first few words then mutes them then drops them off. Religion is the toughest topic and I love it when Pete talks about it. Pete could give those who have polar opposite beliefs if he didn’t take to so many call from those who agree with him and took more from those who disagreed with him.
As for the topic of global warming. No shit things are changing. I do believe global warming is happening or maybe sun warming is happening. The sun and earth do go through phases, 20 to 30 year phases, for the sun and earth 20 to 40 years is like over night to us. The glaciers have been melting since they formed and the tides have been shifting since the oceans got deep enough to cause tides. I’m not a scientist but I do believe people are somewhat to blame for the unnatural change. People just need to care more if not for our future but for today. We have a responsiblity and respect. My home is clean, if I don’t throw trash on my own floor or out my home windows what gives me the right to do it anywhere. We all need to respect our neighbors and country better.
Todd Reply:
April 28th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Why is it ‘unfortunate’ that I’m right, Steve? :) I’m glad you spoke up and wanted to add that Pete’s whole posture on religion is likely to inhibit thoughtful callers who disagree and encourage the atheist/agnostic amen chorus and rash religious callers. Pete makes repeated entreaties for those who disagree to call, then when they do, he is (apparently) so full of anger and scorn he cannot abide the full expression of their opinion, instead spouting off on a phrase (as he did with me) without the courtesy of benefit of the doubt. Who wants to call a show for that kind of abuse? Pete said he didn’t care if being an atheist would cost him listeners, but I don’t think his beliefs will drive away audience, it is the contempt he displays for the beliefs of others which will do that.
I find I don’t get too upset by Pete’s big mouth because he has openly stated he:
a) doesn’t really bring a lot of heavily researched facts to his opinions (like Ron Silver)
b) chooses the expert opinion to believe based on his own biases
(as he did when I called on Scheuer, Pete was using his credentials as the CIA’s man on the bin Laden desk to bolster his feeling our foreign policy has more to do with Islamic radicalism directed at the US than their fundamentally warped view of Islam. I asked Pete if I produced a similarly credentialed CIA analyst with an opposing view, how would he go about determining which one was right and he essentially admitted that he’d go with the one who agreed with views. - that was the gist, as I recall it)
and
c) adopts the view of the most recent expert he has read (which he admitted was probably a bad way to build one’s opinion).
To sum: Pete’s opinion is light on facts and relies on the latest experts who support his position. A + B + C does not seem to add up to "independent".
Add to this d) he’s not man enough to build his own deck and e) he’s got a head like Mr. Magoo and it is really difficult to get angry. Frustrated, yes, because he blatantly violates the promos for his show and is really unwilling to hear certain opinions out.
Of course, it could just be that he was f) retaining water and crampy.
First of all its Scott not Steve, its written in the "name". Secondly my "its unfortunate that I agreed" has nothing to do with me agreeing with you Todd. Its that this one part of Pete’s show is what really upset me for once. The fact that he wasn’t giving some time to make a reaction for the listeners who disagreed. But he did allow Bill from Michigan to speak for nearly 5 minutes on the topic of Satan. But let me clarify. What upset me isn’t how he argueed organized religion. I respect Pete for being the only person with a radio show that I’ve ever listened to that not only admits being agnostic but is willing to discuss it. What upset me is how he turned away more callers willing to argue then he turned away people who agree with him.
I’ve been listening to Pete since the begining and feel he himself was either upset about the lack of backboneless callers who either turned the station or just had no arguement for him and thats why he didn’t allow more airtime. I said I almost changed the station but I didn’t, thats too fair weather for me. Some might ask why didn’t I call in. Well, for one, Pete has mentioned he hates when I call in while I drive since he can’t hear over the truck, more less the thunderstorm I was driving through. Secondly, I don’t agree with Pete for the most part on the topic, his callers and him had about the Bible. For me there was nothing to argue, and to argue a belief is an opinion and argueing opinions is like trying to nail jelly to a tree. So don’t missunderstand what I said, it was not the topic that miffed me, it was Pete’s actions. Next time I think maybe the topic needs to be the first hour or so and Pete takes a volume and allows only the ones who disagree to call in for the first half and allow the one who don’t babble on 3 or 4 minutes each airtime. There is a better way to go about it. Either way its a touchy topic, name another radio personality who would discuss it.
Todd Reply:
April 28th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Scott,
Well said. I was only kidding around with the stuff about "unfortunately", I tried to put at
smiley at the end, but it didn’t translate to a graphic, unfortunately. I’m with you - it isn’t the topic, it is the way he went about it.
Everyone really needs to quit deluding themselves about Pete’s show. It is quickly becoming a typical one-sided traditionalist/capitalist-bashing diatribe. There’s even a troupe of sycophantic zombies waiting to reinforce every biased unsubstantiated "fact" that spews out of Pete & Big Bro’s mouth, from people who desperately need approval from someone.
I try to bring back the pro capitalistic view but I get literally destroyed because I agree with capitalism.
I’m not so sure its a need for approval. Maybe for some people, I’m not afraid to stand up for what I believe in nor am I afraid to call out someone if I either A: think they’re full of shit or B: just plain don’t agree. I mentioned Pete not hearing out callers from Friday mostly in part that I wasn’t sure if he even knew what he was doing. Sometimes people get so caught up in what they’re doing that they may not realize what they’re missing or what they’re not doing. When it comes to topics such as religion, it’s a mind-set or opinion, I respect everyones beliefs. I only feel it’s fair that those who call in not only get their say but also realize they may sit on hold or the show may run out of time. I call in a few different shows, Pete’s being one of them. As for the other shows most the time I sit on hold and the shows topic ends. I know Pete wants everyone to be heard and it’s cool when he does a "lightning hour" on open subjects such as the stimulus check. But maybe Pete and his call screener need to organize specific topics for the show and allow only a few callers in a half hour set to make their point and then follow it with a rebuttle.
Shane in TX. With the views that you have expressed here, I wonder why you even listen to Pete’s show. I suppose that we all have our guilty pleasures. I always enjoy hearing you when you call and listening to your contributions. Shame that you feel the way you do. I call the show, maybe too often, and find the points-of-view very refreshing. It is nothing short of amazing to hear so many ideas freely expressed without ridicule. The show must go on, and that is why I come here. I have views to express that I cannot always get out in the short few moments on the show. For example, on the issue of Conservatives and Liberals, MY idea of the main differences in current America has nothing to do with financial, or social issues, more of MORALITY. I have never considered myself a "fence-rider", however, on this issue I am. My idea of liberals: "Oh, Miley Cyrus appeared in Vanity Fair nearly nude at 15 years old,…SO? My idea of Conservative: "What do you mean, no ‘under God’ in the pledge?" I am by no means a holy roller, and agree more with the belief of Pantheists, but where has our moral compass gone?
Hey Mike in GA, my last comment was a little harsh. I do like Pete’s show, I have never called but I email a lot. Was that you on the phone with him when he read my email today? Anyway, I’m a regular listener and I might call in sometime if I get a chance. My office environment doesn’t offer the opportunity for those types of phone conversations, but fortunately I can listen most of the time. It’s not a guilty pleasure, but the unique format of the show has been an adjustment from what I’ve heard before…. I mean that in a good way. But I am a somewhat conservative guy. To use your example…. what is wrong with "under God’ in the pledge if there are fucking Muslim footbaths at the University of Michigan? Not trying to start an argument with you, it’s just a counterpoint to what you said. And I am by no means a Holy-Roller either….. See ya ’round.
mike in GA Reply:
April 29th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Hey Shane, I share more of the same ideas with you than you probably think. The show has been a big adjustment for me too. I am used to The Boortz guy in Atl., been a listener for years, but I am beginning to open my eyes to different ideas. Many of the callers seem to feel that way. Todd in Fla. is also a good contributor. I think…that Todd has relaxed (willingly) some of his views as well. Thought that I had heard you on the show before, my mistake. I am an unemployed truck-driver, which affords me the opportunity to call daily. I have mentioned to Pete, as I am sure the suits have, that he needs more women, and new callers. I try not to call every day, however, between looking for work and being a house-husband, I normally have the time. I know that the ’suits’ may not like this, but also believe that regular listeners should be treated as an asset. I will be back at work soon enough, I hope. As for pandering to the damn Muslims bastards (not all), I agree, if we continue to acquiesce it will be our doom. Just look at Europe. Remember that the word Democrat literally means, ‘One who panders to the masses’. Take care. -Mike