21 Responses to “Changing the Subject”

1. brizone Says:
   January 9th, 2007 at 10:08 pm

   Things have certainly been heavy on Iraq lately, no question.

   I enjoy OS the most when it takes wide detours to unlikely places we probably haven’t considered before. That said, the forum comes with a responsibility to cover current events that affect the nation. The mainstream media obviously falls down on this question – very badly – every day.

   So how much should OS be expected to pick up the slack? Well, probably *not* to the extent that it becomes the Iraq Report!

   Being amongst the leadership of the Northwest EcoBuilding Guild, I’d have to vote for the contest.

2. OliverCranglesParrot Says:
   January 9th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

   Perhaps at some time, you can do a show could be about something along the lines of Vermeer in Bosnia: Selected Writings. Mr. Weschler was great on the convergence show.

   The Bush speech will be important. Though I see no reason not to let it simmer and cook over the week-end and see what shakes out. Aside: I’d love to hear what the recruiters for the armed forces are telling kids these days. It has got to be a pretty spectacular amount of poo-poo.

   The really important speech hasn’t yet occurred with regards to an exit strategy. We’re not into the full blame shifting, who laid this turd mode. Look for that in six to ten months as monumental events take form, most notably: Presidential election of 2008.

   The other sport over the long haul will be Salvaging the Bush Family Dynasty. This probably isn’t the last swing at high office for people named Bush. How will they get a 45 degree angle on not being associated with forty-three is going to be quite a feat of political contortion. But, by 2016 or 2020, who knows what the terrain will look like for those future Bushes.

3. OliverCranglesParrot Says:
   January 9th, 2007 at 11:03 pm

   Let me try that first sentence again, here goes nothin’:

   Perhaps at some future time, you can do a show along the lines of Vermeer in Bosnia: Selected Writings

   My editor has been drinking again…

4. bicyclemark Says:
   January 9th, 2007 at 11:05 pm

   just keep doing both. but priority goes to subjects that have life and death consequences and are being undereported or badly reported in the traditional media.

5. zeke Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 9:04 am

   I agree that barring something really unexpected, it makes sense to let the speech shake out over the weekend at least. The exception to this would be if you chose to stage a “counter speech” in which NEW voices offered an alternative. As one example of such a voice, I’ve mentioned Helena Cobban before: http://justworldnews.org/archives/002321.html

   Sutter’s point about the relative scarcity of shows on the environment was striking to me. Could it be that the most significant speech of the week will prove not to be that of the President, but that of the Governor of California?

6. Sutter Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 11:01 am

   Since my e-mail really focused on the “other hot news stories” point, I want also to elaborate a tad on the “long-view” point. I tend to look at issues from the “liberal arts” tradition, which holds that exposure to literature and history and culture and philosophy — fields often viewed as being without obvious direct application to practical problems — in fact plays a key role in providing individuals with the personal resources to engage those problems. So, while a show on Spinoza or William James might not have the obvious and immediate relevance as a show on, say, the Iraq Study Group’s report, I would urge the producers (by which I mean all of you who work at ROS, whatever your titles) to resist the urge to think of them as diversions from the problems at hand. A show on Bush’s “surge” speech will help me understand the way the world looks on Friday morning; a show on some underappreciated classic of world literature, or some little-noticed thinker, might help me better understand the world for all the days to come, and will lay the foundation for better analysis of future problems we can’t yet foresee.

   None of this is to say that the “news pegs” aren’t important. But when we’ve examined tree after tree in detail, the marginal value of investigating another tree might well be less than the value of looking at the forest as a whole, or — better yet — at another forest altogether.

7. sidewalker Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 11:21 am

   A show about a planned surge in destructive capabilities or a show about how to create livable cities. I side with the life affirming topic.

   Thanks ROS for including the listeners a little bit in the decision making process. Might you expand this so that posted topics suggested by the staff and the listeners could be regularly “voted” on, much the way Threadless T-shirts chooses new designs offered by their community?

8. sidewalker Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 11:22 am

   Sutter, keep those email suggestions coming.

9. RobertPeel Says:
   January 10th, 2007 at 11:25 am

   Yes, Sutter expresses a feeling the Iraq has captured our lives and our attention.
   Iraq,like the devestation of Katrina, can be the great political metaphor as we move rapidly to the 2008 election cycle. As we approach 2008, perhaps as Sutter suggest we should cast a wider net to discover thinkers,writers,poets and philsophers to help us understand the great themes that my dominate the 2008 election(or may fail to dominate the election) Katrina races the questions of race,poverty and ecology. Iraq raised the issue of terrorism and war and peace.

10. Sutter Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    I’m glad to see the choice you all made about tomorrow’s show! Before 7:00 pm EST tomorrow, many of us will have read a zillion commentaries on the speech, but will not have found one reference (except here) to the contest.

11. Sutter Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 3:33 pm

    (Now, can I please have access to last night’s show via download? Pretty please?)

12. Gid. Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    The Iraq war is in a way…Culturally speaking…Over. Is any body else seeing the blooming of the crocuses that herald the beginning of the Post-Post 911 era? I don’t say this cavalierly; I was at the World Trade Center on the day of the attack. And for deployed troops and their families, as well as the Iraqi people the war remains very grim and present. Still, it seems that the only question to be decided in Baghdad these days is weather our attempt to, “bring democracy to the middle east” will end in failure or horrible failure, and because of that, the culture can begin to move on. Terrorism remains a threat, but perhaps we are coming to terms with it as a chronic condition to be palliated but not soon cured…Americans are on the whole an optimistic, pragmatic, and competent people…Does any body else sense a fear fatigue out there, a general mood to face and tackle hard problems in a less ideological more practical way. I see the recant lionization of Gerald Ford (the pragmatic steward) and the sudden national prominence of Mike Bloomberg (the competent manager) are symptoms of this desire. All this is to say that it is fitting that you would chose to change the subject by looking to architects engineers and designers…In New York…Building rather than breaking the future.

13. nother Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

    Hey Sutter, great way to step up to the plate as a blogger here. In the big picture I’m with you hundred percent, but I want to push back a little. Tonight we are going to be hearing one of the most significant presidential speeches of this generation. Our country (and consequently the world) is at a crossroads in this war. Literally today we stand at the crossroads, escalation or withdrawal. Thousands and thousands of lives are at stake here. If you factor in the money spent and the things that money won’t be spent on, millions of lives our at stake. There are so many ripple effects from this that effect us in so many ways. You feel that we are talking about it too much but in many ways I feel we are not talking about it enough. The scariest thing about this war is that it’s a page 2 war. You and I are not sacrificing in any way. Our gas prices went up a little and we freaked. I watch CNN and “Iraq” battles with Colorado avalanches and Brittney escapades for headlines. The least we can do is stay well-informed and engage in diligent public oversight.

    So I find it kind of ironic that we did 4 Iraq shows in a row but not one tomorrow when we will actually know the direction our country is taking. Ideally the “micromanage” show would have been the new cities show and we would have a “speech’ show tomorrow, but that’s just quibbling on my part.

    I bring these things up In the interest of discussion. I’m sure I will enjoy that show tomorrow and I know I will enjoy every discussion I have at ROS. Thanks Sutter for provoking the discussion. Like I said, in principle I’m with ya 100 percent. I loves the Chelsea shows!

14. Sutter Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 4:39 pm

    Nother, I agree about our responsibility to keep up re: the war, but I’d suggest that we also have an obligation to make sure that the country the soliders return to — and that their kids (and ours) grow up in — is just, clean, etc. And that will require some more Chelsea shows!

    The question, then, is whether the speech is really a “news peg” (a great term that I’d never heard before). Perhaps in an era when Presidential speeches contained new information, and when leaders had some credibility that justified our taking them at their words and caring about their reasoning, it would be. But we’ve known the substance of this speech for weeks now: 20,000 “more” troops(achieved by lengthening the tours of duty — way to support those troops), because we can “win,” and need to have “resolve,” etc. etc. etc. And we’ve already heard the opposing brief, too. So (with due respect, of course) the fact that Bush reads words written by someone else stating what we’ve known he would be stating for weeks using rhetoric we’ve been hearing for three years hardly strikes me as a compelling enough “peg.”

15. avecfrites Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    I prefer shows on topics that aren’t being covered by others. Let’s talk about learning to play music, aging gracefully, the social and architectural implications of peak oil, Groundhog Day, suburban cram schools, class divides, the joy of walking, Chinese adoption, finding community in the suburbs, backyard wildlife, corporate influence, the smallest cars, energy efficient housing, kitchen chemistry, and why nobody smiles anymore, e.g.

    I assume that hot stories with news pegs get better ratings, and that you’re seeking funding, but you asked us what we wanted, so there it is.

    If you want to touch in Iraq, let’s discuss why we didn’t learn anything from Vietnam, and whether we’re likely to have learned anything from Iraq when it’s all over.

16. chena Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 5:51 pm

    Changing the subject to Cinema:

    What films are among the best of all times?

    This isn’t a ‘top 20′ list, to qualify a movie must arguably be far above most films.

    I would argue that ‘The Thin Red Line’ will be judged as one of the most intelligent
    portrayals of betrayal, bravery, cowardice and honor. It’s also about the battle
    for Guadalcanal, but that’s only the situation in which these themes are played out.

    ‘Memento’, would have to be among the best explanations of what we remember
    and what we are based on what we remember of ourselves. It’s also one of
    the best edited films of all time.

17. allison Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    I hear the desire, and need, to focus on other things cultural and sustainable. I feel this desire myself. However, I also hear a little voice in my head saying, “those folks in Iraq can’t just change the subject.”

    That voice encourages me to argue that we should talk about Iraq endlessly. Until we do something about it. Most of us feel powerless. I wonder every day what I could do. I marched in anti-war rallies and that meant nothing. I did vote, but that doesn’t end the war. So, what, what can we do? We can talk everybody to a desperate desire to end this thing!

    Whimsical, yes, but all we have to put up with is talks. Maybe we should have bomb sirens going off in every town and city in the US everytime there is any gunfire in Iraq.

18. zeke Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    Tonight I found an example of convergence that seems to support Sutter’s contention about the broad liberal arts perspective as opposed to the narrow focus on today’s headlines. As I was watching the President’s speech I was multitasking with some random blog perusal. During the speech, in a blog I read about culture, I came across this quote from Francis Bacon:

    XIV
    The contemplation of things as they are, without substitution or imposture, without error or confusion, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention.

    –Francis Bacon

19. Sutter Says:
    January 10th, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    And just to prove that the principle applies far from the most highbrow precincts: My own thoughts during the speech turned to Doctor Seuss’s “The Zax,” which I had read to my daughter just hours earlier. See if you notice any resemblance to somebody we know:

    http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~cs315/subpages/inline/Zax.html

20. drpeacerose Says:
    January 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    I’d love to hear a discussion about how the idea of groupthink might relate to what is going on in the Bush Administration. I am bewildered how can a small group of people in power (at this point it seems like hardly more than a handful) can be so focused on their particular perspective that nearly everyone else, not only in this country, but, indeed, in the whole WORLD can see that their actions are crazy, and yet they are so entrenched in their perspective that they seem unable to change their course and their minds. It seems like some kind of group paranoia is becoming a self fulfilling prophesy that is making the world a frighteningly dangerous place.
    The term Groupthink was originally coined by William Whyte of Fortune Magazine, in 1952. He defined it as a level of conformity that goes far beyond “normal” conformity to group norms. He described it as a “rationalized” conformity to an open, articulate philosophy which holds that group values are not only expedient but right and good as well. He said that when engaging in groupthink, members go along with what they believe is the consensus. Groupthink can cause groups to make irrational decisions, where individual doubts are set aside, for fear of upsetting the group’s balance. Irving Janis, of Yale, developed an extensive theory of groupthink. He described it as a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group and the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. He felt that highly cohesive groups are much more likely to engage in groupthink. The group isolates itself from outside experts and the closer they are, the less likely they are to raise questions to break the cohesion. Does this sound familiar?
    Several political incidents of the 20th Century have been described as possible cases of groupthink. The one I see as most like what we are now dealing with, in terms of the level of dangerousness to the world, was the state of mind within the Kennedy Administration during the Bay of Pigs invasion. Although, in retrospect, it was clear to many that the plan was fatally flawed from the beginning, no one within the administration spoke out against the plan. Kennedy’s top group of advisers fit every one of the main causes of groupthink. They had all been educated in the country’s top universities, causing them to become a very cohesive group. They were also all afraid of speaking out against the plan, because they did not want to upset the president. The President’s brother, Robert Kennedy, took on the role of a mind guard, telling dissenters that it was a waste of their time, because the President had already made up his mind. [I borrow from Wikipedia here, so feel free to correct my facts]
    A discussion of the Bush Administration policies and actions, in light of the idea of groupthink, might be enlightening.

21. Ben Says:
    January 18th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    Everyone is leadened by the Iraq topic and we should be. When it slips into page two like Afghanistan has, it could risk becoming a normative engagement. ROS is doing a fine job of bringing in the non-Iraq topics as well as Iraq topics. A minimum of one related show a week until the conflict settles down is only fair.

    Is there a coherent way to create a Series group that these shows could be serialized or organized within?

Write a Reply