As I understand it, the ROS blog is part of a Public Radio International program produced by the people at Open Source Media, Inc.

The producers may intend for the ROS blog to create a community, for example, that is a “self-selected group of enlightenment seekers” with “common perspectives at certain levels” that “will not abide a certain type of diversity.”

Or the producers may intend something quite different.

Brendan, speaking for himself according to his disclaimer, gives us a great deal of insight in the intentions of the producers. In his post he uses the word “argument” (or “argue”) thirteen times, and the word “community” only four. A three to one ratio, for what it is worth. Here are some excerpts that seem especially relevant on re-reading his post:

“All compelling arguments are welcome, …”

“… we’re aiming for honest argument and open inquiry.”

“… anyone else who doesn’t lie, swear or indulge in personal attacks — anyone who argues in Hamilton’s “spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truthâ€? — is more than welcome here.”

“The ultimate outcome of an Open Source show — and the ensuing online discussion — should not be well-apportioned diversity, but an argument that gets somewhere.”

And don’t these intentions concord with the consensus view of this discussion? That contributors are motivated to participate in the discussion in order to “improve our articulation” and “think more carefully?” That contributors are seeking open inquiry to sharpen arguments?

If so, then this intention, this idea, needs to be communicated. And one way to do so is with (I can already here the laughter) tag-lines. I actually like tag-lines. And you need a few. I mean, “A public radio show with Christopher Lydon” is, well, lame. Here are my suggestions:

Open Source
… All compelling arguments welcome

Open Source
… Open inquiry, honest argument

Open Source
… An argument that gets somewhere

Anyone have any others?

Do others concur?

I suppose that is a common thread to all of my endeavors. And it is true that I seem to defy the narrow definitions of religious groups. (I find that generally once something is institutionalized it loses its purity and goes into rapid decline.) Therefore, I seek a community where I can express and explore my higher ideals. I wasn’t clear that I was seeking this here.

I feel pretty strongly that enlightenment can’t happen in a vaccuum. Or perhaps that it can’t be actualized in a vaccuum. This forum affords me a playground for articulation. And I do get to practice being open to differing perspectives. But without live contact, its all rather abstract. Its a lot to stay composed in writing. I think about things on my own time. I reply when I have the time or inclination. I can explore my own reactions, and even discuss them with friends, before responding. Its also a lot easier to rant at a screen name. Would these discussions take the same shape in person? We have to live our lives in person. The themes we discuss here are fine to explore in the ether, but if we really want to see things improve we have to take real live action. Enlightenment, to my understanding isn’t something you achieve in your head, its a living, breathing, actualized being that drives every choice and every action one makes. Certainly, this forum can feed into our individual seekings, but enlightenment cannot be achieved here.

And I’m unsure of this word community, as well. What kind of community are we? We could all be at the same private showing of La Boheme and not even know it. Other than Chris and Brendan, i don’t know what any of you look like. Brendan is the only one I’ve met in person. We aren’t required to use our real names. We don’t post our photos. Even if we did, we have no way of verifying the authenticity of them. We are a group that is communicating. Are we a community? How do we define community and enlightenment?

I don’t ask these questions to devalue this exchange. It is probably self-evident that I enjoy this forum and appreciate this outlet. As someone who has the aspirations of a healer, I long to work at the meta-level of healing. As the mother of a young child who feels her first obligation is to attend to her child’s nurturing, I have opted to work at the intimate level by hosting a small community at my yarn store. This forum is a wonderful outlet for me.

I ask these questions of definition, simply to define. Its an organic part of the community-building process. And since there have been references to a community here and now this postulation that this community might be seeking enlightenment, perhaps we want to explore the current definition of what we are and are aiming for. (Knowing that these things can evolve.) Knowing the what’s and the why’s can help us clarify the how’s. They can also help new people understand the ‘rules of the game’ and have reasonable expectations.

We might find that if we are a self-selected group of enlightenment seekers, for instance, there will be common perspectives at certain levels that will not abide a certain type of diversity. We can’t just hold up the abstract ideal of diversity as a flag we bear when there may really be limits to the diversity we accept. A simple example would be that we don’t accept the voices of those who do not from our perspective seem to be reactionary and ignorant. We become the self-appointed arbiters. We need to be aware of that. How do we open ourselves to the value of those voices that seem unacceptable to us without feeling that we are ’selling our enlightened souls” to the devil of ignorance in the name of openness?

Well, these are my thoughts for the day. Has this thread gotten way off track? Is it still even an active thread?

My tentative reply: ‘Enlightenment’.

Enlightenment motivated the creation of contemporary representative democracy, and the greater gift of Western Humanism.

And yet now both of those great boons are in noticeable decline—at least here in our fossilized 18th Century republic, and, perhaps worse, in the lands of peoples we target as ‘reprobates’.

Enlightenment, it seems to many of us including, it seems, allison, is in need of a mighty resurgence.

Those of us who listen, read, and then have the temerity to contribute our often fuzzy thoughts here can dare to be an aide, however small, to that effort.

I suspect that’s the prime reason we return here again and again. Of course it’s thrilling to see our words on a page in the worldwide virtual community, but it’s even better to partake of the wisdom of others, and to contribute our own, however small.

So thanks, everyone, for suffering through impulsive posts from the smart-assed likes of me.
More importantly: keep writing!

Would we want to encourage someone to defend the concept of murder as acceptable?

This might be an extreme example. What I’m getting at, is something more like the reality of a self-selecting group. Anyone who chooses to participate here values something which is the glue that binds us. That something permeates us and our dialogue. Having just read through the rest of the comments, I agree with Brendan. Its not about diversity for the sake of diversity. Its about the quality of exchange leading to something.

Do any of us know what the something is?

Happy New Year everyone. I look forward to our first full year together.

On the purpose of the blog, there is this question of community building through reaffirmation vs. the idea of debate. I like Nikos comment:

“I don’t want my off-the-spectrum sacred-cow-stabbing views to inhibit the posting of differing views. I want–quite EXACTLY–that such counter-arguments will harrass me out of the shelter of my smug know-it-all-ism into a CONVINCING articulation of my views. And if that articulation succeeds or fails isn’t nearly as important as the process of having to think it out so thoroughly that at least my point of view is comprehensible and appreciated, even if rejected.”

I have this conversation with people often. The point to debate in my mind, is to force me to think more. To improve my articulation. In that push to think more carefully, it is possible I will see something differently. But more likely, not I have found. Therefore, I am not trying to convince someone to change their views. If that happens, I’m not even sure its always a bonus. (Unless you’re trying to take action on something and need a majority vote!) I agree that a well-thought rebuttal is vital to my my own thinking process. I can’t hone my skills if everybody agrees with me, I can’t refine my thoughts if no one challenges them. So, I enjoy a hearty back and forth, as long as its respectful.

When I used to play tennis, it was understood that every player was looking for an equal or superior opponent. It was boring to play someone you could tromp. The best idea of competition is to be challenged to the point that you perform beyond your expectations. Its exhilirating to realize you’ve done better that you thought you could. Winning is secondary to that. Winning only means that you still have to find a better opponent. Losing means you still have someone to work with.

I do hope that someone I heartily disagree with, doesn’t feel they can’t post here. Its not like we’re eating all our meals together in a life full of agida.

I’m not sure our experiment is working. Right now we have a president who used misleading arguments to launch a pre-emptive war. His administration believes that as President he is above the law. The legitimacy of at least one of our major elections is in question. We are a brute force around the world. Our consumerism is destroying cultures and our worhsip of the almighty dollar means that we refuse to work when we can get someone else to do it at slave wages.

I think our experiment needs a little re-working. Plus, our experiement is based on an ideal: the ideal of democracy. You can’t get away from ideals. Or in your statement it is the ideal of ‘realism over idealism.”

Realism will always be with us. Without idealism, though, how do we assess and improve? Ideals define the measures of improvement.

I suggest that there is a difference between having “fairy tales” as metaphors of our fears and ideals and having feelings that contradict reality. How do you aspire to move past the shortcomings of reality without the lessons and visions of fairy tales. Even my 6 year old daughter has no trouble fully engaging fairy tales and then reminding me that they are “just pretend, mom!” She has a full capacity for discernment, as do the majority of adults. If not fairy tales, then how do we inspirationally pur forth the ideals we want humans to aspire to?

To that I respond: Unless you knit… Then all the in-between times are transformed into the most rapturous and meaningful.

It has occured to me that an open ‘tangent thread’ could easily devolve into a mud-slinging, obscenity-laden free-for-all, and if this is so, I regret my naive suggestion.

(Although I stand by my admittedly silly plea for pretty lil’ italics!)

“On a lively blog that I post comments occasionally where there is no comments link but rather a monitored-free-for-all with interesting cross discussions, my basic view is a minority view but there are a variety of views and no real central division. When I post something I am apt to get clobbered with accusations and strong challenges from some and agreement from others or ignored. If you are not used to this it can be quite intimidating. But I have learned to argue my views, if I feel strongly enough, or be content to leave them lie undefended. There are those who agree and those who will never agree or change and maybe nor will I. But the process allows for a deepening of understanding, of the issues, of the other views, and of your own which may actually alter somewhat or broaden in the process.”

My point was that you get over being ( or feeling) intimidated if you have something to say that you believe in or something you want to ask. You find your voice. And you argue to the extent that you feel it’s worth it. That could mean clarifying your own views ( to yourself and others) or possibly changing them.

We are not, in this thread or any other, by definition, hearing from those who are discouraged from posting. I am sure there are intelligent folks “out there” who could contribute a lot but they do not. One reason is that people are busy. This show gets heard on drive time here in the east. A lot of comment probably gets lost to the ethers. When you get home the last thing you want to do is go online and make a comment. So we lose many this way. Gradually this blog and the show will get a dedicated audience and I think the show and the blog will aid each other. The main thing is the quality of the programs.

When you have strong guests, people are compelled to find a way to make a comment. So the blog must be open, welcoming and have a variety of opinion that sometimes breaks out into interesting discussion.

If I want Brendan to enter at all it would be to gently say ” hey guys— this is way off topic and rather personal” or some such thing. And I am not even sure that is a good thing– it’s rather gestapo- ish. Perhaps this backroom where folks can repair to have a smoke is a good idea. Other blogs have “open threads” (which I avoid).

Well, at least I think it is a kind offer. I really don’t know how well you bake. I wouldn’t presume to know. Just like I wouldn’t presume to know whether and why you believe or don’t in God. But you seem to have presumed a little about me, or at least my desire to support the concept of intelligent design. You will not be receiving a defense of intelligent design from me. Though I will take the cookies if you decide to send them. I am willing to bet that you can either bake well, or know someone who can.

I do hear some defensiveness in your response, Brendan, that motivates me to offer a clarification. My comments have focused only on the __contributed__ content, not your selection of guests, or callers, or blog entries to read on air. My comments have not questioned your motivation or your world view. Instead, I have been trying to understand, with the help of Nikos and Potter, mostly, if the inherent structure of the blog, the media itself, unduly influences the nature of the conversation. I still believe it does, but I am not sure why or how, though I think we are getting closer.

First I should emphasize that I think the concept of ROS as on open creation of radio content is a terrific idea. I wouldn’t be here otherwise. And it is clear that you, as well as Nikos and Potter, are very much behind an open discussion.

So, to consider some of the suggestions offered by Nikos and Potter:

Nikos wrote:

“So, again: I’m wondering whether the sorts of anti-conventional passions that I (and others) articulate are, under the scrutiny of an objectively sacred-cow-slain examination, difficult to refute.”

Well, yes, Nikos, difficult to refute, but not for the reason you think. I am reluctant to say why. You see, while I appreciate your willingness to be harassed out of your, as you wrote, “smug know-it-all-ism,” this is not a job I think I should have to do. Or, to put it another way, the attitude introduces noise in the conversation that can only be filtered out through effort. Wasted effort, in my opinion.

Now here is why this revelation is interesting. If you feel you need to write with a certain attitude in order for a posting on a active blog to be noticed, then those like me who feel effort is wasted in addressing that attitude do not contribute. So, again, the structure of the blog could work against openness.

On a related note, Potter wrote that he posts to a lively blog where his views are in the minority. He added:

“When I post something I am apt to get clobbered with accusations and strong challenges from some and agreement from others or ignored. If you are not used to this it can be quite intimidating.”

I offer very much the same observation: if contributors feel they must issue “accusations and strong challenges” in order to be noticed, or taken seriously, then those who are intimidated are under represented in the conversation. And since force-fullness of presentation does not equate with quality of argument, the structure of the blog could work against the concept of openness.

So, let me respond to Brendan’s request:

“Id like to hear what we could do differently to encourage debate.”

Well, it seems to me the blog is where the ROS community meets in print, much as the show is where the ROS community meets on the air. And on the air, Chris is very present guiding the conversation. I think more of the same is required on the blog: to gently restrain the over-bearing and encourage the quiet. So, Brendan, I think you need to get in there and lead.

I can’t help but feel supportive of Potter’s suggestion for a tangent/comment option. It seems essentially the same as my (possibly naive) proposal for an ‘Anything Goes O.S. Pub Digression Thread’, which presumably you had to wade through near the E.O.Wilson thread’s current end point.

‘nuf said.

What I’m most curious about is Raymond’s point about something inherent in the structure of the Open Source blog; I’d like to hear what we could do differently to encourage debate. I’m the one responsible for making sure that community comments make it into the on-air discussion, so if there’s any selection bias, it’s mine.

When my computer broke over the Christmas holiday (long story, I feel its loss keenly), I had to go and read stuff, and when I read I started a copy of the Federalist Papers I inherited from my grandfather. He was also a Brendan Greeley, a career Army officer and in retirement the librarian at the University of Arizona. The Federalist Papers are freaking me out a bit, because Alexander Hamilton was thirty when he wrote half of them, and at thirty-one now I’m running out of time to write a history-altering political document. This is too much about me, of course, and not enough about bias.

At the close of Federalist #1, Hamilton writes

I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I think we — “we” meaning we media-gluttonous bloggers and news junkies becoming media analysts — pay too much attention to the questions of bias and diversity, and not enough to the quality of argument. Richard Clarke and now James Risen were both discredited by conservative bloggers not on the merits of their arguments or the verifiability of their observations, but on motives. Both, evidently, revealed information to the media to sell upcoming books.

I think that motive and bias are so impossible to divine that they’re almost not worth worrying about. I could give you two hours’ worth of my life history over a beer (and God knows anyone who knows me has been subjected to it) and you still wouldn’t have an accurate sense of how I make decisions. I’ve known my own mother for thirty-one years and SHE still sometimes mystifies me; how am I supposed to trust someone’s idea of Richard Clarke’s motives? I work in public broadcasting in Cambridge, right here in the belly of the liberal beast, but I cast my votes for President in the following order: George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Ralph Nader, John Kerry. There’s not a person in this office who isn’t sick of hearing my description of myself as an angry ex-Republican. Based on that information, could you presume to know my bias, my motives? I would argue that you can’t.

We do welcome any and all comers at Open Source, but we’re less interested in bias, and more interested in argument. All compelling arguments are welcome, but we don’t, for example, have much brief for Intelligent Design. Its arguments don’t hold up; it’s bad science and sneaky politics. Why should we waste your time creating the false impression of a diverse, honest debate? There’s certainly honest debate about God and science, and there always will be; it just doesn’t happen to be practiced by proponents of ID. Does that mean I’m biased? That my motives are suspect? What if I tell you I believe in God? My point is, it doesn’t really matter what I believe; I have yet to see an intellectually honest argument for Intelligent Design. Show me one, and I’ll not only change my mind, I’ll mail Raymond a box of homemade chocolate-chip cookies.

(Katherine booked those shows, by the way, and what I know about ID I credit, for the most part, to her research.)

As a freelancer I wrote two op-eds for a decidedly conservative paper, and an editor there, after a lengthy argument about something he wanted me to conclude about one of my sources, told me “You can’t be afraid to pull the trigger.” I disagreed with him on point, but have embraced the principle. You have to be deliberate, and open to debate, but at some point if you don’t pull the trigger you’re doing a disservice to the people — listeners, readers and now the community — you work for.

So to the administration, Raymond, look back through the shows you found in your google search and you’ll find a number of passionate advocates for the war, like Kanan Makiya or George Packer. One of my favorite show guests, one I tracked down and pre-interviewed, was Marine Colonel Rex Hammes, who said that not only is the war winnable, to win it we need to stay for ten years. Of anyone I’ve heard talk about Iraq in the last three years, Col. Hammes seems to me the most frank and well-reasoned.

But more important, look through the results of that search and tell me — this is a sincere request, not an angry challenge — whether we’ve ignored any compelling, well-reasoned arguments in support of the administration or its policies. This, for me, is the test we have to pass in order to remain legitimate, and it’s one we take seriously. Diversity for its own sake is meaningless; we’re aiming for honest argument and open inquiry. Remember that the ultimate outcome of an open-source software project is not infinite choice, but a working piece of software. The ultimate outcome of an Open Source show — and the ensuing online discussion — should not be well-apportioned diversity, but an argument that gets somewhere.

So to the question of the structure of the blog, it is possible that we attract like-minded community members — though we’ve been working with conservative blogs like Balloon Juice and Red State to avoid it — but I don’t think it’s true that we reward or encourage Chris-addled sycophants by putting them on the air more often. But I would appreciate it, if you notice any trends in the comments I read out on-air, if you’d let us know. And certainly, in case this hasn’t been your impression, Raymond and Shriber, you both, along with anyone else who doesn’t lie, swear or indulge in personal attacks — anyone who argues in Hamilton’s “spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth” — is more than welcome here.

(The content of this comment reflects the opinions of a caffeinated Brendan Greeley, and not necessarily those of the Open Source staff, WGBH, UMass Lowell or Public Radio International.)

Perhaps the structure of this blog can change in the following way: When someone makes a comment on some blogs at the bottom of that comment there is an opportunity to respond or read other responses by clicking a “comments” link, in the way we got here. That way, a specific discussion can happen, or specific comments can be directed and that becomes a branch of the main topic. Readers of the main thread do not run into this side discussion unless they want to by following that specific comments link.

On principle, it seems to me, anyone should be able to make a comment in response to a show and not have to defend it or be drawn into a discussion or a community of like-minded posters, if that is what is happening here (I don’t know if it is),if they do not wish that to happen.

On a lively blog that I post comments occasionally where there is no comments link but rather a monitored-free-for-all with interesting cross discussions, my basic view is a minority view but there are a variety of views and no real central division. When I post something I am apt to get clobbered with accusations and strong challenges from some and agreement from others or ignored. If you are not used to this it can be quite intimidating. But I have learned to argue my views, if I feel strongly enough, or be content to leave them lie undefended. There are those who agree and those who will never agree or change and maybe nor will I. But the process allows for a deepening of understanding, of the issues, of the other views, and of your own which may actually alter somewhat or broaden in the process.

This space can be used to work out in that way, especially since the show itself is about searching for views and answers.

But still there should be room, and a welcome, for others to come and say even something negative (not mean-spirited) and address their comment/s mainly to the host and the staff and not feel obliged to engage here necessarily even after responses/challenges.

I think my suggestion improves the structure for that to happen, but it may do other things to this blog that are not desirable, like actually discourage discourse by hiding it too much.

What do you think?

At the same time I want to be able to say I think something just said,or posted here for instance, is not right and here is why, not just to differ indifferently. I am not one to say ” okay we differ” without a good rebuttal. I expect one in return, or hope for one. Without that exchange a complaint about feeling unwelcome after making a negative comment seems unfair to me. So if one enters a discussion, for the first time especially, with a strong statement that is contrary to the premise of a show I expect a case to be made or a discussion to ensue that has merit. It means a willingness to dig deeper and learn more all around. It also means perhaps exposing oneself, giving and taking, which not everyone wants to do.

I want to be a citizen here. Being a citizen is not a passive thing. But I’ll take my bop over the head from Brendan when I misbehave. And I will apologize.

I don’t roll over about every show either. The show with Gary Hart I thought was mismanaged. Still I got an awful lot out of it. For the most part that is the way I feel: grateful. And the post game analysis we often get is admirably self-critical. There is a spirit here of openness to learning and growing above all and an idea about life being an endless wondrous search. This is what makes me want to hang around.

Appreciate also that it is a fine line, an art, leading a discussion but not getting in the way of it.

We begin with a show being offered, often from a suggestion that comes from the blog, and the show begins with a premise with input prior in the warming up stage from anyone who wants to weigh in and then afterwards the comments are welcomed. Where else do you find this?

When the show first began there were comments on the blog that all sat along side each other for the most part with little invisible walls all leading to the center. People were not talking to each other. I don’t know if discussion was the goal of the creators of this realm. But then, not long ago, people started talking to each other. Twice, that I can think of, we had guests from a show post here. I’d like more of that. The thing is growing into who knows what.

But no, who would post here if it was perceived as, or had the reputation of being a closed minded insular community that jumped on you the minute you offered a contrary opinion simply because it was contrary. No no to that! And we need Raymond-sensors to inject if that seems to be happening.

Still and again, and I defend this, especially when one introduces him or herself with a strong and negative and possibly unfair comment, one should not expect to be welcomed so easily. This is true anywhere. Walk into someone’s living room and tell them that their rug smells you will probably not be offered coffee and a seat. (Though I would and ask where? what does it smell like?)

At the same time some sharp comments have appeared here and sat with no response or they have had some merit with no further discussion.

I think regular listeners listen not because there are bones to pick with a host that irritates or for the leanings. If that were so, for me anyway, I’d punish myself with Rush or Al Franken and commercials. I listen for the nourishment, the intelligent informed discussion.

In the end- if this is a community forming- and I suspect that blog communities are somewhat like real communities, there is plenty of coming and going, a certain amount of getting-to-know-you and your views and whether or what one can discuss with you if you hang around. There is a certain amount of “working out�. In the case where there is personal invective (a big no-no) and the scene changes to a disruptive barroom brawl the response has to change, and it has.

My impression is that Chris (and by extension the staff) is really open and would like to have all points of view and discussion. From my point of view there is no question about the leanings here but at the same time never have I experienced more equanimity, or the striving for that equanimity, from a host.

Happy New Year! I embrace you all!

Even so, I won’t feel ‘responsible’ if my prefered outcome doesn’t eventuate. Anyone who disagrees with me is WELCOME to do their best to make me bleed. Even while posting my more incendiary contributions, I don’t think I’m saying: “Don’t you dare disagree with me.” If anything, the obvious vitriol of my commentary is meant to ENCOURAGE well-articulated dispute, not cow it.

So, again: I’m wondering whether the sorts of anti-conventional passions that I (and others) articulate are, under the scrutiny of an objectively sacred-cow-slain examination, difficult to refute.

I guess I’m posing this as a kind of ‘challenge’ (although such a definition gives even the likes of lil’ ol’ off-the-progressive-scale me a quiver of fright).

Raymond, I fully expect to find a thought-provoking reply sometime soon (and, for that matter, the same goes for anyone else reading this thread, not just the tediously usual suspects like me and Potter!).

Ramen, all.

And Happy (secular) New Year!

Yikes!

Diversity of thought–even if the offerings are roundly barbequed by the ‘community’–are CRITICAL, and should be VALUED, not scorned.

I don’t want my off-the-spectrum sacred-cow-stabbing views to inhibit the posting of differing views. I want–quite EXACTLY–that such counter-arguments will harrass me out of the shelter of my smug know-it-all-ism into a CONVINCING articulation of my views. And if that articulation succeeds or fails isn’t nearly as important as the process of having to think it out so thoroughly that at least my point of view is comprehensible and appreciated, even if rejected.

Maybe because I feel insulated by my near anonymity here in the ROS, blog, I feel secure in asking for assaults on my postings. I wonder how common this is.

Sorry that I have to bail before finishing a fair reading of your post, but I had to toss this in before it slipped from my (altogether too-)slippery consciousness.

Much more on this later, all!

Well, Potter, I am not entirely sure what I mean. But I would like to pick up on the idea of community forming. I hear community and think of something shared. A geographic location. An ethnic background. A compelling idea. A promising objective. And to over simplify, I think that contributors to ROS share one or the other of these last two.

Here is the idea …

A community can form around a compelling idea that provides the basis for a common world view, whether religious or political. Such a community forms to affirm the convictions of the members. Diversity of thought is not considered an asset.Instead, solidarity is fostered by statements based on assumptions that are taken as axiomatic. The conversation centers around just how evidently right the world view seems, and how evidently miss-guided are those who do not share it.

Alternatively, a community can form around a promising objective that provides an unambiguous goal toward which all actions of the members drive. This community forms to accomplish together what could not be accomplished alone. Diversity of thought and effort is essential. All comers to the community are welcome since no one knows from where the next key idea will come. The conversation is pragmatic: how do we get there from here?

Now the name of this radio program uses the term “open source.” Wikipedia provides this helpful, though limited, definition: “The open source model allows for the concurrent use of different agendas and approaches in production, and it contrasts with more isolated models.” This, and the early content of the ROS site, led me to believe that the idea was for contributors to affect the content by providing information and thinking not in the current possession of the ROS staff, and in the process, improve the product. In short, that the ROS community had the common promising objective of making good radio.

Instead, much of the contributed content seems, to me anyway, to be of the community of affirmation variety. To take the extremely easy way out, simply do the following in google: bush or administration site:radioopensource.org. Can you honestly claim to see diversity of thought? Or do you see that the administration has failed on every front: tyranny, spying, idiotic, destructive, wicked, reckless, arrogant unilateralism, miserable quagmire in war, lying and cover-ups. The failure of the Bush administration, in every respect, is an unquestionable assumption. And to state so joins in solidarity with the affirming community. This is just one easy and unoffensive example.

So here is the point: if the discussion on the blog is structured toward affirming a common world view, rather than toward the objective of producing good radio, then the blog’s inherent structure works against the concept of openness.

Well, I have said far too much. I do want to respond to Nikos, but it needs to wait.

I think I prefer this explantion to my fanciful bs about battleships and pirates. As a writer ‘in between jobs’ I’ve got lots more time to devote to this blog-site than many others probably have. So maybe the seeming ‘one-sidedness’ of the debate (which I for one still don’t fully grasp) is more an accident than a structural issue. Maybe, if there really is a tilt to the left, it’s because lefties are frustrated and therefore willing to devote more time to expressions of their frustration than those more contented with the status quo. And maybe those of the ideological right who’ve sampled the radio show and website have, on finding such passionate refutations of their sacred cows, retreated to blog-sites more friendly to them.
Whaddya think?

Your question prompted me to recall why I began my own contributions. Luckily, it’s burned into my brain forever. After spending much of the spring and summer working an (unfinished) novel that contrasts a typically patriarchal and violently sexist barbarian culture, centered around a fatuously ‘moral’ religion, with a representative of an imaginary culture of highly moral empaths with no organized religion at all, I damn near exploded on hearing Brendan’s on-air call for posts concerning the “Morality: God-Given or Evolved?� show (that’s still warming up).
To put it crudely, it pissed me off that the show’s title question could be seriously posed.

So, I began a timorous series of contributions. And learned to sharpen my thinking in so doing. My contributions have focused mainly on those issues I think vital: religion and its influence on our ways of thinking and on the way we justify the iniquitous organization of our culture. Specifically: religion’s coded impact on the environment, politics, and the infuriatingly devalued half of our species called ‘women’.

I care deeply that our cultural sacred cows do so much harm in the name of good, and when I see a chance to slip an attack on these mangy cows into a public forum, I jump at it.

Not wanting to become a pest, I try to steer of ROS topics I care about less. I’m a birder, but prefer to leave the birder blog thread to others. I’ve opinions about hip-hop, but have no desire to impale myself on that particular stick of dynamite. I care deeply about the race-and-class questions and issues, but know better than waste ROS’s electronic page with my take on it when others do it at least as well as I can, and most usually better than I can even hope to.

So, I for one don’t think I post only to see my posts on the web (although occasionally I wonder).

As for aping the implied positions of the show’s host, I fear that if anything my views are so anti-conventional that I’m always on the verge of receiving a scolding from Coach Brendan. Chris Lydon, who I admittedly admire, seems nonetheless awfully mainstream in comparison to loonies like me.

Now, with all that as background, I don’t think the blog-site’s ‘structure’ precludes divergent opinions. I wonder if it has more to do with the exacting care some of us take in crafting the arguments we post. Not wanting to have to rehash and refine my thoughts, I (and presumably many others) try to anticipate my arguments’ potential shortcomings and address them in composition instead of in response. This may have the effect of dampening potential counter-arguments. (Why attempt to board a battleship [someone’s cogent argument] if you can’t see any ratlines [obvious weaknesses] hanging over the side? Or if you sense plenty of weaknesses, but sense just as equally that, weakness or not, the battleship is a rotten rust-bucket! What pirate worth his salt would want to mess with junk like that?)

Or, in my particular case it may be much more simple: perhaps I’m predictably so far left of the mainstream that most other readers have learned to ignore anything under the heading ‘Nikos’! I dunno, but it sure seems possible.

Finally, maybe those of us who blog the most here are nuthin’ but nuts with too much time on our hands.
Like me.