Can't you simply ban "cia1is " as opposed to "cia1is"? That is, the first "cia1is " has a space
after the word, while the second doesn't. (And I got
this through by replacing the letter "l" with the number "1".

Actually C1alis and soc1alist have marked similarities beyond spelling. If you are the intended object of someone using either, the end result is essentially the same.

"You Can't Say "Crap" On The Radio..."

You can't say "booger" either. Johnny Fever learned that the hard way.

Actually, you can say both, management willing.

It's just an homage to classic Ulster punk band Stiff Little Fingers.

Then why not call them pinko commies?
Cuz' that's what they are.

Ooh! Mitch just quoted Markos. "(sotto voce) Screw 'em".

To believe that Ledeen did not support the Iraq war doesn't match the facts on what he has written. Agreed that he had Iran more in his sights but Iraq apparently was an easy chess piece in his view. This guy is as much as a neo-con as the rest. Thanks for giving me a chance to Frist your interview with Ledeen. Sometimes I half-believe that you guys actually speak the truth because of your convincing radio skills, but then I get a chance to do some fact-checking on my own and I find that Ledeen is one scary dude.

Run up to the war and later quotes from Michael Ledeen (all from National Review):

"The regimes in Tehran, Damascus, and Riyadh cannot permit us to win an easy victory in Iraq, and they hope to deploy their terrorist surrogates against us on a massive scale."

"Hardly a week goes by without another story documenting the flow of chemicals and finished weapons between Iraq, Iran and Syria, often ending in the murderous hands of the terror network, from al Qaeda and the Islamic Jihad to Hezbollah and Hamas. Like the countries that compose the Axis, the terror groups are now working intimately with one another, to the point where it hardly makes sense to separate them, either in our analysis of the threat they pose, or in our strategic planning."

"A year ago, as I was finishing the first draft of The War Against the Terror Masters, I wrote that Syria and Iran could not tolerate an American success in Iraq, because it would fatally undermine the authority of the tyrants in Damascus and Tehran. "

"Our mission is not merely "regime change" in Baghdad, it is to win the war against the terror masters in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Like Afghanistan, Iraq was only one battle in that war. "

"Meanwhile, as President Bush prepares us for the coming battles, the leaders of the regime are doing the same, providing Hezbollah and its allies in al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas with better weapons — including new missiles of North Korean design with chemical-laden warheads — and coordinating stratagems with Baghdad and Damascus. As I have warned in the past, we had better be prepared for a regional war, not just a limited action in Iraq alone."

"By squabbling with each other over the wording of a U.N. resolution that sent a team of hapless inspectors into Iraq, thereby further delaying the next battle in the war against terrorism."

"The liberation of Iran would be the greatest imaginable triumph in the war against terrorism, as well as the fulfillment of America's mission to support freedom fighters against their tyrants. As in the war against Iraq, we have already waited far too long to get on with it."

"Our mission is not merely "regime change" in Baghdad, it is to win the war against the terror masters in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Like Afghanistan, Iraq was only one battle in that war."

"Like Afghanistan, Iraq was only one battle in that war"

You are correct, WT. The truth is often very scary.

I am a strong advocate of forums and I believe that democracy needs good discussions of issues. I work with the DFA on forums because they really value respect and representing all views. Rules are set so everyone is uninterrupted with the same amount of time. See the Representative 64A forum this spring for an example. The DFA might be hosting a forum on Iraq war, moderated by a history professor on Macalaster Campus on Sept 11. The goal was to find 4 people to represent the different views of the war

1) the current administration's point of view
2) someone who has been a strong war supporter, and is taking the position of leaving
this war strategically
3) someone who proposes peaceful diplomatic methods and occasionally sees the need
for war
4) someone who believes that peace is the only option
or something close to those positions, seeing as everyone varies a great deal.

DFA found speakers for 2,3 and 4. For position 1, the DFA was looking for a person
who is "articulate, well-read and also fully supports our current administration
in Washington." And everyone that the DFA contacted for the possibility of
representing the current administration's point of view has refused or not responded.
This includes
Michael Pearlstein of The Center of the American Experiment and Katherine Kersten.
Currently, the DFA is thinking of canceling the forum. I think that is unfair, I
argued that if no one would argue for the position, that we should just represent
it with an empty chair. So, I am requesting help from everywhere to fill the empty
chair. We know there are staunch current administration supporters, would any of
you be willing be a speaker at this forum? Is there someone who will fill this empty
chair?

Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
Democracy curmudgeon from Merriam Park

I am a strong advocate of forums and I believe that democracy needs good discussions of issues. I work with the DFA on forums because they really value respect and representing all views. Rules are set so everyone is uninterrupted with the same amount of time. See the Representative 64A forum this spring for an example. The DFA might be hosting a forum on Iraq war, moderated by a history professor on Macalaster Campus on Sept 11. The goal was to find 4 people to represent the different views of the war

1) the current administration's point of view
2) someone who has been a strong war supporter, and is taking the position of leaving
this war strategically
3) someone who proposes peaceful diplomatic methods and occasionally sees the need
for war
4) someone who believes that peace is the only option
or something close to those positions, seeing as everyone varies a great deal.

DFA found speakers for 2,3 and 4. For position 1, the DFA was looking for a person who is "articulate, well-read and also fully supports our current administration in Washington." And everyone that the DFA contacted for the possibility of representing the current administration's point of view has refused or not responded. This includes Michael Pearlstein of The Center of the American Experiment and Katherine Kersten. Currently, the DFA is thinking of canceling the forum. I think that is unfair, I argued that if no one would argue for the position, that we should just represent it with an empty chair. So, I am requesting help from everywhere to fill the empty chair. We know there are staunch current administration supporters, would any of you be willing be a speaker at this forum? Is there someone who will fill this empty chair?

Grace Kelly nicknamed Kelly
Democracy curmudgeon from Merriam Park

Grace,

Is there anyone - or any particular type of person - that the DFA is looking for?

And while the DFA might ostensibly be trying to set fair rules for the forum, can you see how an administration supporter might be leery about appearing at Macalester? How it might be like being the only black guy at a Klan rally?

Mitch said,

"can you see how an administration supporter might be leery about appearing at Macalester?"

Yes Mitch. I can. The audience would expect more from that person than sticking a yellow magnetic ribbon on their chair and scooting around on stage calling the other partipants cut and run Democrats.

Actually articulating the administrations position might be a little bit to much to ask of most administration supporters.

"How it might be like being the only black guy at a Klan rally?"

Granted Mitch, your view is in the minority but don't you think you are being a bit dramatic here? I mean, I can't even recall when they had the last conservative lynching in St. Paul.

"I mean, I can't even recall when they had the last conservative lynching in St. Paul."

Think back to the last mayoral election, Doug.

So, Doug, are you saying that "sticking a yellow magnetic ribbon on their chair and scooting around on stage calling the other partipants cut and run Democrats." isn't a legitimate debating tactic?
Pinko Commie.

No Terry,

It is a perfectly legitimate debating technique and I've actually seen one frequent poster here use it but as I understand, Kermit has a Pampered Chef party that night and won't be able to attend.

"Yes Mitch. I can. The audience would expect more from that person than sticking a yellow magnetic ribbon on their chair and scooting around on stage calling the other partipants cut and run Democrats."

Rubbish. I, for one, could and would do it, and do a fine job.

But you, Doug, coddle the Mac kids (and, to be fair, many college kids) a little excessively. You ever been in a college audience these days? They hiss, the chant, and every once in a while one of them darts up and throws a pie.

It has nothing to do with the quality of the arguments involved.

"Actually articulating the administrations position might be a little bit to much to ask of most administration supporters."

But coming up with a coherent, constructive alternative is too much for the entire American Left, so I don't feel so bad.

I think you may have misunderstood me Mitch. I actually think you would do a fine job.

I say do it. You were a musician playing in bars fer cripes sake. Ayone who can't handle a little heckling should just pack it in and get a job doing radio where it's safe.

oh... sorry.

All kidding aside, you should do it.

"Ayone who can't handle a little heckling should just pack it in and get a job doing radio where it's safe."

You mean being a journalist at a newspaper. You can't call up a newspaper reporter and debate them on the spot. You are stuck with email the next day or letters to the editor the next week.

That's one reason a lot of people think conservative talk radio is so popular and liberal talk radio takes a nose dive when attempted. You have to be able to stand up to and rebutt immediate debate and/or criticism. The numbers of liberals who are capable of that without immediately descending into name calling and consequent dismissal of their conversational opponent are miniscule.

"You have to be able to stand up to and rebutt immediate debate and/or criticism."

Immediate...? Right...

I've called dozens of call in shows.

You're pre-screened by a producer or screener. You are strategically placed in the call order - usually close to when they need to break for a commercial and in most cases the host introduces your call as being from a liberal.

On one occasion I actually got through to Limbaugh - after basically lying to the screener about what I wanted to say. Then, after I made my point, my mic was cut and Limbaugh was free to blather on unchallenged.

I've been on Bob Davis, Garage Logic, Hannity and I used to call Chris Crock pretty frequently purely because I thought he was quite possibly the worst person in talk radio and I thought it was funny to see him get really flustered.

The only call in show I have ever called where the call wasn't thoroughly vetted was Ed Schultz.

"Immediate...? Right...

I've called dozens of call in shows.

You're pre-screened by a producer or screener. You are strategically placed in the call order - usually close to when they need to break for a commercial and in most cases the host introduces your call as being from a liberal."

That's a lot more immediate than writing a letter to the editor, and HOPING they decide to publish your letter in the next 3-5 days.

As well as hoping they publish the entire piece you wrote, not just the parts they deem acceptable to print:

http://rambix.blogspot.com/2006/07/censored-beyond-all-recognition.html

You lied to the screener on the Limbaugh show, but at least you got to say what you wanted to say. Mr Ickler didn't even get that, and his message was totally lost in the Strib's snipfest.

Try calling Michael Medved on Thursdays. He takes nothing BUT calls from people who disagree with him on any subject. But do your research thoroughly. Dennis Prager is another one who is willing to take calls from people who disagree with him, if it is directly related to what he is talking about at that time.

"You're pre-screened by a producer or screener. You are strategically placed in the call order"

You're right so far.

Putting callers on the air is not a public service. Callers are part of the program. If the callers stink, the show will stink. Screening is MUCH more than just getting names and cities and line numbers. Would you expect your local Top40 station to air every CD that came through their mailbox? Of course not.

"usually close to when they need to break for a commercial"

Usually untrue. Most talk show topics follow an arc; depending on the show, calls are placed where they fit best within the topic's arc, which might be monologue -> guest -> calls, spaced so as to entice people to hold *through* the breaks - which is, indeed, the whole reason for having commercial radio in the first place.

" and in most cases the host introduces your call as being from a liberal."

That also varies widely - and if it happens, is usually done to let the audience know that one in fact DOES allow libs on the air.

"On one occasion I actually got through to Limbaugh - after basically lying to the screener about what I wanted to say. Then, after I made my point, my mic was cut and Limbaugh was free to blather on unchallenged."

Right. It's his show. He takes whatever challenges he wants. And the fact that you "beat the screener" is definitely held against you. Good screeners separate callers into four categories: Great callers, boring callers, crazy callers and average callers. Great callers get on first. Average callers get on next (ladies first in both categories - mainly to draw female listeners). *Good* crazies get a jump, while just-plain-nutbars who add nothing to the show get dumped. Boring callers - left or right wing - usually get politely discarded without getting into queue, IF the screener is doing his job.

"I've been on Bob Davis, Garage Logic, Hannity and I used to call Chris Crock ...I thought he was quite possibly the worst person in talk radio and I thought it was funny to see him get really flustered."

Yeah, he was terrible.

"The only call in show I have ever called where the call wasn't thoroughly vetted was Ed Schultz. "

And it shows. It may be a stylistic thing on Schultz' part - Mischke also eschews extensive screening, as did Geoff Charles. It might also be that given Ed's background is doing radio in Fargo, he hasn't needed extensive screening. But one of his show's weak points is its callers; they are frequently really, really dull. "Yeah, Ed, I agree with you 100%. There's no way we should be over there!" "Thanks, Caller. Here's Biff in Buffalo..." "yeah, Ed, I agree. 100%. We should not be over there." "Thanks, Biff. Let's talk to Reggie in Roanoke". "Yeah, Ed, you're exactly right!".

Zzzzz. Schultz is not without talent - but if his screening is by design, it's a bad choice.

I have heard quite the opposite on Ed Schultz. He actually gets a good percentage of calls from people who don't agree with him.

The problem with those calls tho' is that Schultz frequently difuses any real debate by diverting the call to discussions about golf or football - something that is common ground with the caller. I hate that.

God - and I forgot about Mischke.

Funny how one station can have the brightest - most original talent in Mischke and the worst in Crock. Now if they could just get rid of the Willie and Willie clone show and the Poli-chicks...

There's some real wasted air space.

Doug, how could anyone forget about Mischke?!?!?!

(And why did you have to remind us about Krok?!?!?!)