When the Arkansas State Democratic chairman was murdered, a motive was never offered to my knowledge. Why? Since he was highly polictical could his murder have been inspired by shock jocks?

On a different subject, Is John McCain the Manchurian Canidate?

Thank you

Jack Martin
A gathering of 10 million certainly would make an impact. Is there a serious move toward this or is it merely an idea at this point? From what I can tell the last significant protest gatherings took place in 2003.

I am encouraged by the recent statement of agreement by Ron Paul/Baldwin/McKinney/Barr/Nader. I feel more consensus building of this type must take place. We must learn to work together. Anti-War/9/11 Truth/Impeachment groups have sadly generally not worked well together.

Beecham: Since we have arrived at the consensus, through much careful but probably unnecessary clarification on my part, that wealthy individuals should be accorded equal free speech (equal opportunity, not just equal abstract rights) with the common citizen, and have also agreed that corporations have no rights of free speech (especially of false advertising and political speech ie: no commentary on politics or public policy allowed, no corporate contributions)then we have no problem with individual free speech as virtually uncurbable except when it causes immediate danger to others (the screaming "Fire" in a theatre thing).
So I guess you're asking me how to stop the special free speech rights given to the elites and corporations.

Since it seems that the elite have control of most of media except that residual part found in the Internet we could use for organizing, and since it appears that our government values these legally and morally non-existent rights above our own we must get their attention by chanting really, Really, REALLY loud at the Inauguration in January. This will require about 10 million of us in person and about 50 million more supporting us at home. I'm willing to walk 500 miles to Washington (I'm old and arthritic with chronic job injuries.) from here starting Jan. 1, and others should start from other states to gather support. The majority should arrive on buses, trains and Metro to save their time and effort. If this could happen we could form a consensus as we organize and travel, and then proceed to change the current rules of free speech along with many others. In short, we can change rules by demonstrating; by demonstrating our rights for freedom of movement, of free speech, and freedom of assembly for redress. (I look forward to talking with others like you on the road.)

Jack Martin
My concern about the idea of restriction of free speech is that elites will use that to manipulate the masses into restricting their own free speech, not to stop the advantages given to elites and corporations.

When I say I believe all speech must be protected I mean all individual, Constitutionally protected speech. I do not mean mass corporate propaganda facilitated by government. That is not freedom of speech. By giving special privilege to someone you effectively take it away from someone else.

I agree that it will take more than speech to overcome the obstacles we face. I am curious what you believe is the best approach to combat this terrorism and financial propaganda.

I don't fear what the corporations could do. They've already done it and are doing it now. They murder. They steal. They lie. I'm more worried about what the American people will let them get away with. How many rights are the American people willing to give up? Is there any point will they will say STOP! ENOUGH!

No, I am not satisfied with blogs like this, but I do believe the internet has been and continues to be a valuable weapon against the fascism of our times. The effect may be hard to see of course, because the mass media is not interested in actual reality but in projecting an image conducive to that same fascism.

beecham: My contention is that I can support universal free speech under "normal" conditions. You seem to agree with my objection to Supreme Court decisions giving enhanced free speech rights to the wealthy and their employees and to corporations and their spokespeople. You can't have it both ways. Either we have the authority to curb enhanced mercenary dissemination of propaganda by wealthy interests and corporate elites or we don't: Which is it? The current law sanctions what is unfair and irresistible, extending such inordinate advantage to the virtually unlimited provision of money to politicians competing for office. If the people who control the economy and the people who make the law exude toxic and false speech, and their power to do so exceeds that of the populace by several magnitudes then your defense of universal free speech is underlain by a mad hatter's reasoning.
beecham, You have a fine mind and you have exhibited courage regarding especially the 9/11 truth issue. Now comes the even greater terrorism of 10-19-08, in which financial propaganda drowns the truth. They have all the guns, and we are dodging behind bushes, but you call it a fair fight when the terrain is free speech. Just as free speech was lost in the 1917 Russian Revolution, or in the 1932 (ostensibly legal) Nazi Revolution, it has been lost, by us, here. As this financial terrorist attack and robbery of the people came upon us unawares (due to disparity of means), and we are unable to effectively resist by rhetoric, our right of free speech is now a fiction until we reclaim it. It will not be reclaimed until the unjust laws and disparity of power that negated it are overturned. It will take something beyond our most inspired and persuasive speech to do so. Let's hope it can yet be reclaimed by nonviolent means and the necessary milieu for universal free speech soon be recovered.
(I can't believe a lordly mind like your own would settle for a miniscule pretension to free speech on a seldom read blog when you could answer anyone as an equal face to face in normal times. It smacks of lost fortitude to accept crumbs.) You criticize me saying you fear how those with unbridled power might react. Too late, for their brash action has already negated your objection. It is like saying that the attacker who has shot my wife in the heart might also rape her should I interfere. You have entered Moyers confinement and you too are a hostage should you persist in this mistaken line of reasoning. As I stated earlier, maybe your formal education has stunted your comprehension of free speech and other human rights. Is fear planted: Does it now sprout to spite your allies.

Jack Martin
Any talk of restriction of speech will most likely be used by elites and governments to control the populations, not the other way around.

But free speech applies only to individual human beings. Corporations do not have rights.

The airwaves and bandwith belong to all of society, in the same way the air does, without which we cannot speak.

You are of course right about the unfair advantages given to corporations and elites, but I'm not sure the issue there is one of free speech, but a structural issue as you say. The economic system guarantees extreme wealth for few and poverty for the many. With a just economic system, I doubt the disparities in wealth and influence we see today would even be possible.

Restoring Civility to America's Political Discourse
The freedom of speech is essential to the welfare of the state. With this freedom comes the responsibility to speak the truth. "The truth will make you free".
Distotion of the truth will undermine the ability to deal with reality. We need as much information as possible to make good decisions from accurate information.
When it comes to technical information; it is necessary to make decisions that are pragmatic. When it is social information it is necessary to make decisons based on emotional and moral considerations.
Often, it is not what we say but how we say it.
Rove type distortion of the meaning of language causes wrong conclusions that can create hell on earth. Statements like, "Weapons of Mass Destruction" creates fear that overrides common sense. That is especially true when the statement "They have Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a Lie.

Moyers,

You really are the unrepentant liar. You know Rush's "Operation Chaos" was about extending the Dem Primary as long as possible. (and it worked) It was not about violence in Denver.

Ever hear of the group "Recreate 68"? All left of center.

Moyers, are you going to do any fair reporting on the violence from the left during the Republican convention? No? All the seized Molotov cocktail, and other weapons? No?

I wonder why?

In response to Clive Crook's article: So what’s a poor Democrat to do then, Clive? We are all for people practicing whatever religion they choose, but NOT OK with being told we must all practice the “only true one”…Isn’t that something our founding fathers fought against? We recognize the importance of wanting to express love/pride of country, but bristle at the hypocrisy of this patriotic philosophy: “We don't like anyone who thinks they're better than us, and we really don't like people telling us what to do. The irony, of course, is that we think we're better than everyone else, and we love to tell them what to do. Maddening, but true.” (from Chris Yeh’s comment to your piece). Are we “elitist” to point out this base hypocrisy? We’re all for people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, we just realize they first need bootstraps to pull up, because we believe a strong (and educated) middle class is important to a democracy. This is another cornerstone of the formation of our country, not lockstep thinking. We knew a Dubya prezdincy would swiftboat us down the river, and how fast and furious those rapids were, leaving us and the world in a wake of devastation. How can we “respect” that, and the fact that there are (many) folks out there who will turn around and vote for him in a skirt? This is the main grievance against Palin, but how could we not be outraged at the hypocrisy of her party’s two-faced attitudes about “sexism,” and “motherhood.” So, if these realizations are indicative of the demonized liberal elitist beliefs, what’s a poor Democrat to do, Clive?

beecham: Normally I would be the idealist and you the realist. You are wrong about protecting institutionalized hate speech. There are problems of scale, technological access, power and implied violence that negate idealizations and beg for practical controls.

Power: It is the vested interest of those possessing inordinate wealth, with its concomitant exercise of political power via money to disseminate flawed ideologies to maintain the status quo. A fair analysis reveals very little upward mobility in our society and the current trend is generally downward for the majority. Naturally a barage of propaganda by hired mercenaries is necessary to maintain control under conditions that indicate by common sense something is greatly amiss, as compared to prevalent theory and ideology.

Access: The airwaves, bandwidths and even the general access to compiled knowledge are key to public perception. If a monied minority has leverage over broadcast and educational institutions they can pretty much manufacture all the wrong-headed people needed to maintain and enhance their position. But, not being satisfied with their standing they now insist upon the ownership and metering of formerly common media and knowledge, even going so far as to copyright common elements of language. In a world of manufactured scarcity they have begun to purchase aquifers of our water and devise ways of metering solar light as it produces electrical energy. (Beech: Your education may have stunted your conception of free speech.)

Implied (and potential) violence: "Free" speech is not characterized by standing organized militias of thugs or by paid mercenary spokespeople arguing with skill and fervor against what even they know to be the truth. The publicly franchised police, the military (ostensibly established for homeland defense), the covert intelligence agencies under their indirect political control through well trained and bought hacks don't seem to be enough for them either, for they call upon these longstanding militias (once held in reserve to thwart unions and cow minorities) to intimidate the spontaneous movement for dissent and redress. Everyone of us has visualized their hidden snipers ready to narrow our political product choice with a shot to the head. (Recalling a defective product, so to speak.) Resort to the mercenary mouthpiece positioned for mass speech production before a broadcast apparatus amounts to much the same thing. Using their economic power they have transcended what was once conceived as free speech and are now amplified and replicated to the point where all else is drowned out. And they have invaded religion with the same sort of "tongue-slingers."
(Pat Robertson is model example. He commands hurricanes along with the assassination of Bolivarian heads of state.)

Even more tragic, our once serviceable state with its checks and balances has failed to reign in this positive reinforcement of illegitimate power. Our Supreme Court has gone so far as to rule that great wealth is synonymous with free speech and unlimited political speech. The magnified rights awarded to corporate interests under perversion of the 14th Amendment have exacerbated this ludicrous miscarriage of collective justice.

I would argue that the rise in mercenary armies like Blackwater and CACI are more a self-defense mechanism of corporate edifice than an ancillary to our armed forces. Again the impatience of our overlords' greed manifests itself in rash action. (This may indicate a crisis afoot as wolves are about to devour one another.)

So, beecham, this is another structural problem for awakened humanity. Your and my free speech are almost an illusion now. Sure, we write our graffiti on blogs and discuss amongst ourselves, but it would take the elephant Horton to hear our pleas and carry this dust speck to safety amod the din and winds of those who claim to own us. (Normal etiquitte is out the window my man. Reserve your idealism for normal times.)

All speech must be protected. If any speech can be restricted then all speech can be restricted.

How do you define hate speech?

Who gets to determine what is restricted?

Where does it end?

Restriction of speech will be and indeed already is used as a tool by government and elites to limit debate and dissent.

Fortunately the internet allows discussion of many topics that are essentially banned elsewhere.

9/11 false flag attack.
Federal Reserve Scam
The Two Party dictatorship of America

Free speech is one of our greatest freedoms. It must be preserved.

Talk shows reduced to too much jock, not enough shock, and surely not enough thoughtful deliberation. Most is all intimidation by persons who feel they can use the airwaves for arrogant intimidation.

This is symptomatic of society as a whole in my opinion. There is a complete lack of respect for self and for others. Combine that with a nasty form of arrogance that does not allow for diversity and you have a recipe for hate. Sadly hatred sells be it political candidates or religious beliefs.

I try to remind others when political discussion goes over the line that they must remember that all parties have a genuine desire for the same thing....a safe, prosperous, free and growing society. They differ in HOW to achieve this, in the priorities for building and maintaining this ....but the GOAL is that same. We can disagree but respect the others right to their view.

The same is true of religion. My strongly held beliefs cannot be forced upon others who have their own beliefs as well. To demand one over another is to find yourself with a society much like that of the Taliban and this is true of ANY religion. In a pluralist society this cannot be allowed. We need the freedom to believe as we choose but not to impose on our neighbor.

Simple respect of others would go a long way towards bringing civility into such debates.

Mr Moyers:

I left a previous post, but I forgot to add the following.

You know, Mr Moyers, I recall another program you had not too long ago on the Rev Wright (?), Obama's past minister. You didn't seem to mind the profanity emanating from his pulpit, Ie, "God Damn America". Yet you seem very at-odds with "all" talk radio shows & exhibit clip-its out-of-context.

Dont get me wrong. I am a white conservative (some-what Republican) supporting Obama this year, but no-thanks to your show on the reverend. The reason is I can sort out & disregard associations & claims which are meaningless. Whether the ridiculous comes from the pulpit or from a radio station (or from a court of law for that matter), I can exclude or include what I believe to be right. And that ability is something that you dont give credit to the public at large.

Where you portrayed the talk-shows as being totally evil, you would squash their warnings regarding illegal entry into this country, a subject that would have gone completely unnoticed & unaddressed were it not for the talk-shows. I doubt very seriously that you would have addressed this serious issue,instead choosing to be a gentleman & turn a blind eye.

I have been reading through many of these comments and I am dismayed at the number of folks who don't get it!

"Hate speech is a right?"

How in the world does your beliefs come to such a conclusion?

Perhaps this individual calls themselves a Christian.. perhaps not.. but still... Why would you seek to defend the concept of HATE speech. Free SPEECH is a right.. but is hatred a right? WOW.. need to do some reflection on that one.

I also notice that there are a lot of people under the misperception that folks are going to be rounded up and jailed for what they say on the radio. Yet.. don't have a problem when the shock jocks they are defending say that it is ok to kill others who disagree with them.. Hmmm.. so some folks have a unfounded fear about being jailed for Hate Speech yet defend hate speech when it calls for rounding up Liberals or Immigrants.... RIIIGGHHHT.

Good use of logic there!

Sigh.

Here is what I think…

• Has American political discourse become so toxic as to be counterproductive? Do you expect it to get better, stay the same, or become worse?

Yes, American political discourse has become so toxic it is counterproductive. If one takes the high road and attempts a civil discussion, one will only be drowned out by the uncivil types with their intolerant, scorched earth, take no prisoners political tactics. I do not expect it to get better, it will stay the same or get worse.

• How consistently is your own political expression tolerant, even-handed and fair?

I am a consumer of public television and public radio. I frequently find bias in many of the programs, but overall, I find many programs try to present a balanced and fair view on issues. When I encounter biased programming on public radio or television, I do write in and complain, pointing out the bias, even if the bias is in favor of my own political views. I want fair and balanced reporting of all points of view, not just people telling me what I want to hear.

• What are your ideas for restoring civility to America’s political discourse?

No idea. Just look at the viewer commentary on this blog thread alone – you can see it is not possible to have a rational, civil discussion of these issues.

Unfortunately, the message (i.e. the rational, civil discussion) is getting lost among the method and style of communication. Somehow when the question is posed as to how do we get back to civility, this gets totally corrupted by some into a liberal agenda to deprive the right wing conservatives their rights to free speech, including hate speech. Civility is civility, it is not a partisan issue. Why are the right wing zealots incapable of understanding this and unwilling or unable to have a civil discussion?

It seems to be because this discussion is a part of the larger left vs. right “culture war”, and as we know, all things are fair in war, including some very uncivil tactics and methods. To restore civility, we need to consider how to end the larger “culture war”. I don’t know if this is possible. In some ways, our modern “culture war” issue is as corrosive and damaging to our country as the Civil War was. That war did not end until one side was totally defeated and surrendered. I do not want to think about how our current “Uncivil War” will end.

Has anyone here ever listened to Air America? Read the Daily Kos? Hate is on both sides of the aisle and typical of Bill Moyers to focus on the brand he hates more.

Get rid of public funding of partisan shows!

Fellow Bloggers,

I was appalled by what I saw and heard about the shock jocks. What bothers me even more is that other people would find it entertaining in some way. If it is satire, it is in poor taste. If it is intended to be serious then I do believe it is similar to shouting fire in a movie theatre and there should be legal consequences. Then again I also think when athletes get into a brawl in a game they should be arrested for assault. Double standards abound in our culture. I am all for free speech. You have the right to say what you want. Part of that right is facing consequences for what you say when it causes harm to others. Just as anyone has the right to protest or participate in acts of civil disobedience. That doesn't mean they are not subject to prosecution.

Many are complaining that Bill Moyers has a liberal bias and therefore because of that anything that is said in the piece is dismissed based on that. Bill Moyers seems to be left leaning. That is probably why I myself enjoy watching the show. I am a Bill Moyers, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, watching, liberal radio listening person. I would rather read the New York Times than most other papers. On the other hand, I think Rhandi Rhodes is vile and not a very good representative of what would be called liberalism. I don't go on Daily Kos very often because the tenor of the exchanges can be so nasty. When I watch Bill Moyers or Countdown or other things I am well aware of the bias...I'm not going to pretend it isn't there. What I don't understand is what is the big deal about bias? There is plenty to go around. If you think something is bias that usually means you think they are saying something incorrect. If that is the case go find out. Don't wait for somebody from your side to tell you. Figure it out for yourself. Instead of crying about all the bias out there get informed. If you don't like what the shock jocks are saying then stop listening for one and encourage others to do the same. Find out what is appealing about them to others. You may not always like the discussion or where it goes but the important thing is to have the discussion. I read most of the posts here. I disagreed with 90% of what Dave said. I think he uses the word liberal as a crutch to describe people he disagrees with. He uses personal attacks and derogatory names to insult but fails to recognize that Mr. Moyers has had several conservative commentators on his show. By watching these shows a viewer can see that conservatives may have differing viewpoints but there are many areas in which the right and left can agree if they are willing to have a civil discussion and maybe find a compromise. That is difficult to accomplish when the majority of both sides attack each other personally and spin the truth to the best of their ability. What people need to realize is that both sides do it and we all need to call fouls on our own side as quickly as we point a finger at the other side when they are being unfair. That means we need to be open minded and as informed and stop worrying about unfair bias. The first bias that we need to deal with is the bias of the person staring at us in the mirror every morning.

Dear Mr. Moyers,
I am very concerned for America when I hear people question the "civility" of talk and express concern for the ideas of others. Voltaire said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." http://www.bartleby.com/66/40/63040.html
There is also "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too." Your ideas are far too close to extinguishing our freedom of speech, especially political speech. America is founded on free enterprise and freedom - let the radio market be free. We are responsible for our own actions, not those of others - let us be FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you really wish to end our freedoms??

Shelley: You seem a wonderful insightful and caring person from your posts. It seems perverse to imagine oneself spouting hate speech over media for a living. Bill Moyers' metaphor of two wolves fighting within us, and choosing to feed the good one, is apropos but incomplete. We have had an ongoing discussion on his blog about how employment in the USA is becoming more predatory in its duties (scam sales, bill collecting, investment fraud,predation on the poor, pharmaceutical claims...)
What is left out is that these predatory media jocks have employers. An employer is someone who hires a surrogate to perform tasks for them; repugnant or specialized jobs, things they don't have time of skills to do themselves. The suggestable and relatively powerless audience are an illusory employer at best. Somewhere, some time at several managerial, ownership and power broker levels the decision was made to market a product of political hate speech. When we can identify the cruel opportunists who made this selfish decision for reasons of greed and power we can expose them and ask why. The airwaves and band widths are theoretically a common resource, making their responsible use a province of the public, just like clean air or water. Until we can finger the wolfish, polluting employers it would be counterproductive to fight their overwrought victims (audience) or even indulge their irrational mercenary spokespersons in argument. Only by turning away from such confrontation can we save any peaceful discourse.

Moyers also made a mistake in choosing his proverb when he assumed a hungry wolf could be bad or good. Like the audience being manipulated the wolf is simply hungry. It is the fault of our sterile materialism, failed economy and dead religion that such hunger exists. It is OK to give a warning about what happened in Tennessee at Chris Buice's Unitarian Church, but to tie this to the upcoming election and to pursue ideological confrontation is a moral and tactical error. By appealing to another aspect of fear Moyers actually represses the peaceful dissent so much needed now. And he makes it harder to console a hate parroting neighbor face to face. ( I have sinned along with you, Bill, but now must revert to constructive justice-seeking pascifism.) When people become mortal enemies over how they vote, we are on the verge of a bloodbath (as Chris Buice observed about Rwanda). Voting and campaigning are important, but so many other things are far more important. There are even many other aspects of politics to explore. Narrowness of mind, making the election of some hack candidate the end all and be all of your life is a hate crime in itself. Don't let the "Wolfish Employers" manipulate us like that.

Mr. Moyers, Thank you for the segment on "Reclaiming Civil Discourse." To facilitate that I wish you had included a portion on the advertisers (or others) that support the radio stations that bring forward the "shock jocks." If you want to empower your viewers to reclaim civil discourse, follow the money (as always) and expose those who support this non-civil discourse. Then those who care can pull their support, as I would, and the more vocally the better. Keep up the GREAT work.

why does men never listened to god's and why do they do what they do just to justified theirs own greed,selfishness,ungreatful
deeds, and why does women keep up with all of these things of a man. am glad i don't given in too many things in my head. i may listened but my mind is far far away from what is evil and i only let in my head peace,love, and god does what he does best.....

“With adequate profit, capital is very bold. A certain 10 percent will ensure its employment anywhere; 20 percent will produce eagerness, 50 percent positive audacity; 100 percent will make it ready to trample on all human laws; 300 percent, and there is not a crime which it will not scruple, nor a risk it will not run, even to the chance of its owner being hanged.” -1848

what is needed is a website that has a brief quote of the "personalities" and the list of corporate sponsors that advertise on the station. the list would be updated periodically and edited and policed similar to wikipedia. consumers could print out the simple "do not patronize" shopping list. every follower could click on a pledge to not purchase products from the companies and that number could swell with just a portion of a few mailing lists followers such as those for obama or move-on. that should get their attention and cause real discussion among stations of why limbaugh gets paid so much for reducing product sales.

Sitting all day on your posterior and screaming obscenities into a one-way microphone does not a 'jock' make. Shock Shlock maybe,but the furthest thing from a healthy jock.

I posted a comment but don't see it yet. This is an addendum. FOX NEWS and CNN both carry some of the shock jocks mentioned in the Bill Moyer's program. These channels constantly play in many publics areas such as airports, waiting rooms, etc. For those of us that were shocked by this report as I was, we can write to the people responsable for letting these program air to the public and aske that they either be turned off or tuned to a channel that does not support shock jocks.

Bill, I am absolutely pleased to meet you and glad to hear such an empathetic source of information. I have been appalled with what I have been seeing among our people. It's the total malaise of unconcern for the truth. It's like our morality has downgraded to it's lowest low and people are acceptable of anything.

Just the point of accepting a lie is too much for me to consider. What makes people think that lying is of no value any longer? When did we lose it's value? I can't recall ever losing mind. I hate when people lie to me and smile in my face. I could never vote for McCain/Palin after listening to their lying rhetoric. They are disgusting to say the least.

It's just so good when I can listen to someone who also didn't lose their moral authority. Thank you and may God bless you and yours.

I don't see a thread for discussion of the OpenSecrets segment on campaign finance and the mortgage crisis, so I am putting this comment here.

Blaming Democrats for the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is silly. OpenSecrets' methodology is weak in this regard. At least three presidential candidates wind up in their top recipients list simply because they raised lots of money. Only a tiny portion was from Fannie and Freddie. Looking at contributions from a donor as a fraction of the total would be sounder.

OpenSecrets aptly pointed out that 19 of the top 30 bondholders among members of Congress were Republicans. These were people who stood to gain or lose personally from legislation. Which is more likely to corrupt the process: a campaign donation, or owning an asset that's at risk?

Meanwhile, Republican Michael Oxley, writing in the Financial Times, blames the White House. Oxley was the man who undid Glass-Steagall, opening the door to the financial shenanigans of the mortgage crisis.

In short, the problems of Fannie and Freddie are very bipartisan. However, even so, consider that they operated as Government Sponsored Entities for over 30 years with no problems. Something changed recently.

What changed-- aside from the contempt for Regulation that the Bush Administration brought to Washington-- was the ability of Americans to shoulder debt. Alan Greenspan lowered interest rates temporarily, but did not use his regulatory power to maintain lending standards. So Americans, whose earning power is stagnant, borrowed... sometimes recklessly. Fannie and Freddie may have erred around the edges in buying secondary mortgages. But they had high standards. They were clearly undercapitalized, the one area where Congress bears direct responsibility.

The real story of the collapse of Fannie and Freddie is a lot more interesting and a lot more complicated than the squib from OpenSecrets would suggest. I thought Bill Moyers' coverage was poor. After all, it's on The Journal that we hope to see complicated issues covered *well.*

Bill,
American political discourse follows the market of advertising, i.e., money. In America we have the purchase of the right to spread and promote lies and untruth. It will continue to become worse until an enforceable ethical standard is established by law as is the right to speach and petition, neither of which is the right to lie.

Lots of sad commentary from a supposedly "Christian" right, must have missed the scripture quoting Jesus, paraphrased;

And a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another as I have loved you. That ye also love one another.

So much for Judeo-Christian commandments from God. There's another pesky one from the old book, Thou shalt not kill.

Something that the godless left has in common with the God fearing right, selective disregard for the dominant mythology.

The middle is indifferent so long as they have and can give unto Caesar.

See y'all in hell.

If the so-called "fairness doctrine" ever comes to pass, this nation will cease to be a free country. Hate speech is a right. If you don't care for it, leave, but a right is a right. You are free to disagree as much as you want. I looove to see the leftist smear merchants spreading propaganda by saying things like "you know what those right wingers are saying behind closed doors." I roll on the ground laughing, knowing full well that those hosts go home to loving families (not without problems), go to church, catch a game, have a few, and generally don't have a secret bunker where they plan the horrific things that could only spew from the mind of a godless liberal. It's OK. We forgive you.

I'm not frightened at all by right wing "shock jocks". What scares me much more is is a journalist who would use a murder by a disturbed individual to attack and demonize his political opponents.

I have always felt that there is a great need in our country to teach and preach the importance of logic, critical thinking, understanding reason, debate, philosophy and true communication to the general public, beginning in elementary schools and continuing until logic and reason become commonplace ways of thinking. People should learn to know and understand what logical fallacies are and how to tear them apart. They should understand the importance of fairness, justice and diplomacy in speech. They should learn to armor themselves against being exploited by emotional rants and comments unbacked by true source information. They should also be provided with all sides of issues by the media.

Of course, this will never happen because business, religion and politics depend almost entirely on deception and/or belief without proof. (Faith might be a good thing, but one must understand the sources of one's faith and critically evaluate it before one subscribes to it, IMO.)

I also think that the Constitution should be amended to make terrorist type hate speech a felony. I don't want freedom of speech taken away, but there should be a limit on unreasoning speech that causes death, destruction, and psychological damage. Nobody should be allowed to incite murder on the radio, TV, or any other form of media. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is a very tiny crime next to that.

Bill Moyers....Keep up the good work! I hope that with these final weeks before the election all this fluff has to stop. It seems that things will not change too much if what was said at the end that these lobbyists are hand in pocket with the politicans. The mess that has been revealed about the energy industry where drugs and sex and every other monkey business took place is sure a sign of a moral mess. Where is the American Solzhenitsyn?

We have lost our sense of connectedness with others. I think fear is at the base of the troubles we have with talking honestly with others about how we feel. We fear losing our jobs so we don't speak up when management outsources or lays off employees. We fear making waves and are surprised when we are laid off by our employers. We fear others taking our jobs so we oppose immigration and most of all illegal immigration. Fear is pervasive but faith in the universe needs to be fostered. It is easy to talk about fear but talking about faith gets people put down by others. And when we don't talk to each other to see that we are all in the same basic boat buffeted by actions and reactions of others, we ultimately lose ourselves in our own heads. I think it is easy to slip into a non-contemplative reactive mode of hate and violence and shock jock behavior when we don't realize that we are the same as those who are different than we are. I hope we (as a nation) wake up soon enough to save ourselves.

Bill,

thank you. Your comment at the end of the program was appreciated as well as things Pastor Chris Buice had to say. It "is" too easy to sit in a broadcast studio, attack a person for their beliefs, and promote violence against people that are different from ourselves, as opposed to standing eye to eye with that same person or persons. It is what it is, propaganda, plain and simple. It's sole purpose is to divide our people. These things only serve to weaken us as a country. It shames us as a nation. We would do well to ignore these people and the negativity they've chosen to spread. I've chosen to turn them "off".

Civility is nice. But what is needed is truth. Fox News. MSNBC. They all operate under the same FALSE set of assumptions.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OSAMA BIN LADEN WAS INVOLVED IN 9/11.

BOTH PARTIES ARE THE SAME.

Investigate 9/11. Expose the true terrorists.

Shock jocks are terrorists. Both use hate and fear to further their ideology. Thank you Bill for another thought provoking program.

Two days after watching your program "Reclaiming Civil Discourse" I am still in shock. As I am originally from England, where I supported the then British Liberal Party, I could previously never understand how or why the word "liberal" with its honorable heritage was used as a vile pejorative by many people here in the United States. Now I do.

I am disheartened by the huge audiences who listen to the shock jocks, whose exhortations are reminiscent of those of the Nazis. After watching the hatefest that constituted a considerable portion of the Repblican National Convention it seems clear that the same infection is contaminating the wider public discourse.

What can we as ordinary, but outraged citizens do to stop the public broadcasting and dangerous excesses of hate speech?

I think the real crime the shock jock set is guilty of is selling their bran of journalism as truth. There are many folks who I speak to who think these guys are not just entertainment, and when I try to tell them this, that even THEY regard themselves as entertainment, then the 'liberal press' accusations fly.

Why can't congress pass a Truth In Reporting act that would require 'opinion news' shows to identify themselves as such at the beginning, middle and end of their broadcast. And then if said shows want to fight that effort, then the sponsors of the bill have their proof that these jocks don't want their audiences to have the truth.

Just an idea.

David Duval

I was shocked by what is on the public airwaves. We have free speech in Canada too but you can't shout fire in a theater. This goes beyond hate propaganda into incitement to violence. Can you really say "anything" on the US airwaves. The right to keep & bear arms does not apply to having your own tank, surely you cannot tell your audience to kill someone OR can you???

Listening to these "shock jocks" certainly was shocking. Having an opinion or belief and passionately advocating it is one thing, but broadcasting a national call for murder on AM radio is quite another, even if it is "just a joke". It is despicable, and an abuse of the freedom of speech that only lowers the bar for the American conversation. It dehumanizes not only liberals, but conservatives as well. What makes this "hate speech" isn't just the words, it's the violence you can hear in their voices. Anyone who has studied the role of Radio Milles Collines in the Rwandan genocide would recognize that sound. The shock jocks certainly have the freedom of speech, but radio stations (or at least the corporate conglomerates that own them now) have the freedom not to air them, and the public has the freedom not to tune in. I would hope Americans turn a blind ear to this stuff and render the shock jocks powerless. America deserves better. It deserves civility. Is that asking too much?

I saw the Bill Moyer Report and am upset by the assumptions regarding talk radio shows and the implication they tried to make that the reason an amnesty bill did not go through is death threats.

When it comes to threats of violence there are fringe loonies on both sides and an elected politician can defend themselves much easier than one of us street activists can.

I have personally carried an anti amnesty sign in front of a march of ten thousand people visible to thousands in Boston. I was there aware that some have tried to intimidate me with in your face shouting and death threats.

The majority of American citizens are against open ended continuous residence and so at odds with many of their elected politicians.

The politicians were not reacting to death threats. They were reacting to the mass of Americans saying they would not be voting for someone who supported an amnesty.

While we are here on the subject of confrontational messages going to some Senator's residences I have peacefully protested directly on Ted Kennedy's lawn in Hyannis Port eight times. This includes when he was there twice.

I have let it be known that I would willingly be arrested and jailed for thirty days if neccessary so that America's citizens need not be railroaded by the likes of Ted Kennedy.

Many Americans feel a sense of deep frustration with our legislators and do not know what they can do to have an impact practically. If I can turn them on to the NumbersUSA.org site and help them decisively fight for their interest by directly contacting their politicians it is worth the effort.

Once again, WOSU in Columbus, preempts Bill Moyers for "fund-raising" infommercials. They have done this so many times over the years that I became a regular at an out of town truckstop where I went to watch PBS on my portable TV. Now, I watch online.
WOSU now has 4 channels to fill. And, it has room for bland DIY shows and stale British comedies, the sort of which one can find in any Public Library, but no room for Bill.
I hope Suze Orman enjoys her "self-help" fortune, because it's shows like Moyers' that make her boring commercials possible.

By any measure, the shooter in the Knoxville church killings was a mentally deranged individual.

I expect for to be on side of Republicans’ expect CNN ,
NBC,CBS and other to be on side of Democrats. But when I watch PBS I want truth ,down the middle, honestly, this is not what I just saw. Shame on you.

Re "Reclaiming Civil Discourse": I think Barack Obama is going to win the White House, and his victory will precipitate an explosion of violence coming from the reactionary right. The shooting in Knoxville is only a preview of worse to come. Civil discourse will not be reclaimed, and liberals will be either vulnerable or armed. I'm the latter.

Sorry liberals, but Americans will NEVER stand for the Fairness Doctrine. We will stand up to Congress like we did when they tried to slip the immigration bill past us. It amazes me that liberals are so threatened by opposing points of view that they want to use government to squelch them. Doesn't sound very open-minded to me.
Sounds like you're afraid of a REAL debate on the issues.
And Bill, you know you listen to Rush every day. You know that hate is not what he's about.

Bill,
You have hit many home runs in your lifetime. Today you hit 2 grand slams! You are the Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron of "Classical" news.
Question 1. What approach will put both these stories into the widest media visibility within the next 30 days?
Question 2. For those people who tune out to non-sound bite stories; how can these CRITICAL stories be abridged to contain the heart and soul for sound bite consumers?
Question 3. Are there people with enough conviction to put sufficient money in play to achieve these outcomes on a scale and saturation to "wet the souls of the unbelievers"?
If these stories cannot begin to alter the 50:50 divide in America; is there hope for the next 20 years?
As your second story demonstrated, today questions are more important than ever in showing the trap-door of the conjurer to the mesmerized audience!
Bill, Americans know the name of Paul Revere, but how many know the name of the person who placed the lamps in the bell tower? You are Paul, your guests the person in the bell tower. Without both, could the American story ever have begun? May history remember you and your guests in the centuries that follow.

The juxtaposition of the Journal programs On Civil Discourse and Andrew Bacevich's "On the American Dream" left me more cynical and despondent about our future. I do not believe that we can overcome the perverted use of deflection and obfuscation by the campaigns. I am not surprised that the presidential campaign has descended into Rovian political discourse which accomplishes nothing except to circumvent the issues that will decide the future course of our nation. It's about winning! Winning, winning, winning. Winning, it seems, is everything. But at what cost? We can only calculate the full measure of the cost if we are prepared to sacrifice those values that we hold most dear. The price for me is too high. I am not willing to allow those that would squander our democratic principles win without a fight.

I will not answer pollsters. I would urge all to respond to pollsters with "No comment. You will know my vote when I cast it." In this way we may, perhaps, force the candidates to stand on their true values and not bend to the whim of the polls.

As it stands, the candidates have stepped away from their core beliefs in order to win. For whoever wins, it will be a hollow victory; cynicism and distrust will be be the only winners. As Thomas More said to Richard Rich just prior to his sentence of death - "It profits a man not to sell his soul even for the Kingdom of Heaven, but for England?" (Substitute 'White House' for 'England')

This tyranny of complacancy will rear its ugly head and before we know it it will come crashing down and smash our democratic principles to smithereens. Speak up, demand the truth, and keep silent about your choices. Maybe, then, we can salvage our democracy.

btw ... why this program is so important...

ideas lead to words ... and words lead to actions ...

if a country gets into a deep financial calamity, u can bet the hate speech will be ratcheted up ...

ANY person that thinks Bill & "The Journal" has an agenda...is right. It's called the search, THE HONEST search...for truth, in a world filled with disinformation...That;s the difference between liberals & conservatives...Liberals are willing to adjust their opinions when "new information" comes to light.
If that new info makes a Democrat look like an idiot,
(or has acted unethically),
they get thrown underneath the bus, hands down, period paragraph....The whole Democratic philosophy is based around "doing the right thing, while keeping an open mind" Nothing trumps the truth...the facts...
The Right, on the other hand, finds it bothersome to adjust or change an opinion or view, even if it's been proven wrong. Maybe it's somethin' about "having to actually think for ones self & not just memorize the party-line talking points"...I dunno'. I'm affraid it all boils down to RIGHT & WRONG,
& the willingness to admit either, even when your side of the issue is proven wrong or incorrect...
It's called "class war-fare", friends..."the have's & the have not's..."
"The Royals & The Serf's"...& In the SOUTH....It's the constant fear that (sooner or later),
the bill will come due for their historic minority oppression & "crimes of hate", and they'll get the public "social bitch-slapping" The South & other racist areas in America, so richly deserve..
Remember...hatred in not inherited, in a "learned" behavior.....and it really is, a waste of time, energy & emotion...
"Here endeth the lesson..."

Bill:
Thanks for your continued effort to contribute some real analysis and digging re; media consolidation and reform. I don't think most would agree that it's a good idea for only a handful of major conglomerates to own a majority of news media outlets. The 4th estate is under attack and has been for several years.

The press is supposed to be a 4th branch of govt...maybe the most important branch. But now it seems they have been bought up, threatened, cajoled and cowed into a passive and submissive role. One of our political parties prefers to govern by using evangelists and the TV and radio stations they own as their mouthpieces. The conservative old money gathered themselves after Nixon was forced out of office and began their march on media ownership.

They don't want a critically thinking, politically active citizenry...they like dumbing down America. Seems to go against the freedoms that we fought a revolutionary war over. When greedy, out of control, monopolistic forces finally run our ship of state aground, maybe then the country will wake up and take corrective actions.

My applied ethics students at a technical college will be watching this program next week for sure and discussing its implications for their own less than ethical thinking about many issues and the candidates. Thank you once again, for always providing the kind of extraordinary material that a college teacher can use in the classroom immediately to help the really "average" American understand their identity as citizens rather than as consumers. My students must watch PBS's News Hour and BBC World News and listen to NPR daily. Most of them have never heard of either media source for news that truly informs and analyzes. Most are in their 30's and 40's or older and many are dislocated workers. It's stunning how much they do not know about the political process in theis country and the role of journalists and the public media. The work of Moyers and his staff is a blessing to this country and I am grateful for it.

Rofl Dave - therein lies the dilemna. I am more conservative than liberal - an independant that votes on issues not personalities. Actually - you'd have a really hard time putting me in that square box of one side or the other. You may discover we have much in common.

No one is denied chemo? I envy the you, for in my cancer reality, my options are limited by my wallet. Although, strictly speaking, if I had the cash I wouldn't be denied it. Perhaps you can give me the name of your oncologist? I was fortunate to find a neurosurgeon that would allow me to pay what I could per month - but right now I'm over 100k in debt due to medical bills. After 30 years of hard work - nothing is left to show for it but those bills. For those 'shock jocks' who want all independent thinkers dead - you will have one less on your list in a short time.

But we digress - I will agree to disagree on specific issues. But no matter our opinions, it degrades us as Americans to refuse to see anothers humanity. Many of my friends have bumper stickers that ask "What Would Jesus Do", while degrading another person based on outward appearances. Perhaps the idea is not to ask the question what would Jesus do - but to live the answer.

Shock Jocks - on either side, are hate-mongers. Let's face it - degrading another human being is a way of making ourselves feel superior. The real question is - what is lacking in ourselves that we need to have that feeling of superiority?

Sock Jocks
Dear Bill Moyers

Thank you for this piece on “Shock Jock” whom most of the American people are not all that familiar with. I am totally outraged at the level and degree of hate speech that is being spewed by the rightwing shock jocks toward the left or liberals in America today. There is a certain irony that Michael Reagan the son of President Reagan who is the great-grand father of the modern day conservative religious right movement can make such threats of death over the public air waves and not be held liable. MICHAEL REAGAN: "Take them out and shoot them. They are traitors to this country, and shoot them. But anybody who would do that doesn't deserve to live. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullet."

Michael Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck as well as a host of other shock jock should be charge with high crime and no misdemeanors. They should be prosecuted to the fullest existent of the law, Rush Limbaugh for his "Operation Chaos”. These are the people that are the real threat to America freedom and security. The Reagan conservative’s revolution has moved the pendulum in the United States so far to the right. It makes many mainstream American centrists look like the so called loony lefties that the Conservatives love to bash.

As our nation and the global economy and political system goes down the tube, our nations airwaves and cable are filled with mostly recycled garbage with the exception of shows such as your and “Democracy Now” others that are on PBS and NPR. It is time for the people in the center to stand-up and be heard. David
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/
Sock Jocks
Dear Bill Moyers

Thank you for this piece on “Shock Jock” whom most of the American people are not all that familiar with. I am totally outraged at the level and degree of hate speech that is being spewed by the rightwing shock jocks toward the left or liberals in America today. There is a certain irony that Michael Reagan the son of President Reagan who is the great-grand father of the modern day conservative religious right movement can make such threats of death over the public air waves and not be held liable. MICHAEL REAGAN: "Take them out and shoot them. They are traitors to this country, and shoot them. But anybody who would do that doesn't deserve to live. You shoot them. You call them traitors, that's what they are, and you shoot them dead. I'll pay for the bullet."

Michael Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck as well as a host of other shock jock should be charge with high crime and no misdemeanors. They should be prosecuted to the fullest existent of the law, Rush Limbaugh for his "Operation Chaos”. These are the people that are the real threat to America freedom and security. The Reagan conservative’s revolution has moved the pendulum in the United States so far to the right. It makes many mainstream American centrists look like the so called loony lefties that the Conservatives love to bash.

As our nation and the global economy and political system goes down the tube, our nations airwaves and cable are filled with mostly recycled garbage with the exception of shows such as your and “Democracy Now” others that are on PBS and NPR. It is time for the people in the center to stand-up and be heard. David
http://globalcrier.blogspot.com/

To Cindy Anderson- I understand and agree with part of what you say; I consider myself a social liberal and never listen to Air America, go to MoveOn.org or anything like that, precisely because of the extreme level of division of their style of media. But I don't think I'd consider small splinter groups like the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front to have "the worst violence in the country". That would probably be the Civil War in terms of history, and currently its gun violence, mainly in urban areas and related to gang wars and the drug trade. I completely condemn the tactics of groups like ELF or ALF, not only because they're potentially harmful to people and property, but because they don't work: these groups never really win any sympathy or gain supporters by using tactics of fear and intimidation. But I think you're exaggerating if you think that's the worst violence in our country right now- those sorts of groups are always extremely small, tenous in their level of support, and about the worst they generally manage to achieve is blow up SUVs.

Also, I do agree with you that Moyers should've pointed out that there's some increasingly pretty vitriolic media on the left, and shown how equally harmful it can be. But again, I think you're going too far by saying Iraq war veterans are being mocked on the streets on "liberal" cities. I myself am from Knoxville, Tennessee (I should probably mention that the church mentioned in the Moyers segment is one I'm a member of), a moderately conservative city, but I've been in places all over America, including such 'notoriously' liberal cities like San Fransisco, Seattle, Boston, and New York, and right now I'm living near Asheville, North Carolina, a place with some strong liberal elements. But in all those places I've seen and encountered people who are either active-duty military or veterans of the Iraq war, and I've never seen any spitting or mocking or insults of anybody. In fact, I've never seen anything like that anywhere in the United States; despite what people may think about the Iraq War, everybody, even me- and I have some pretty strong anti-militarism views- have at the very least an essential respect for soldiers for what they've gone through and what many of them are still going through, and for the fact that they chose to serve something larger than themselves. In fact, sometimes it is self-described 'liberals' who push most for veterans's health care and benefits. Very anti-war Paul Wellstone made health care for veterans a constant issue throughout his political career, and it useful to remember that the Department of Veterans Affairs provide a single-payer, government-funded (i.e. 'Socialist) health care program, for free, for life, to veterans- an idea pretty close to what a lot of 'liberals' would like to see for everybody. Yes, there are the over-the-top statements like "General Betray Us?" and some extremists out there, but they are not representative of most people who are anti-war or most people who consider themselves politically 'liberal'. Just like the people who bomb abortion clinics, and every now and then kill a doctor who performs abortions- also a definite act of intentional violence- are not representative of most people who oppose abortion or who are pro-life, for very genuine and often decent reasons. In short, don't color entire broad philosophies or political ideologies with the work of a few extremists- they are there in any movement or ideology or religion or anything else. I think that ability to look at situations with Reason, and understand that people are complicated and political ideology is complicated, and that we should really try to see people as human beings trying to figure their place in the world out, just like us, is what Moyers is trying to get across here.

As a guy interviewed in the segment said, we ARE a Deliberative Democracy, and if we lose that ability to genuinely and constantly Deliberate with our fellow citizens- like all of the people commenting on this blog- then we lose our Democracy. So please, everybody, if nothing else- be calm, be deliberative in the statements you make or the ideas you have about other people you don't know and maybe have never met. Always consider the possibility that the 'Other' or even the 'Enemy' may have an insight or piece of truth that you've never considered before. That understanding of mutual reasoning and ability to have healthy dialogue between people is the bulwark which seperates a society like ours from ones, like in the Balkans, where people literally slaughter each other over ancient and incredibly entangled resentments, fears, and hatreds. Please, please, please, be kind, be civil, and be empathetic.

Bill, you mentioned the phrase "cognitive dissonance" a few months ago, forcing me to remember that it means to seek out others (or TV shows) that reinforce what I believe.

I think we all fall prey to this; it's probably why I watch your show.

However, the shock jocks are attracting an audience that revere hate. Just as we have freedom of speech, we also have the freedom of listening. If the audience dried up (fond wish), the shock jocks would melt away. They aren't doing what they do for anything but money.

Tell truth to power? The Limbaugh's of the world preach hate for money. If folks stopped listening to them they would go back to selling SUV's or being hucksters at carnivals.

I stopped attending church because too many members either imitate or tolerate imitators of the hate demagogues. Members paste the liberal label on anything outside their experience or range of acceptance. They defame human rights such as the right of workers to organize or to enjoy the decent limit of minimum wage. These nuts buttonhole people outside class and the pastor just lets them rage in groups he supposedly facilitates The infection spreads.

Not all churches are like that, Ted.

Posted by: Fran G | September 13, 2008 9:12 PM

I did not say that they are. You miss my post completely. I said that my former congregation is infected with hare speech. That was all that I posted. Please don't dimiss what I posted with something unrelated.

The only thing that will stop this hate spew is to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

To begin to fight against partisan media, we first must get Congress to get the FCC to require all news organizations to offer "equal air time" to opposite view points in order to be allowed to use the public air waves.

Since Ronald Reagan got rid of this FCC regulations, media has become a zoo. We cannot allow a news media outlet to be unregulated centers of propaganda. This will spell our demise.

While lies helps a few powerful interest groups remain in control, a nation that feeds on lies is headed towards inevitable doom.

To begin to fight against partisan media, we first must get Congress to get the FCC to require all news organizations to offer "equal air time" to opposite view points in order to be allowed to use the public air waves.

Since Ronald Reagan got rid of this FCC regulations, media has become a zoo. We cannot allow a news media outlet to be unregulated centers of propaganda. This will spell our demise.

While lies helps a few powerful interest groups remain in control, a nation that feeds on lies is headed towards inevitable doom.

Not all churches are like that, Ted.

I stopped attending church because too many members either imitate or tolerate imitators of the hate demagogues. Members paste the liberal label on anything outside their experience or range of acceptance. They defame human rights such as the right of workers to organize or to enjoy the decent limit of minimum wage. These nuts buttonhole people outside class and the pastor just lets them rage in groups he supposedly facilitates The infection spreads.

Sorry, Lin K., but I don't believe for a minute that the radio talk show hosts and their listeners are angry primarily because traditional morals have been thrown down the toilet. The radio hosts are being funded and used by corportists to ensure that the the anger of the radio hosts and their audience is not directed toward them but rather toward liberals, gays, feminists, immigrants, etc. If the country has fallen on hard times and families are hurting, you can bet your lucky stars that it has something to do with the Bush tax cuts that most benefit the wealthiest people in the nation. You might also ask yourself how gas prices can be so high when the oil companies make windfall profits every year. Then again, think about it, aren't the talk show hosts themselves part of the deterioration of traditional morals? As I recall wasn't civility high on the list of transitional morals, and civility of course, is exactly what these radio talk show hosts lack.

I was shocked by this program when I saw no mention of Air America, the Daily Kos, Moveon, Netroots, and the many left wing hate mongers on the radio. Trust me, the hate business is equal opportunity and quite honestly, as far as the internet goes, the leftwing liberals win hands down in the hate business on the internet. They were cheering that Robert Novak had a brain tumor and saying horrible things about wishing him dead. I agree with the comments by Lee Irwin who is the son of missionaries. There is hate and intolerance on both sides of the aisle while most Americans are middle of the roaders. Bill Moyer's effort to classify anyone who is conservative in their political philosophy as being a hater and a puppet of left wing radio is what is shocking. I personally am a moderate but I know many decent people who are conservative and not evil people as Bill Moyers attempts to portray them. Some of the worst violence in this country has been committed by liberals...the Weather Underground, Earth Liberation Organization, most recently the bombings by Animal Liberation Front to name a few. And how can we forget the huge billboard by Moveon of General Petreaus that read "General Betray Us", a man who has dedicated and sacrificed his life for this country. And to go along with that, remember the Vietnam protestors who spit and mocked the war veterans as they came home. Mistreatment of Iraqi war veterans goes on today in some of the liberal cities in states like California...I have seen it with my own eyes on the television news. I don't think I will be watching this programming again. Mr. Moyers is as bad as the very people he criticizes with his bias and effort to engender hatred against anyone with a different point of view than his.

I did not get an opportunity to see this episode as my PBS stations did not yet carry it -- as the way the fundraising is done in Mississippi is to run a repeat fundraiser show at unpredictable times and to do it almost monthly. Apparently (according to your online information), this episode will air in Mississippi at 4:00 a.m. this Sunday morning, September 14th. Apparently they think Mr. Moyers will get too much publicity otherwise? There was no mention of when it would air given to those trying to actually watch PBS by the way. PBS needs to require some education or something of the head of PBS -- how to run a fundraiser and a station, etc. Oh, excuse me, the one in Mississippi is now called "Mississippi Public Broadcasting." The current head of PBS in Mississippi had us pay $30,000 to change the name so it would be harder for our less educated populace to find it presumably. But she apparently does not watch PBS herself either as its voice was completely offline one weekend with the shows' video running.

I'll look forward to what Mr. Moyers says on this issue whenever I manage to see this episode.

Hello Sherry, Just to correct you, NOBODY is denied Chemotherapy, whether they are insured or not, in this Country. I know first hand in dealings with my Oncologist that some of his patients only pay what they can afford. You are correct that Socialism is already here, and with it a sense of entitlement that is beyond belief. As I have asked on this forum, how many dead people did you trip over on the way to work today? I will bet it is one less than died in Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile. I understand that it is your liberal nature to be condescending, while I prefer mild sarcasm. To each his own, which is exactly why we are blessed to live in such a wonderful country. As we got off track from the point of my original post, let us review. Bill Moyers program is so one sided that it defies logic. Talk about a smear merchant, Moyers has it in spades. Character assasination, lying by omission, misstatement of facts, mining for out of context statements and misinformation are not the hallmarks of a gifted Journalist. Moyers uses the old technique of projection, putting his bias on another who disagrees with his view of the world. BTW - I know a few liberals who refuse to buy medical insurance because they think someone else should pay for it. Nothing is free in the world, and there is no Constitutional Right to free healthcare, just as there is no right to free food or free housing or free vacations or free cars. And why isn't it free? Simple, in order for it to be free, you have to take another mans property to pay for it. You have no right to steal, and neither does your Government. If it did, only Fascism is the result.
But again, I digress. You have your Liberal view, and I have my Conservative / Libertarian view. As a Liberal, you think Someone owes you a living. My view is that Nobody owes you a living. Now you can make another swarmy retort or just agree to disagree and we can be new Online Friends. I know I am outnumbered here, but that is what makes this so much fun.
And I appreciate your Compassion as I hope you appreciate mine. God Bless.

At the conclusion of this story, Bill Moyers