spider in the sky

omar and i decided that the best way to prepare for a job interview would be to eat at pacific time.  and cross yet another thing off of our miami to-do list.  

hot and sour shrimp.

pulled pork sloppy joe.

shiitake and artichoke wood fired pizza.

beyond blue sky and bright red spiders.

6 thoughts on “spider in the sky

  1. that settles it. i’ve gotta give you a little jingle: what interview and where???? 🙂

    just let me know when’s good for you; nap time, daddy time, etc….


  2. just saw you linked the derbyshire article on radio and the right. i was intrigued by the idea of the article when i heard about it a week ago or so until i heard derb talk about what he wanted in exchange. you know, conservatives doing an npr type show. i thought, we have npr and that’s great. and then i wondered if he had actually listened to rush, aka carney-man, lately. he may be vilified by the left and by derb, it seems, but he actually DOES have sound ideas. in fact he threw the gauntlet down for mr. obama to come on his show and debate any topic and has heard nothing back, of course. and he also had an alternate plan to the stimulus which no one at the white house would ever consider. i would give derb a little more credence if in interviews about rush he didn’t come across as a conservative who happens not to like rush’s tone or his style. well, that’s okay. but is style substance? the whole thing frustrates me because i believe this IS a time for ideas but derb doesn’t really seem to have a real new one re: conservative talk shows. thoughts?

  3. kel –

    i agree, derbyshire didn’t exactly step up to the plate to offer other alternatives. or even if his one suggestion was an npr-like show, we aren’t hearing about his development of it.

    i think the matter of tone and style is huge to derbyshire. and i must admit it is huge to me. i have a really hard time listening to conservative talk radio. often times i disagree with what is being said, at times i agree with the content of what is being said. but the cheap shots, belittling comments, and lack of thoughtful interaction make me turn off the radio every time.

    what i find interesting is that a man like limbaugh is fully capable of interacting in an intelligent, thought-provoking yet still respectful way when writing for wsj op-eds or even in network tv interviews. but when i hear him on the radio he often comes across too entertainer-like. but even he says that is what he is – an entertainer, though i think he knows he is more than that.

    in an article i read (http://www.thenextright.com/robert-willington/did-radio-wreck-the-right) someone noted that npr and a couple of “highbrow” conservative shows (the former “firing line”) do not exist because of free market demand but, in large part, to public funding. basically, people want to be entertained, even with news. sad, i’d say.

    all that to say, it is the disrespect that really bothers me with talk radio.

    i agree with derbyshire, let there be talk radio. it is a mark of a free society that we can have all styles on the radio. but i think a more respectful, intellectually rigorous radio show with serious debate and voices from both sides could also be successful.

    how about you? any ideas on alternatives?

  4. for whatever reason, and i’m not sure why, radio does not seem to have the “market” for such shows. OR maybe, it could but hasn’t tried? i really don’t know. there could be a radio version of fox news’ ‘hannity and colmes’ which was massively popular until colmes recently called it quits to move on to other things.
    that said, i think painting conservative radio with one brush is unfair and i think that derb does this using rush as his major example. rush has his angle, his style (not one i agree with all of the time, but honestly during this time and this white house, one that resonates more than i might like to admit). laura ingraham is good and apart from satirizing conservatives and liberals alike, is a success without drawing much ire.
    interestingly, pretty much all for-profit liberal shows have tanked. i have no idea how air america is surviving. but i just heard that montel williams is moving over there and starting a new show, so they must be making money SOMEhow!

    on the flip side, many people, sometimes yours truly included, chafe at the idea that our tax dollars go toward funding the center-left and non-profit npr. yes, they survive by donations but by a chunk ‘o government change. of course, your change and mine. and yes they have some great programming, but if you listen long enough (and i know you are a listener as am i), you understand that they do a pretty good job but are pretty unapologetically left-leaning (they would probably say moderate or educated or some other adjective and that’s fine)…

    so…what we have, interestingly is: nrp being funded by you and me (via donations AND tax money) and conservative radio flourishing by actual sponsors. what do you make of that? do you think it singularly has to do with entertainment, that radio can only survive by sponsorship alone if it caters to the lcd? you might be spot on, as i think about how it works on tv…but i’m really not sure it does.

    back to rush: he’s been around for, what, three decades, with almost two of those being the bush w. years. so he hasn’t made all his bread and butter mopping up dems/libs like clinton (or now/future: obama). he speaks as a very conservative voice, one that i don’t always agree with, btw, but a consistent one. and anyone he disagrees with he’ll go after, whether of “his party” or not. i find that refreshing, instead of the non-stop spin you might find elsewhere.

    i do see your point about tone. i tend to agree that sometimes-bellicose tone often accompanies unhelpful ideas or drowns out good ones. or shall we even say moderate ideas.

    the flip side is true too: moderate tone can inoculate us from diseased, dangerous or even divisive ideas. that is (sometimes at least) what you have on npr commentaries of news, and honestly, what is steadily flowing (in my opinion) from the white house briefing room these days. a briefing room that has basically taken, by the way, a comment rush made about hoping that obama will fail IF he proceeds with an agenda that is tantamount to socialism and made it into political hay. a spin story that sparked derb and whoever else to write about the right ( rush) in the first place.

    maybe that’s the nerve center for me with this topic: in trying to foster a more moderate tone for.on conservative radio (derb et al) it seems conservatives are tilting at windmills; let’s be cool like the liberals are, come across better! while there’s nothing wrong with worry about how the message comes across and again the mode can become the message, i do worry that conservatives like derb are falling into the trap of wanting to change to seem moderate and cool–at the risk of divulging into silly pandering.

    meanwhile, the chop shop led by emanual and company over on pennsylvania avenue is LOVING the distraction this topic (relevant as it may be) has become. what seems to be moderate and measured is actually, again, in my opinion, quite dangerous and divisive. they’re happy to generate a crisis among conservatives about radio–so they can further their truly liberal agenda.

    it terrifies me. and i’m one of those educated,moderate people who should not be terrified by the white house and their so-called hopeful, sensible message, but rather by rush and his so-called demagoguery and hatred. sorry to say: for me, reverse is true.

    thanks for indulging me the space!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s