justice talking
i just heard my october interview on npr's justice talking show about felon voting. for some chair/meeting-related reason, i had to run to the kfai studios that day, so i arrived winded and overcaffeinated in the midst of a pledge drive (hint: diet coke is a no-no before on-air interviews).i liked the show and its host, margot adler, so i'm disappointed that the program isn't carried locally. they asked me for a quick "big-picture overview" on felon disenfranchisement, which is fine with me. my bit preceded a more intense debate between spencer overton and john lott on the subject. i really dislike debating, so i usually decline invitations to argue for or against policy changes. part of this is due to my self-concept as a social scientist, but part of it is because i'm a ridiculously conciliatory debater (yeah, i can sort of see your point there, mr. rumsfeld. are we almost done here?). i'm probably not alone -- many of us are probably more at home doing the "current state of knowledge" segment rather than the "what is to be done?" portion of such programs.


1 Comments:
I did a call-in show a bunch of years ago on a conservative radio station where the topic was animal rights (we'd just staged a big anti-fur protest that morning).
It was essentially a debate between 2 idealistic animal rights advocates and 50 Limbaugh-loving callers determined to make their one point before being cut off. It was beautiful because, aside from the show's host, we always had the last word.
Several callers, although they didn't agree with us, commented that they admired our passion and determination - not exactly praise for our air-tight argumentation, but then politics doesn't necessarily rely on logical argumentation.
Still, I can see that this may not be the best position to be in for a professional sociologist (but tell that to K. Marx).
Post a Comment
<< Home