Nirvanix -- there are some things that you said in your post with which I agree. However, there are some things about which I'll throw in my two cents, for what it's worth. First, your original, and then my response:
"3) Guess what? The guests on the show LIKE George. He lets them have their say without trashing them(unlike Ian). George doesn't always agree with the theories of his guests, but he is very gracious none the less - and that's the way a good radio interviewer should be. Do you remember the era of ladies and gentlemen? You don't have to be a caustic little puke to be popular."
Two points here. First, it is my impression that *many* guests do not like George. Moreover, it seems to me that many do not respect him. I can't count the number of times that guests have paused after George has asked a question almost as if to say, "OK, this is a really stupid question and it indicates to me that you know nothing about me, my book (or website, or whatever), and that you haven't really paid much attention to anything I have said up to this point in the interview. I'm going to answer you, but it's a stupid fucking question." For many guests, the experience of a George Noory interview seems -- at least to this listener -- almost painful. In addition, a few guests have come right out and said, "George, you are as dumb as a doornail, and I am going to set you straight." Or at least they've come very close to saying that. Other guests kow-tow to George because they know C2C is a great way to reach a very large audience. In most cases, this will help them to sell their books or drive visitors to their websites. (I have no problem with this, BTW.) So they are very courteous with George, even when he's being stupid, because they want to be invited back. This is not the same thing as "liking" George.
Second, I do not agree that Ian trashes his guests. Any of them. Unless what they have to say is so ludicrous as to make *anyone* guffaw in protest. That said, Ian is, again in my opinion, the hardest-hitting of any of the C2C regulars, with the possible exception of (the old) Art. If Ian asks you a question, you simply have to answer it. If you do not, Ian will press you until you do. And if your response is patently absurd, Ian will call you on it. I get the impression that Ian really *wants* his guests to make their cases and gives them a more than fair chance to do so. But he will not brook a guest who cannot, given that opportunity, make his or her case. When this happens, you can hear disbelief in Ian's voice, but I'm OK with that because it is the same disbelief that I experience in my own mind. Ian seems to recognize that many in his audience are fairly intelligent and he will not allow to pass without challenge silly statements made by guests that would cause *us* to ask those same questions. Ian becomes *my* surrogate -- he asks the questions *I* would ask; he cannot be taken in by facile explanations just as *I* cannot be fooled by superficial or silly explanations; he will not let a guest off the hook, just as *I* would not let a guest off the hook if we were engaged in conversation. And even when Ian has clearly discounted in his own mind the ramblings of a guest, he is at least honest about it. He'd rather say, "Hey, I've listened to what you have to say, and I think you are blowing smoke up my ass" than to sit there like an uncritical bump on a log. And Ian gets to that point at just about the same time that *I* do. In general, though, Ian does this with more grace and (sometimes) humor than I could ever manage.
Make no mistake, I have other problems with Ian, but it is not the issue that you describe. For example, I disagree with Ian's obvious decision to avoid almost anything paranormal unless it involves cryptozoology. He's OK with the occasional show on some conspiracy theory, but, other than these things, he pretty much stays away from topics that have been the life-blood for this show. I could describe other issues, but I'll stop here because the point of this post is simply to share with you my disagreement with your assessment of Ian as someone who "trashes" his guests or with your implication that he is a "caustic little puke."
"6) This I do care about: Art is very militaristic. He talks often about America 'beating' somebody else in war. His intellect cannot penetrate his narrow-mindedness about what these wars are really about. These wars are not started to be won, they are started to make money. Period.
He often says things like 'They want to kill us', and by THEY he means those scary dark-skinned people in the middle-east. And yes, 'We better kill them before they kill us'. I bet he doesn't have a single Arab friend. I have many. 'They' don't want to kill you Art, even after your country goes in and installs a puppet dictator to suppress them while you leech all their resources. His way of talking about this stuff is such a grave disservice to the world and that's why I'm glad he's not on the air anymore. As much as I've loved some of his shows and his keen insights, it was time for this guy to move on and enjoy family life."
I do not at all agree with your characterization of Art as "militaristic." If you think back to that period before this latest Iraq war, you will recall that Art's was a *very* strong voice against an invasion of Iraq. He made this quite clear and he did it at a time when such an opinion was not particularly popular. In addition, Art has made clear that the "They" to which you refer in your post actually applies only to radical Islamicists. Art has frequently made quite clear that he has no bone to pick with many Arabs and or Muslims, that his focus is upon those who have as a stated objective to do us harm. That seems a sensible approach to me since there is obviously a sizable number of folks who would like nothing more than to kill as many Americans (and/or other westerners) as possible. Art has reiterated many times his original opposition to this war, but he is pragmatic enough to realize that, now that the country has gone down this path, we must bring it to a conclusion that is as far from disastrous as possible. At the same time, he has also made quite clear that he knows this is going to be extremely difficult to do -- and that was one of his reasons for objecting to the war in the first place.
After listening to Art for many years, I believe he has been observant enough to realize that much of the conflict on this planet derives from greed and the hunger for power/control. I know Art understands that a peaceful world cannot exist when an arms market worth trillions of dollars reaches to every obscure corner of this globe. He certainly understands that if you give guys enough things that go BOOM, they are going to have to use them. After listening to Art for years, I also believe that he is very aware that all of this goes well beyond the familiar Eisenhowerian military-industrial complex.
Oh, one more thing... I am not sure one can classify as "leeching" resources when we pay well over $100/barrel. If we did not purchase that oil, who would pay for the gold reserves held by the Saudi royals? Who would pay for the wonderful textbooks in the madrassas? I do understand that this is my own very facile response (because it ignores those decades during which we *did* leech Middle-Eastern resources), but that superficial analysis is motivated not by ignorance, but by cynicism. (That's my story and I'm sticking to it...)
So, you certainly have a right to like George. (BTW, I just have to ask you -- you *aren't* George, are you?) Lots of folks tell George how wonderful he is when they call and, even though that makes me cringe, there is not necessarily anything wrong with you because it doesn't make your skin crawl...
Topic: Noory Dosen't EXACTLY Suck - (Read 5073 times)
