I don´t know that telling you how compelling I am makes much difference, but some folks want some evidence of thought:

I´m not Stern, Imus, Laura, or Rush. In fact though I listen from a professional standpoint, I wouldn´t if I didn´t have to. They´re great at what they do BUT they´re too predictable and too into shtick. Just as I wouldn´t want to have a passenger in my car all day that talks about how great he is, I don´t want that voice out of my car speaker.

Computers are wonderful when they save time and help you do your job better. I´m interested in doing that and unfortunately to have a computer working really well takes a huge amount of time and study, which I´m prepared to do because it´s needed. But it´s not intrinsically interesting. When we get computers to help us think better, that will be the enlightenment.

Most people screw up and cause problems for themselves and others because they don´t think clearly - they can´t see the relationship between cause and effect. Spend money and don´t realize they have to pay the credit card, don´t put air in the tires and so on. It´s part of what we mean by maturity – maybe we can help drive the point home.

It´s now up to hundreds of millions that have been lost in that Nigerian banking transfer scam. I guess if people believe a total stranger will send them 30 million dollars of ill gotten gains and let ‘em keep a third we know why so many people support the Democrats.

Why anyone would pay Bill Clinton six figures to talk to their group is beyond me, as is why anyone would pay anything to hear him speak as he has been doing since being out of office. There is absolutely nothing he´s said that isn´t commonly available knowledge. What Clinton should do is figure out how to tell people how to gain people´s confidence, dominate a room, acquire adoring friends, get women, read and learn quickly, that sort of thing. *That* I´d pay to hear.

I´m a libertarian, never a party member, and having been of this mindset since high school I´m not infatuated with it to the point of forcing it on others or saying it will solve everything. Most rabid libertarians fail to get support because they want to wake up in the morning and find everything has changed, and don´t have a credible, practical way of getting from here to there. So I´m really a libertarian-pragmatist.

Radio´s big problem is a loss of audience that is due to a loss of being a presence in people´s lives. Yes there are more distractions but the issue is we can measure listeners but cannot measure mind share. We might get more listeners with a 40 minute music sweep but the sweep, and the radio station, has become inconsequential to the listener. We have a listener who doesn´t care. It´s a bunch of tunes, a little news and liner cards and contests and while it might be nice, ultimately it doesn´t mean squat in people´s lives. So they wander off.

On the other hand you give the kids MTV and they *care* about it. Notice that MTV moved the continuous music to another channel and replaced it with content people can identify with.

Politics should only be a part of a talk show, and it's a part not really important to most people outside of elections and major crises. Policy, on the other hand, means a lot to the listener because that means we talk about why people´s land gets taken away, why we lose our freedom, why taxes are going up, and what we can do about it.

What we can do with radio is talk one on one with the listener. If we lose that we lose credibility, and ultimately that´s all we have to sell. So we never go into a spot set with “let´s pay some bills” or “when we come back we´ll hear from” – we aren´t going anywhere – it´s all part of the conversation.

Mostly two people talking to each other on the radio breaks this one on one – the listener doesn´t usually feel involved and we lose the one on one relationship that we get with a good monologue or phone call with a listener.

I still don´t understand why some women expect to be taken seriously when they insist on wearing shoes that don´t fit.