Skip to content

Producer’s Notes

We’ve had a couple of editorial meetings about the call-in show and it’s starting to take shape. The trick is to narrow the scope of the hour somewhat and to start generating names of potential guests. We want to encompass the overall theme of the series — the push and pull of globalism — and also include the subthemes of economics, politics and war, cutlure, environment, etc. Ideally a talk-show has one idea per hour and a focussed question to draw listeners into the conversation. This one feels like a blivet. There’s too much stuff to talk about for one hour.

In terms of guests, we’re looking for global consciousness, global reach and most important, 7 or better (out of 10) on the talker scale. Got any suggestions? Here’s some names we’ve been talking about:  Will Hutton, Arundhati Roy, Robert Kagan, Amy Chua, Niall Ferguson.

The phone number for the call-in program airing live on WGBH radio in Boston Sunday, April 27th 6:00 EST is 800-886-9364. Smile and Dial!

{ 11 } Comments

  1. Anonymous | April 15, 2003 at 10:43 pm | Permalink

    Mary Mcgrath

    These are some of the names I can think of for your programme – which may not be what you wanted.

    Ulf Hannerz – Swedish anthropologist – author of “Transnational Connections” -and an older book “Cultural Complexity” – And also Arjun Appadurai – Author of “Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization” – he is known for his piece on “Global Ethnoscapes” which is in the above mentioned book – there is another earlier and similar article he wrote in Mike Featherstone’s book on Global Culture- that was called “Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural economy” – Both the above are the “global flows” people -Hannerz is at the Stockholm U and Appadurai is at U of Chicago-The Humanities Institute.

    Then there is Saskia Sassen- author of the Global City – NY, London, Tokyo -cities as command centres – nodal points that control a global service economy etc. I really like her husband Richard Sennet’s work – The “Corrosion of Character” book in particular –

    Am not sure if any if this is useful to you -these are bits and bobs I use for ny Global Cultures Course -hope someone can look them up for you to see if there is anything you can use to focus your programme

  2. Anonymous | April 16, 2003 at 9:50 pm | Permalink

    What about Jeremy Rifkin or Hernando de Soto?

  3. Anonymous | April 23, 2003 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    May I suggest Mike Albert of Z Magazine and author of a new book called Parecon: Life after Capitalism? Albert would be an articulate voice representing the “anti-globalization” movement and could provide a positive progressive alternative vision and not just criticism.

    “Anti-globalization activists understand that sympathetic and mutually beneficial global ties are good. But we want social and global ties to advance universal equity, solidarity, diversity, and self-management, not to subjugate ever-wider populations to an elite minority. We want to globalize equity not poverty, solidarity not anti-sociality, diversity not conformity, democracy not subordination, and ecological balance not suicidal rapaciousness.

    Two questions arise. Why do these aspirations leave us critical of corporate globalization? And what new institutions do we propose for meeting these aspirations?”

  4. Anonymous | April 24, 2003 at 10:29 pm | Permalink

    What about Desmond Tutu? Global reconciliation.

  5. Anonymous | April 27, 2003 at 5:09 am | Permalink

    Try Colby Cosh. He’s a Canadian who has a weblog. Instapundit has a link to him on the left sidebar.

  6. Anonymous | June 12, 2003 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    Arundati Roy opposed the removal of the Taliban from power by U.S. and allied forces on ‘moral grounds’.
    On ‘moral grounds’, rather than fight a war, Ms. Roy would have let the Taliban remain in power to:

    1) Continue denying health care to millions of Afghan women (the Taliban forbade women from seeing male Doctors for a long list of medical problems– thereby sentencing countless 100’s of thousands more Afghan women to death by medical care exclusion).

    2) Would have kept all Afghan women under the crushing weight of the Burkha for years to come.

    3) Would have allowed Al Quaeda to continue to exist unmolested and at full power in Afghanistan.

    Arandati Roy is a destructive idealist.

    Morality without pragmatism is ultimately immoral.

    Outcomes and consequences of positions of principle correctlty gauge the moral worth of such positions, not their internal ‘purity’ devoid of consequence in reality.

    Arandati Roy (and many other disconnected idealists) would have let the Taliban rape Afghanistsan for another generation, rather than go to war to stop it.

    Rather than ‘get dirty’ and do the imperfect thing with the far superior moral outcome:

    That is– use military force to remove the Taliban, liberate Afghanistan and deliver a blow to Al Quaeda.

    Arandati Roy, darling of the unrealistic faction of the Left, gets the limelight, while those who would get their hands dirty and even risk their own lives, get morally perfectionistic condemntation.

    All of this in the upside-down fantasy world of Left perfectionists who yammer endlessly from their many perches in the American and British media.

    As James said, essentially, elsewhere on this Blog…

    …whatever happened to the REAL Left?

    Phil Murray

  7. Anonymous | June 12, 2003 at 2:42 pm | Permalink

    Any Leftists or progressives who offer a real world, attainable and pragmatic perspective on the post 9/11 reality are preferable to disconnected idealists like Arunditi Roy.

    Her simplistic take on the U.S.A. as essentially the evil empire pitted against the rest of the world is also destructive by any measure.

    The world is much more complex than Arundati Roys’ Oz-like sense of reality.

    Progressives who are willing to get their hands dirty wrestling with lifes’ real contradictions and complexities are much more likely to effect real change and bring real progress to the human condition rather than moral perfectionists like Roy.

    Showcasing people engaged in a more pragmatic, hands-on progressivism will make a greater contribution, ultimately.

    Phil Murray

  8. Anonymous | September 1, 2005 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

    Very nice

  9. Anonymous | October 28, 2005 at 5:51 am | Permalink

    Rubber Wristband

  10. Anonymous | March 21, 2006 at 3:24 pm | Permalink

    Your site is very informational for me. Nice work.

  11. pea kapoor | June 2, 2008 at 5:53 am | Permalink