Tuesday, February 24, 2009

MJWS on the radio, talking Ignatieff

By Michael J.W. Stickings

My Guardian piece on Michael Ignatieff seems to have generated some interest up here in Canada, and today at 2 pm ET I'll be on Charles Adler's nationally syndicated radio show. Adler's a conservative, but we are obviously in agreement, or at least partial agreement, when it comes to Ignatieff, me from the left and him from the right. I'm sure we're in stark disagreement on pretty much everything else, and I would add that I do think Ignatieff, despite my many criticisms, is much, much better than the alternative, Stephen Harper's Conservatives. If there were, say, an election tomorrow, I'd still vote Liberal, and perhaps with enthusiasm, and I'd do my best to make peace with Ignatieff.

Anyway, if you want to listen, the list of stations is at Adler's Wikipedia page. In Toronto, you can listen to "Adler OnLine" on CFMJ-AM 640 (the Home of the Leafs).

If you can't get one of the stations in the traditional way, you can listen online -- I assume most of the stations that air the show have some sort of online availability -- for example, at AM 640's website. There's also an "Audio on Demand" feature that, I assume, allows you to listen to shows at your leisure after the fact.

Again, it's at 2 pm today, and I'll be on for about 10 minutes.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • Congrats on the exposure. Give 'em hell. I guess.

    By Blogger creature, at 2:19 PM  

  • I like Ignatieff and I go between NDP-Lib myself. It's fine for you and other left-leaning Liberals to question Ignatieff and take him to task, just watch out for the Conservatives and don't let them twist or misrepresent whatever points you want to make.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:59 PM  

  • So Ignatieff is "much, much better than the alternative" (and you would "still vote Liberal... perhaps with enthusiasm") and yet, your article about him is worthy of a CPC mudsling campaign... Your article is dishonest and your position is intellectually incoherent.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:48 PM  

  • Dishonest? Incoherent? Say it ain't so!

    Here's my position. It's fairly simple. See if you can follow it:

    I don't like Ignatieff, but I don't like Harper even more. So I will vote for the one I dislike less.

    Complicated, eh?

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 11:13 PM  

  • I disagree with the description 'glowing profile' in your article. You must have read it on line because in the hard copy of the NYT, the Ignatieff article appeared in the Sunday Styles section that I regard as the NYT's journalistic equivalent of Siberia. Deep down, I bet it was a come down for Ignatieff not to have ben featured in the magazine section. The lack of critical thinking in the NYT's Sunday Styles section is only exceeded by Ignatieff's signing on to the Coalition - not the sign of a leader. It does suggest his political epitaph: Led by Duceppe, Layton and Dion - I followed!

    Cyril in B.C.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:10 AM  

  • Unfortunately the Guardian printing didn't include your belief that Ignatieff is STILL a better alternative than Harper. As to be expected your critique is being played up big-time by the right - you'll look "right" at home on the Adler show. Well done

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:27 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home