Stewart’s approach is brilliant for a lot of reasons. He claims to be just a fake news show on cable, but he’s impressively knowledgeable and interviews weighty politicians and authors on the show. He attracts viewers with satire, not ranting, which influences people more than even they realize. For example, analysts say that Tina Fey’s spot-on impression of Sarah Palin, for example, influenced people’s votes in the election.

While I happen to agree with more of the words that Keith Olbermann says, ultimately I am too distracted by the ego. If Denis Rancourt is so busy tricking people into taking his class and flagrantly insulting his university and bosses, am I noticing his ideas or him more prominently?

The fact is, there are people out there who are going to disagree with “us” no matter what. Republican lawmakers are proving that by opposing Obama’s stimulus package as a kneejerk reaction. However, I think there are more people out there who have been nurtured to not understand why certain ideas are better. For those of us who think we’re right (or left!) about those ideas, we have to take it upon ourselves to do a better job of convincing them. I support there being a government-sponsored health care option. If someone doesn’t support that, let’s learn about their objections and modify our proposals or dismantle the objections one-by-one. If the idea’s strong enough, it can survive that scrutiny.

The show holds the same time slot as Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” for a reason. It is MSNBC’s attempt to produce a political talk show with a liberal angle. “The O’Reilly Factor” gets consistently high ratings, and MSNBC is attempting to cash in on their model from an opposing viewpoint. The shows are designed to bring in two types of viewers: those who already agree with the standpoints being presented and those who adamantly disagree. It is the nature of these shows to be one-sided, extremist and abrasive. That’s what sells to the target audiences.

I’m not sure if Olbermann honestly believes everything he says (just like I can’t say whether Bill O’Reilly believes everything he says). In a way, it doesn’t matter; These shows are there solely to drive ratings, and they work. Occasionally, Olbermann delivers a talk that really touches my heart (the Prop 8 one comes to mind), but I feel weird about agreeing with it, knowing that I’m buying into this TV gimmick that I’m not comfortable with, no matter what side it’s coming from.

It’s unfortunate that lobbying is one of the best ways to make policy change on a large scale these days. It’s a game that a lot of small businesses and nonprofits can’t afford. I’m glad that community organizing is also making serious national change. My friend Alicia is part of the PICO network that has gotten amazing results, like getting government health care coverage for millions of uninsured kids around the country.

The nonprofit that Alicia leads, ACT, gets local people — often immigrants, and others not usually involved in politics — to come together around specific requests from lawmakers. They don’t just protest against the current system. They’ve created a realistic alternative and have a plan to make it happen. That’s much more productive than ranting.

The non-violent approach is commendable, but is not the same as quiet activism, MLK was another good example; yet, today those fighting the most effective battles seem to be lobbyists, paid to duke it out for the rights of anything, because they’re the least upsetting voice to hear from. That’s sad, and I’m hoping that changing as I type. Daniel Son, Hindu’s and Buddhists know the will of those who stand before you can be broken only with one thing: patience. Still, the big detail activists, lobbyists, and the like who feel scorn, seem to have missed in their strategies is something Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism knew well, “You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger.” Peace duder, I like the post.