Having listened to this segment with Mr. Ferris, I can understand the host’s frustration in dealing with a speaker who seemed incapable of presenting a coherent, logical or intelligent argument. Mr. Ferris’ statements were self contradictory, stating that at one time he supported symbolic gestures, and then arguing that this treaty would accomplish nothing, noting that nothing in this treaty would force the Berlin restaurants he recently saw become accessible because they would only be subject to German law, not international law. Having said that, Mr Ferris then argued that somehow this treaty, which as cited by Senator Lee during the Senate debate as having no enforcement mechanism, would somehow override American law, which it clearly would not. As an attorney, I could not follow any of Mr. Ferris’ logic, and I congratulate the host for his patience in challenging the speaker to present an intelligent response, which the guest seemed incapable of doing

Thank you John for the refreshingly authentic debate around the treaty and now the failure of its passing through the Senate. I am afraid there is an elephant in the room, with all do respect to Mr. Farris. While your CV (Mr. Farris) speaks for itself, your social agenda does as well. You seem to have much to guard and protect. This was a sad day for the U.S. and its partners in the world.

Takeaway is a viewpoint program not a news program. As such Mr Hockenberry has every right to express his views. It was a real exchange and his frustration showed. As did the frustration of Mr. Farris.

Thank you so much for joining allies Rachael Maddow,Lawrence O'Donnel and others with the justified outrage against the Republicans who voted down the Convention on the Civil Rights Of Persons with Disabilities. This is the best example I can imagine to show how low the Republican party has sunk since the days of President Bush, who proudly signed the ADA in 1990, setting the gold standard for the world in eradicating second-class citizenship for people with disabilities. The ADA sparked a world wide examination of the archaic, unfair and sometimes barbaric practices that segregated and excluded people with disabilities. Thank you John for once again speaking truth to power. We need your righteous voice more than ever

The Republicans in the Senate have again embarrassed themselves by killing the U.S. agreement to the disability treaty. They are anti every group except
old,rich,white men. Didn't they learn from the election? The party will be irrelevant sooner rather than later. Thank God a few Republicans had the courage to say yes.

Thank you for this show - it reveals a lot of the misinformation that the the opposition to this treaty is spreading. The leaders of the opposition have done a great disservice to Americans in misleading them about what the treaty will and will not do. The CRPD has created greater rights to a family life for people with disabilities around the world who are neglected, hidden from the public, and housed in institutions and completely denied a life with their family. Paraguay, whose national census previously said they had less than 1% people with disabilities now have a more accurate census this year - with PWDs representing 12%. These changes were spurred by the principles of the CRPD which holds that people with disabilities matter. The U.S. has incredible models and technical advice on ensuring disability rights and we should be sharing this advice - I should know, both as a sister to a person with a disability and a disability rights attorney. Thank you.

My comment is a day late; following the Senate vote on the treaty. Wherein John Hockenberry again acknowledged his own interest and his own viewpoint on this subject.

Hockenberry is an interviewer and the host of a program that NPR news would categorize as NOT news reporting (under NPR standards) but rather as an independently-produced "viewpoint" program. It is, under those criteria, Hockenberry's right to hold a view and express it. He clearly did, in the Tuesday and Wednesday broadcast. Wherein the one anti-treaty guest was treated to some of the most hostile questioning imaginable, and all other (pro-treaty) guests were welcomed and their views developed through favorable "direct exam"-type questioning.

It is far less clear, to what extent John Hockenberry's other viewpoints, on matters of general politics and social public policy, weigh on his "viewpoint." John declared his affinity and his chosen side on this issue; he doesn't always make his declaration(s) so clear.

And the real, lingering question is for public radio at large and all member stations that air The Takeaway; is there another public radio program available for airing, whose hosts and producers tilt to the right, in the way that The Takeaway (or Fresh Air, or Democracy Now!, or any of the other dozen or so popular "viewpoint" programs) tilt left? For local public radio stations, are programming choices like The Takeaway effectively the only choice?

Well, obviously a job well done! Most comments ever I think. KEEP IT UP!!!!

Wow. I can hardly believe many of the comments. You know, some things are worth losing your cool a little about, like human rights. Bias? Daily lived perspective would be a more apt terminology. I suppose that really only Whites should sit around talking about the human rights of Black people because, well, Black people might be just too 'biased' about it. It might be 'too personal' for them and they might get to passionate about it and start calling out the White folks for some of the drivel leaking out of their addled brains through their pompous little mouths. We wouldn't want that now, would we? I lived with an excruciating disability (radiculopathy/sciatica), had to use a wheelchair for a bit. Those four, painful and difficult years seemingly taught me more sympathy, empathy, and understanding than this New World Order paranoid pushing his mother around on a vacation has seemingly taught him. The guest's behaviour and approach was insulting, arrogant, and lacked the tact that a human beings should have--especially in dealing with things that really have little personal relevance to themselves and extreme relevance to others. While were are known for our politeness up here, sometimes it's incumbent upon person to call a bunch of crap out. A comparison to "Pickle Week"? Seriously? What a jerk.

The Take Away is usually an interesting and informative program with controversial subjects. The discussions are base on factual positions of those being interview and the host, frequently with sarcastic but polite humor. Tuesday program departed from that format. With due respect for the host's position, he clearly missed the essence of the subject, which was plainly described by the senator. It was not exclusive about the handicap. I'm disappointed that the exceedingly bright mind of our host was overshadowed by personal bias. Thankfully our Senate understood the principle at stake.

It's so easy to defend a feel good position that you can easily demonize someone for being against. There's nothing courageous about that Mr. Hockenberry, it's just cheap politics. At the same time you're playing right into the hands of the internationalists - so convenient.

The Americans with Disabilities Act has been a failure. I suggest anyone willing to approach this issue with an open mind to read the following:

http://mises.org/daily/172
http://mises.org/daily/1772
http://www.lewrockwell.com/perry/perry9.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/archives/fm/9-92.html

Senate opposition to the treaty that isn't based solely on party loyalty (and I'm sure that much of it is simply party grandstanding) is based on the principles that that US needs to be sovereign, and that treaties really do matter. John's show today was absurd. He clearly is too emotionally biased to actually look at the issue, and the fact that he used his radio show to launch an emotional tirade shows a serious lack of professionalism. You can debate the issue of US Sovereignty vs. Global Consensus without the vitriol that John unleashed today. Today's show was not what I've come to expect from PRI.

So is the bottom line that ratifying the treaty will have only a symbolic effect? I felt like someone should have been interviewing the host, because I had trouble understanding why he was so charged up about this. Much of what he said made it sound like the disabled were going to be sacrificed on the alter of anti-UN politics, but I'm still not entirely sure if passing it would have helped anyone or not.

I really appreciate your rage at the fact that Senate refused to ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the disabled, and at Michael Ferris's rapid reactionary position. (I can tell you a bunch about his background, I made a film about him and his college, Patrick Henry)
John, I would love for you to generalize those feelings about the treatment of the disabled to the overall bullying by the Republican Party of working class and poor America. We have a right wing whose policies are bent on driving us all downward, and win or lose they are funded up the wazoo.

That didn't sound like journalism to me. It sounded like Bill O'Reily brow beating someone. I expect more from public radio.

No, I think John crossed the border on this one. I was hoping to understand the issue but his bias of the issue clouded the discussion. I thought this was an interview but it turned into an emotional argument. I don't think I will listen to that show again for a while.

I am a fan of Mr. Hockenberry but found his interview very unprofessional. While I am not part of the UN bashing crowd, I thought his guest was making some sound points based on his International Law background, but Hockenberry reacted to them emotionally, ignored and interrupted his guest and then eventually cut him off. For a second I thought I might have accidentally tuned into Fox News. He may have prefaced the discussion with a mention of his bias, but that is no excuse for what I heard. He owes his guest an apology.

I beg to differ with the previous commenter. First of all, this is a news magazine show, not a relay of the facts of the day. Second, John stated his case right up front, so can hardly be considered "biased". He shared his opinion, which is well informed, not mere "bias" creeping in unannounced. Thirdly, it is the guest, Farris, who lost his cool, not John. For heaven's sake, the man was raving about pickles and virtually unhinged, and when John heard that, he stepped back and reflected about it, and closed out the interview with praise for the only thing one could praise about Mr. Farris, he is consistent. Consistently paranoid, in my view, but consistent. God forbid the US should lead the world to join in its most proud and decent achievements: travel the world a bit, and see how nice it is to come home and find curbs cut for access, automatic doors, braille, and other accomodations we take for granted. Bless the UN for wanting to spread the word: these accomodations work. And by the way, I am not disabled in any way, but I am glad to live in a society that fears the dark ages more than it fears the UN's efforts to ensure basic human rights.

The host, John Hockenberry, became way too biased today over this topic. Regardless of the topic, hosts of public radio such as the Takeaway are expected to be unbiased and reasonable. By the end of the interview with Michael Farris, John was verbally attacking him. I understand this is a personal subject for John, but if he couldn't handle it professionally, then someone else should have done the show today. Very disappointing.

The US has many laws via treaty - drugs for example.