What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?
-
Still a regular listener to Econtalk and Sam Harris and Tyler Cowen. These I listen to immediately when they come out.
Listen to maybe half of the episodes of The Glenn Show, especially when John McWhorter is on.
Listen occasionally to The Libertarian w/ legal scholar Richard Epstein, Jonah Goldberg’s The Remnant, and both Weinstein brothers’s podcasts. But for these listening to them depend on the topic/guest.
Still subscribe to PEL, History of Philosophy with No Gaps, Heterodox Academy, and the Universe Speaks in Numbers but haven’t listened much as of late.
-
I was going to recommend that myself.
-
Listening to "Bagman", which is the story of Spiro Agnew, the former Vice President of the US.
Like most people, I just knew the basics of his story and his resigning. I am about halfway through and all I can say is "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
So far, it is a good and interesting story and fills in some background on my history.
-
Deep cover
Interesting docu on an FBI agent, whose investigation snowballs from a biker bar arrest to an international intrigue involving huge drug syndicates, the CIA and even general Noriega.
Passes the time on the commute.
-
Listened to Accused - Season 3
Fernald Feed Materials Production Center
A podcast about a death at a nuclear feed plant near Cinncinatti. Quite interesting.
@Mik Have you heard of this plant before?
-
Sam Harris’s latest is with John McWhorter, talking about John’s book-in-progress about Anti-Racism as a new religion.
-
I dare say the notion that anti racism is a religion is an idea observed by millions. It takes a person with sufficient melanin to say it out loud and be taken seriously. Because he is one of the Chosen of the religion and must be listened to. WTF has many followers of this religion. The closest thing to a believer we have here is Ax, and he only pretends to believe.
-
Listening to Slow Burn - Season 1, which is about the history of Watergate.
For me, very interesting, as only my knowledge is from a brief bit of reading. This podcast seems to give a good overview of what happened, who were the major people involved and how is started, continued and ended.
One thing that made me shake my head is that it seems that "the more things change, the more they are the same". A lot of same issues that were going on back then, Democrat/Republic fights, complaining about media, blaming the other side, etc. are the same things that are going on today.
In one way, it gives my optimism as even though this happened more than 40 years ago, the US continued to prosper and do okay. So, even with all that is going on in todays world, I think that things will still be okay!
Anyway, I recommend this podcast if you want to learn more about Watergate.
-
@taiwan_girl said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
I recommend this podcast if you want to learn more about Watergate.
A couple of years ago, when I had lunch with @jon-nyc , he commented, iirc, that "All The President's Men" is one of those books that didn't age well.
I tried to read it, but gave up about halfway through. Too many irrelevant and forgotten names. It struck me as being a book that could have been about ⅓ of its length and conveyed just as much information. I wonder if there's a Readers's Digest condensed version, LOL.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K They do mention that book in the podcast along with the reporters, but the podcast (seems to me to) focuses some of the politicians involved, and some of the important (but not well known) people. For example, I did not know that the Watergate investigation started out with the banking committee because the burgarlers were paid with crisp new USD $100 bills and one of them also had mysterious deposits into his account from a Mexican bank.
But, there are a lot of names given that sometimes I have to pause and re-listen so the I can make sure I understand who is who. LOL
-
@taiwan_girl thanks for the recommendation! Just downloaded it and will start listening soon.
-
Listening to Slow Burn - Season 2, which is about the PResident Clinton impeachment. Quite interesting for me. I only knew the headlines and did not really know the story. It was obviously big news all over the world so I definitely heard about it then.
Slow Burn Podcast - Season 2 - Clinton Impeachment
Couple of interesting things a former co-worker of President Clinton said in an interview:
"People did not vote for President Clinton because of his morals. They knew he did not have any. They voted for him because of what they wanted him to do." (Sound familiar? LOL)and
"People always said that President Clinton is very empathetic. I admire him, but he is not empathetic. He is like the highway reflector signs. He understands what you are saying and feeling and reflects that back to you. But when you pass the highway reflector sign and look back, you see that it is just a hunk of dark metal" (In a way , this probably describes a lot of politicians)I do not think that his case for impeachment was as clear as for President Nixon. I believe it was quite obvious there. For President Clinton, I am not sure, but for me, I would probably say 55-60% yes he should have been impeached to 40-45% no.
Listening to it, I am amazed (actually, I guess not. It is something that I think I really knew) about the double standard that each party has.
For example 1:
1990's - President sued by civil suit
Democrat President and other Democrats - "A President should not have to worry about civil suit while in office. "
Republics - "No President is above the law"2017's - President sued by civil suit
Republic President and other Republics - "A President should not have to worry about civil suit while in office. "
Democrats - "No President is above the law"Example 2:
Special investigator appointed by congress. Investigator goes way beyond his initial scope1990's -
Democrats - "that is terrible what he is doing. He was given one thing to look at and now it is a witch hunt!! It is a waste of time and money!!"
Republics - "It is important that he goes wherever necessary, even if it is different from what he originally started to do"2017's -
Republics- "that is terrible what he is doing. He was given one thing to look at and now it is a witch hunt!! It is a waste of time and money!!"
Democrats - "It is important that he goes wherever necessary, even if it is different from what he originally started to do"There are other examples that are parallels to today. Not too surprising that people either forget or ignore history. LOL
Anyway, the podcast is recommended. Slow burn has other seasons that I will listen to after this.
-
@George-K said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
It struck me as being a book that could have been about ⅓ of its length and conveyed just as much information.
Sam Harris once mentioned that all his books and neary all such books of popular science or history or philosophy, have a central idea that would be best presented in about 50 pages. The filler is just what is required by the publishing industry.
-
@taiwan_girl said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
"People always said that President Clinton is very empathetic. I admire him, but he is not empathetic. He is like the highway reflector signs. He understands what you are saying and feeling and reflects that back to you. But when you pass the highway reflector sign and look back, you see that it is just a hunk of dark metal" (In a way , this probably describes a lot of politicians)
I like that way of describing it.
Actually, expecting 'empathy' to be a meaningful compass for a politician has always struck me as not particularly well thought out. One can empathise with individuals and that is all well and good but empathising with multiple groups with opposing interests, each of whom comprised of real people feeling real feelings, is really only a matter of choosing which side to take. This gets back to the fetishization of the feelings of those who lay claim to politically important identities. It boils down to the notion that the feelings of those without an identity are not sympathetic (not real feelings) while the feelings of those with an identity, are.
-
I highly recommend this one #218.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/making-sense-with-sam-harris/id733163012
-
@89th said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
@taiwan_girl thanks for the recommendation! Just downloaded it and will start listening soon.
I couldn’t get into season 1 about Nixon. Very interesting at first, but kind of jumps around a bit. I’m more of a linear thinker.
-
@89th said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
@89th said in What are you listening to - Podcast Edition?:
@taiwan_girl thanks for the recommendation! Just downloaded it and will start listening soon.
I couldn’t get into season 1 about Nixon. Very interesting at first, but kind of jumps around a bit. I’m more of a linear thinker.
You may not like the season 2 version on President Clinton impeachment. It does follow a timeline, but branches out in each episode to go "in deep" with some of the key participants, so the timelines may overlap like in Season 1.
