We start off talking about Charlie Sheen and celebrity (yeah, sorry), and then transition into a discussion about the iPad and music, and technology and qualitative data analysis. We thought we were done then, but we kept on talking about the sad state of rock music today and then NPR versus the right wing. We decided to keep the whole thing.
Links from the episode:
- GarageBand on iPad guided tour
- Alex Skolnick, Goodbye to Romance: Standards For A New Generation
- Whatever Happened to Alternative Nation?
- Siamese Dream Bassist?
- The Nevermind baby all grown up
- Cry Baby Documentary
- Rappers aren’t afraid to be weird
- Peter Dreier on Office Hours
- NPR and Muslim Brotherhood stunt
- NPR CEO Steps Down
Comments 2
Tom — March 18, 2011
A point to add to your disscussion of global warming. I think it's important to recognize that conservatives or libertarians often do have plenty of trust in science in certain areas, NASA, or defence technologies for example. Rather than skepticism of global warming being driven by a lack of trust in science or academia, I think that conservative politicians and media generate mistrust in science based on political expedience. Global warming is not a problem that lends itself to conservative solutions, ie. self regulation in the market, and realistic solutions to global warming will inevitably harm powerful backers of conservative politicians (big cattle business, the oil industry etc.).
If global warming is real, and cannot be confronted in the market, which no one seriously suggests it can, conservative-libertarian ideology fails, at least in addressing this problem (and it's a big problem). To protect the integrity of conservative ideology then, conservatives must advance the position that there is no problem at all. If they cannot do that then they implicitly accept the need for a powerful government that can enforce regulations on polluters, ideas that they abhor.
arturo — March 19, 2011
That's a good point Tom. Arguments that Global Warming is unfounded are usually rooted in fears that government regulations would tarnish the virtues of the free market. Moreover, introducing new forms of technology that are as of yet unproven in their economic practicality, rub many neocons the wrong way, I think. Why drop a sure thing like the profitability of oil, for some hugely expensive and inefficient alternative. How good is the science really on this regard? or perhaps as some argue, "sure the world is getting warmer, but precisely by how much, relative the usual variations throughout time?"
To a certain extent I think a general level of skepticism is good, and these questions need to be asked even if they are unpopular. But from my understanding, these critiques have been mostly addressed at this point in time, at least in terms of science.
But of course it's not real science, it's just that brand of pro-government spending science.