In other words, a podcast conversation is like uncircumcised lovemaking in that you don’t have to observe the entire interaction if you just want to know what the participants’ respective positions were.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t also enjoy observing the “overall effect of the give and take” between the participants, if you like that sort of thing.
Maybe you have andros blocked? If not, it should be obvious I was replying to them, not you.
Is anyone here excited that Mitch McConnell is putting the GND up for a floor vote? I am not. Obviously we all know he intends it as a trap; so unless you think he is completely misunderstanding the political landscape, we should be very wary. I wish Senate Democrats could offer their own version that is not quite so radical and vote on that instead, so presidential hopefuls could have some political cover for the primaries.
I just checked out an NPR interview with AOC from last week. She argues that the Green New Deal is an effective political rallying cry akin to what Trump did with “build the wall” on the right:
I see the analogy she is going for here, and it’s clever…but it’s very flawed. The wall is odious as a symbol, but it doesn’t really hurt anybody (nor does it really help anyone). The monetary cost of it is a rounding error on the national budget, so it would be a slight bit of money wasted and otherwise no actual real world impact. It’s certainly far from “impossible” to build.
Whatever your stance on the Green New Deal, you have to admit that it is many orders of magnitude bigger both in budgetary expense/economic impact, and in the restructuring of American society.
The total cost of Big Wall will be closer to $70 billion than $6 billion, not even counting on-going maintenance. (Is $70 billion still a “rounding error”?) Even so, I don’t think cost is the major issue people have with the Wall. Of greater concern are the ecological problems, the sacrifice of beautiful or valuable land, and the nasty message it sends the world about America’s new values.
But more importantly, one needn’t be a fan of the specifics of the “Green New Deal” to realize that any comparison of it with Trump’s Wall is ignorant and odious.
The Green New Deal, whatever its faults, is proposed by sincere good-spirited people who want to improve the world, and want to improve the quality of life for future Americans. Trump’s entire agenda is based on Ignorance, Hypocrisy, Hatreds, and Greed. @ SlackerInc — surely you understand this much?
Hope this helps.
Dreamers conceive, engineers build, Republicans go back in their hole.
Back in their hole to fuck everyone over but themselves.
Then how would I listen? Do they psychically transmit into your head? (Hmmm, maybe they are podcasts because they are made by podpeople)
You feel that I should disturb my employees and clients with the prattel of your podcast champion of the week? I don’t.
I’ve heard good podcasts where that was the case, where there actually was an edited script that they read from. But, you are describing a conversation between people, not a scripted one, and those do have pauses. Editing out a live conversation like that is going to be be even more distracting than the occasional pause or “um”. You are saying that they actually went through the broadcast, and whenever one of the people paused or reworded or anything, they actually cut that part out? That sounds like quite a bit of work, and would leave the end product pretty jumpy.
Can I set it to take me back to the part that I want to refresh my memory on?
So, when he says something like, earlier in the podcast, we mentioned…, and I want to go to that point to refresh my memory on … I don’t have to find it?
They usually aren’t pre-scripted (not the ones I listen to, anyhow); but they do in fact go through and edit out the pauses or the places where they reword things. The end product does not sound jumpy at all. Instead, it sounds like the conversation you might hear from extremely expert live sportscasters who have learned how to discuss the game without verbal fumbling. But in podcasters’ case, they make it sound like that after the fact without having to be nearly so “on” in a live high wire act type mode. Slate’s Culture Gabfest once reluctantly acceded to popular demand and let people listen to the unedited version. I was amazed by how rough it was, increased by the fact that they had, after a lot of practice, gotten used to recording it with that in mind. So there was a lot of restarting of sentences preceded by “3, 2, 1” to help the sound editor do their job.
That’s pretty terrible. I do, sometimes when I am at home and alone, listen to various youtube videos that are mostly podcasts anyway. The ones that I actually typically like are some livestreams by Frazier Cain (sp?)as well as his “weekly space hangout” or Isaac Arthur and the like, even if I don’t catch them live. I am not listening to them for in depth political analysis, but more light “infotainment” as it were, so I don’t really have to pay close attention and I can do other tasks. And I do that on my schedule, when I feel like it.
Their live streams seem much better produced than what you are describing.
But yeah, for light infotainment, something that I can listen to while I cook or do the dishes or whatever(I don’t listen to things in the car), podcasts are pretty cool. For stuff that you actually need to think about and analyze, an article, or at least a transcript, is far superior.
I would say their podcasts are very well produced. They know when they are recording that it will be cleaned up in editing.
Politifact really blew their credibility with me in this AOC GND ruling. To not even call this “partially true” when it came right out of the FAQ–WTF? :smack: To handwave that away with “well, it isn’t in the resolution itself” (as if that resolution is actually finished legislation!) and “she must not have meant that exactly, since experts in the field are not saying we should do this”? Nuh uh. That doesn’t fly when Trump spouts off nonsense, and it shouldn’t apply on our side either.
We need PolitiFact to have credibility when we have the worst liar in political history in the Oval Office. Shit like this just makes it easy for them to be dismissed as having deeply partisan bias in their rulings. 
BUMP!
Uh, that is not a PolitiFact ruling but CNBC Politics, AFAIK PolitiFact points out that:
So, Trump was declared to be wrong there.
The guys at FactCheck.org are more direct, they declared what Trump said to be FALSE.
Thanks GIGO, I was wondering if SlackerInc just screwed up his own cite or if I was somehow missing the attribution or what. AFAICT “Politifact” isn’t even mentioned anywhere in SlackerInc’s link.
Yes, I screwed up the cite. This is what I intended to link to:
So, now you’ve actually managed to link to the right article, let’s go have a look:
Which part of that do you think is incorrect. Why do you think that it’s “partially true” that the goal is to ban air travel?
Because, as the CNBC story did lay out (so I should have linked to both, my bad):
:dubious:
Again, it’s special pleading (or at least a double standard) to say that since they “found no evidence that getting rid of airplanes is a serious policy idea from climate advocates”, this must not be what AOC and Markey really meant. Do you want Republicans to be able to use this excuse every time Trump says something ridiculous, ignorant, or monstrous? “Well, CDC experts don’t agree that Mexican rapists are infecting ‘real Americans’ in the heartland with bubonic plague, so that’s obviously not what Trump really meant, even though those were his exact words.” Nuh uh.
Or, and this is still very much a “is this even possible” thing at passenger airliner scale, you could develop electric airplanes.
The actual wording of the GND:
“overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail”
Do you think this is calling for a ban on air travel?
Even without the FAQ (which you cannot just throw out), it’s clearly pushing for the end of jet plane use as soon as is technically/politically feasible.
Because “ban” is too strong a word, this should have been a “half true” or at the VERY least “mostly false”. To go all the way down to just plain “false” is simply not credible. They do provide details about the FAQ, but a lot of people will just look at the top-line verdict.