As a liberal woman, I’m sorry to say that there are a LOT of people who feel that way. That’s all I’m going to say about it; whether they’re right remains to be seen.
Good thread so far about dealing with podcasts.
Fuck that’s long. You think I have time to sit around this message board, reading all day long?
You know how journalism was going to “pivot to video” except that nobody wanted to watch the videos?
Let’s just say a “pivot to audio” is even less of a draw.
I don’t ‘refuse’ to listen to NPR, I just don’t listen to it.
We’ve never watched enough TV to justify the $$ to pay for cable. All we really do with our TV is watch the occasional movie.
Only to listen to music that I don’t own.
Maybe because I was always the fastest reader I knew until I met my wife, but taking in information via the spoken word is just too damn slow.
This was not a problem with blogs or message boards.
It’s not a problem with Twitter, either. Is Twitter sufficiently ‘with the times’ for you? I follow a bunch of people on Twitter.
Yeah, it’s not Instagram or Snapchat in terms of being ‘with the times,’ but then podcasts have been around awhile too. They’re not exactly cutting-edge these days.
What the fuck does he even mean, do we know if a 70% tax rate would work? Why, does he think the 70% tax rate won’t work because it’s lazy and wants to hang out with its friends all day? Seriously, I can’t even rebut him because I have no idea what he’s even talking about.
And AOC’s critique of fact-checking? Not ready to argue it here, but if you’re a newspaper fact-checker, it would be plenty easy to put a thumb on the scales by the relative frequency with which you fact-check different public figures, and whether you’re checking their statements about core policies or the latest random story that’s hot for a day or two but doesn’t mean anything. My recollection is that her argument was similar to that.
Thanks for the transcript. I agree with most of what Pesca said in that excerpt. It’s good to “dream big,” but to do so by ignoring reality really is dumb (I’d call it “Trumpesque,” but the overall goals aren’t selfish and wrongheaded, as they always are for Trump).
The comparison (contrast) to the moon race sounds valid to me — JFK’s “…in this decade” was based on difficult but achievable science, not naive platitudes.
I am a liberal, progressive Democrat, and I appreciate some of the energy AOC represents to many well-intentioned folks, but she needs to take a deep breath. Her moment may come yet, but it shouldn’t be now.
Well, this was noticed years ago, past research points to this issue to be very similar to the moon race, difficult but achievable.
Studies from serious sources show that it is more likely that 1% of the world’s GDP what is needed to deal with the issue.
http://www.un.org/dpi/ngosection/annualconfs/60/pdfs/John_Holdren.pdf (PDF file)
-John P. Holdren, Harvard University, Director of the Woods Hole Research Center for the UN 60thAnnual DPI/NGO Meeting, “Climate Change: How It Impacts Us All”
Richard Alley, (Republican scientist BTW) who was cited by that report, used the example of humans deploying water and sewer systems in developed nations to show that the worst costs to control an issue that affects most humans did not materialize, as contrarians of the past and the present assume.
[del]Prince John : And why should the people listen to you? Robin Hood : Because, unlike some other Robin Hoods, I can speak with an English accent. [/del]
Because unlike some other OPs I see the need to do transcripts of the important points from a video or podcast: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7bmg65SS20 (4 minute video)
“Listen to this podcast/watch this youtube video/etcetera”
You’re showing that you have an insufficient grasp of the issue (ie, you can’t actually argue it) and you want everyone else to do the work to get up to speed on something you found interesting and then create and carry the discussion for you. So you don’t have to.
Ain’t nobody got time for that shit.
I don’t need to listen to a podcast to discuss or argue a point on this board if the relevant details are sufficiently offered. In fact, that’s how discussion works. When I discuss politics with people, I discuss actual issues, my opinion on them and so forth. I don’t say “well, listen to this guy’s podcast, then watch this youtube video and we can talk about those”. When I discuss anything else with people, I do the same. I don’t point people at podcasts or videos (or even articles) to explain how I allegedly think or believe. Frankly, I don’t know ANYONE in real life who does this. (If I did, I’d think “Oh holy shit is this guy a dumbfuck”.)
If you want to talk about the Green New Deal and how YOU think it is a pipe dream, then for fuck’s sake, talk about what specifically YOU think is a pipe dream and why.
You’re welcome; and yeah, that’s a good point, that it’s unfair to call it “Trumpesque” when it doesn’t come from that kind of twisted, malignant place.
But I think the part of it that does relate to Trump is that some Democrats are starting to say “if he doesn’t bother to be truthful or follow established norms of behavior, why should we toe the line?” And I think that’s a big mistake. Even if we do it with “good intentions”, we can’t afford to fritter away a crucial distinction. We need to be better, lead by example. If we point at Trump’s lies and the right can just fire back “well, what about all the truth YOU stretch?” it’s not going to fly to say “well, yeah, but the difference is that we’re good and you’re bad.” We need to be the evidence-based party.
Too bad that you ignore evidence to also claim that.
AFAIK this “Green Deal” wants to get rid of nuclear power, so it’s exactly what shouldn’t be done to mitigate global warming.
From what I’ve seen it’s a complete shambles… which may be the reason why the topic has been hijacked into discussing other things.
Thing is that even the ones that worked in the nuclear industry have noticed the problems they have when they see what is going on regarding solar power advances.
Uhhh…the “bail out cost of banks” was zero. Less than zero, in fact. And it was not “by Obama”, but by Bush. :smack:
To be fair, and since the first post you referenced was mine, all of those threads mentioned her by name before tossing out the initials. This is also true of the articles referenced earlier.
Sounds a lot like complaining about the asides but not the substance. If that was important to notice, then one needs to point out that Mike Pesca is more experienced in sports, not science. (Seems that you forgot about that bit about what sources to take more seriously). But at least Mike does acknowledge that the issue is a serious one.
Now, I have noticed other podcasts where Mike interviews scientists like Andrea Schumacher, that do worry about the increase in extreme weather events that we are likely to get in a warming world. So the only issue I can have with him is that his blind spot is to ignore the costs that we are likely to get by not dealing with the issue in a more serious way, he thinks that on this issue Ocasio Cortez is exaggerating or being ignorant like Trump and the Republicans. Not even close.
You are getting more than just Mike Pesca there. He has a staff, and they seem like highly competent radio people. It is slickly produced without seeming self consciously so. Plus of course he has the backing of Slate more broadly.
I’m going to assume for the sake of argument assume this is a plan that can’t happen, and is destined to fail.
She’s doing exactly what she needs to do to pull in the base of disaffected voters. You have to understand that a lot of the reason that I find that young people won’t vote is because they say no one is actually pushing for the things they believe in. Everyone is just the same.
The Dems have a huge messaging problem in this area. Even though we are actually working to improve in these areas, we don’t make a big flashy thing about it that people can see, and we do it so incrementally you can’t see the big picture.
AOC* is a Dem who gets that passing bills isn’t all you do. You have to try and motivate people. That’s what Obama was good at, too. There’s a reason why the GOP will occasionally try to push a bill that has no chance of passing. It at least tells people “Yes, we still care about this, but they won’t let it happen.”
It’s also a rather useful technique to make the big ask and then compromise to the smaller ask. Another problem Dems often have is that they start from the compromise position. No, in a negotiation, you start from a position far higher than what you want.
That said, there is the risk of being seen as ridiculous. The question is, does her constituency see it as ridiculous? Or only her opponents? There’s a difference between ridiculous and not possible. It could be impossible but an ideal.
*She’s called that, I believe, because the typical shortening to a last name would be Ocasio-Cortez, which isn’t much more convenient than many politicians’ full names. Normally I balk at the nicknames (like I say “Sanders,” not “Bernie,” as much as possible), but this one is just too convenient.
I agree with your overall point, Big T, but I still think one can be accurate AND inspirational. Like Obama often was.
That little (but important) misrepresentation of the science report bothers me. She could stick to “80% by 2030, 100% by 2050” and still be totally inspirational, (as long as she presented with a few more specifics about how to achieve it.) No need to change the facts. Doing so undermines your argument, period.
IMHO, Ocasio-Cortez needs to spend at least a few months (!) absorbing the climate science, AND the culture and workings of Congress. Then she’ll have a better grasp of how to inspire people. Reach for the stars, sure, but only after you’re more fluent in the art of the possible.
I’ll agree with the science part. I’m not so sure about the culture of Congress. I mean, she seems more there to upset that than to maintain it. Though, still, it would be useful to understand that which you wish to upend.
I just don’t want her becoming like the others–at least, the others who keep on telling her she’s messing everything up. I do expect her to figure out what does and doesn’t work.