Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Episode 129: Mined The Gap
Play Now!More forms our opinions than just what we read or hear. Habits, both social and not so much, might enlarge the chasm between us and others, a widening that may provide commercial interests an exploitative opportunity. Hence, Episode 129: Mined The Gap.In this episode, I mostly read from: Jerry Mander's 1978 book, Four Arguments For the Elimination of Television; a bit from Tim Wu's The Attention Merchants: The Epic Struggle to Get Inside Our Heads; a bit from Upton Sinclair's 1953 book The Return of Lanny Budd; and a smaller bit from my computer's quickie dictionary. I synopsize a great Wired article on prosopagnosia called "Face Blind." I also played: just for fun, a bit of Ted Stevens' 2006 speech defining to congress what the Internet really, really is; and D. L. Myers once again provided the voice of the Powell Movement Stinger.Musically, I played: Johnny Ripper doing (appropriately enough) "Error, Inc."; Lee Rosevere doing "Ice Chimes"; Pietnaska doing "Dahlia"; and Podington Bear doing "In My Head". KMFDM backed Henry Giroux in the opening, and I am closing once again with Mistle Thrush.I'm releasing this and all my episodes under a Creative Commons 4.0 attribution, share-alike, and non-commercial license.And don't forget to check out listener Kevin's new audio endeavor, "The Next Ten Billion Years: Ugo Bardi & John Michael Greer as read by Kevin Arthur Wohlmut" over at the Future Fossils Podcast!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey thank you so much for the solidarity!
ReplyDeleteBTW I am not at all tired of hearing about the etymology of words such as stereotype. People always say, words have power, definitions are important, and sometimes the baggage that a word carries around from past decades or bygone centuries, sneaks into our thoughts without us knowing so consciously.
ReplyDeleteWhat got me with the examples of "stereotype" and "cliché" were the differences in meaning essentially the exact word in different languages has developed.
DeleteOther words have the same fate, such as the Old English "slay" (to righteously kill) and the Old Dutch "slaughter" (to viciously and viscerally hack). I guess we weighted some of the words we inherited back in the Danelaw days of the 800s to reflect the barbarism we projected onto those invading, ransom-demanding viking hoards.
S and C, though, those were new and unexpected.
Wow, finally got to the end of this episode -- I decided I wanted to re listen to the previous episode -- and I am awed and humbled by your praise there! Let me assure you that this Podcast and your motto, "You Are Not Alone," has also inspired me to keep plugging away at this eccentric hobby. Thanks for the shout-out!
ReplyDeleteThe pleasure was all mine!
Delete—Jim
Howdy Jim - I hope this is an OK way to get in touch. First heard you on c-realm and was intrigued by some of your comments. Started and finished your Powell Movement series and now am working my way through Attack Ads! from the beginning. Is there any way we can support this podcast financially? I practically peed myself laughing at your "Cantor fail for libel twits" reference in a way-old episode.
ReplyDeleteHey, ric2!
DeleteYes, absolutely, the comment section is perfect for chat, questions, denunciations, and other froth & blather. I'll tolerate anything… except advertising, of course. That I nuke in a heartbeat.
First heard you on c-realm and was intrigued by some of your comments.
I'm kinda curious which ones you found intriguing…. But hey, you worked your way through the PM, so it must have been good. (I'm still irrationally proud of that series.)
Oh, and it's a Cantor kill…. Canticle? Cantor kill? (You are far from the first to express a reaction to that joke. I must remind myself to include more bad puns.)
As to financial support, OMG, dude or dudette, thank you! I cannot say with enough emphasis what such an offer means! It is simultaneously confirmation that what I am doing is worthwhile and (as if there were more needed!) that I am on the right track with more than one person (me)!
That said, my answer is No, with my sincere thanks for asking.
Seriously: this is my hobby. I have a job, a union job with a defined-benefit pension. I'm active in my union, active enough to even be paid for some of that participation. (It's not something I've discussed on the 'cast, this union thing, but I'm leaning toward discussion, if folks are interested.) The mortgage is well in hand, The Wife™ seems happy, and all is well in Jim Land. I ain't rich, but I certainly ain't struggling.
More philosophically, it seems a bit… complicated… to take money for a vocal, podcast endeavor that looks critically at efforts to sway public opinion by hiring people to talk about stuff.
I've been sitting on some more thoughts on this, but I think I'll wrap then into a near-future episode to make them clearer.
Again, though, thanks very much for the offer!
—Jim