It's great to see you back. Also, thanks for directing me to Froomkin. I've been thinking a lot lately (like, the past five years or so) about Hannah Arendt who helpfully, albeit depressingly, explains how the goal of propaganda isn't really to convince anyone of anything, but to get you to distrust everything. I've wondered if there's a complementary process that's evolved as a function of market-driven news; if all the news is bad, then "bad" begins to lose its meaning or significance.
What the country needs is hope, encouragement and a viable plan. We're not really getting any of those things. Now that we've lost Walter Cronkite et al, we don't have "daddy" explaining to us how everything to us, and how things can be all right. Probably a good thing, but without the reassurance, folks seem to be more comfortable with their head in the sand.
Anything hopeful going on? If the public doesn't find a way to both acknowledge our current status and find a viable path to save our collective face, the incentives to avoid reality will be too seductive, I'm afraid. Of course there's always art, and insightful social commentary at least helps me feel sane.
Thanks, you're welcome, we are all Shirleys now, and what a great tune. I either missed it at the time or had forgotten it. Froomkin is really sharp, although he won't talk to me anymore.
I don't know about hopeful signs. People are doing good things, but catastrophes require coordinated national/international remediation/intervention, and we're sure not seeing much of that. Did you see the film "Don't Look Up"?
and a similar one elsewhere suggesting that current technology is sufficient to make really major inroads into our climate situation. I can't find the second one at the moment. The view of the guy in The Hill is frustrating because it suggests that the resistance to dealing with climate change is even more avaricious and closed-minded than it already seems. At the same time there's the implication that doable remedies are available all down the timeline. I'm not sure if that's good or not, which sort of ties into your suggestion about "bad" losing its impact.
Thanks for stopping by, Kirt. I always like to hear your thoughts about stuff and things.
Welcome back to the show, such as it is, Weldon. I wasn't sure if I was getting your emails until today, when I did a search in my Gmail and presto, there they all were. Don't remember getting them in real time. Maybe they were being held in purgatory until they cleaned up their act.
Thanks, Ed. I've been sending them out around 3-4PM your time. Purgatory may be better than some of them deserve. And thanks too for your support. Much appreciated.
It's great to see you back. Also, thanks for directing me to Froomkin. I've been thinking a lot lately (like, the past five years or so) about Hannah Arendt who helpfully, albeit depressingly, explains how the goal of propaganda isn't really to convince anyone of anything, but to get you to distrust everything. I've wondered if there's a complementary process that's evolved as a function of market-driven news; if all the news is bad, then "bad" begins to lose its meaning or significance.
What the country needs is hope, encouragement and a viable plan. We're not really getting any of those things. Now that we've lost Walter Cronkite et al, we don't have "daddy" explaining to us how everything to us, and how things can be all right. Probably a good thing, but without the reassurance, folks seem to be more comfortable with their head in the sand.
Anything hopeful going on? If the public doesn't find a way to both acknowledge our current status and find a viable path to save our collective face, the incentives to avoid reality will be too seductive, I'm afraid. Of course there's always art, and insightful social commentary at least helps me feel sane.
And don't call me Shirley.
https://youtu.be/INNmLQnmTa8
Thanks, you're welcome, we are all Shirleys now, and what a great tune. I either missed it at the time or had forgotten it. Froomkin is really sharp, although he won't talk to me anymore.
I don't know about hopeful signs. People are doing good things, but catastrophes require coordinated national/international remediation/intervention, and we're sure not seeing much of that. Did you see the film "Don't Look Up"?
I did read this article:
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3539703-no-miracle-tech-needed-how-to-switch-to-renewables-now-and-lower-costs-doing-it/
and a similar one elsewhere suggesting that current technology is sufficient to make really major inroads into our climate situation. I can't find the second one at the moment. The view of the guy in The Hill is frustrating because it suggests that the resistance to dealing with climate change is even more avaricious and closed-minded than it already seems. At the same time there's the implication that doable remedies are available all down the timeline. I'm not sure if that's good or not, which sort of ties into your suggestion about "bad" losing its impact.
Thanks for stopping by, Kirt. I always like to hear your thoughts about stuff and things.
Welcome back to the show, such as it is, Weldon. I wasn't sure if I was getting your emails until today, when I did a search in my Gmail and presto, there they all were. Don't remember getting them in real time. Maybe they were being held in purgatory until they cleaned up their act.
Thanks, Ed. I've been sending them out around 3-4PM your time. Purgatory may be better than some of them deserve. And thanks too for your support. Much appreciated.