What is the most alarming part of Donald Trump's presidency? Certainly the theater of Trump is distressing: the antics, the buffoonery, the duplicity, the degradation of political norms, the coarsening of public discourse...and yet, of course, the actual policies (or lack thereof) implemented by the Trump administration are alarming as well. But is there really a fundamental distinction to be made between past presidents and Trump? Or is Trump, by handing over the machinery of government to bankers, conservative think tanks, and corporate elites, indistinguishable from any other right wing politician? Or, for that matter, distinguishable from any other politican, period? This one got a little heated, in a good way: Dane and Kevin argue about moral imperatives as applied to politics, the valorization of voting, and the logic of "lesser of two evils" thinking. The thirtieth episode is a milestone, no? And special thanks to Hale Allen for supplying the episode inspo.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited:

Chris Hedges: The Useful Idiocy of Donald Trump

List of 100 environmental rules reversed by the Trump administration

What is to blame for still existing racial disparities in American society? Are they, as someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates would say, attributable to an historical, implacable, and foundational white racism? Is racism the engine of American history? Is race itself real, ontological--or are we free to say that racism is real but that race is a fiction? Here we go: on episode 29, Dane and Kevin are talking woke politics, the neoliberal tendency to divorce race from class, and the pitfalls of reducing everything to race; needless to say, Dane got mad uncomfortable disagreeing with Ta-Nehisi Coates.

Before that: a detailed look at how "hip hop" pundit DJ Akademiks used victims of Chicago gun violence to create a vast and lucrative social media following.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited:

Touré Reed: Toward Freedom: The Case Against Race Reductionism

Can violence be an effective tool for social change? Under what conditions is violence permissible? And who gets to determine what counts as violence in the first place? Judith Butler argues that reenvisioning the concept of the self entails a broad commitment to nonviolence as a way to protect against violence, while Frantz Fanon makes the case not just that violence is justified, but that it is a necessary part of overcoming oppression, especially in the colonial context. Who's right? Once violence is used as a tool for self-defense, is it possible to distinguish it from the violence against which it's meant to protect? Is armed struggle even feasible in developed, miltarized nations? And perhaps most importantly, are there even right and wrong answers when it comes to the permissibility of violence, or are we forced to admit a kind of nihilism about when violence is or isn't justifiable?

Before that: drinking hot tea out of a glass is far more urbane than drinking tea out of a ceramic mug, and Joe Rogan's conspiracy theory relativism is insufferable.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited:

Judith Butler: The Force of Nonviolence

Frantz Fanon: The Wretched of the Earth

What explains wealth inequality? Are inequalities between individuals the result of natural differences, or are they the result of societal institutions? How do Enlightenment values like the notion of the individual and the concept of private property undergird manifestations of inequality? And what, anyway, is so morally objectionable about wealth inequality? Is inequality, in and of itself, immoral? We're trying to answer all these questions and more, and we're using two heavy hitters, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Harry Frankfurt, as inspo.

Before that: Kevin delivers a dope ass monologue about "Fuck Racism" merch and how corporate PR strategies undermine social protest.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited:

Harry Frankfurt: On Inequality

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

In the wake of the brutal murder of George Floyd at the hands of the police, we find ourselves living through yet another variation on that historic theme of American racism. What do the protests, and the police resonse to them, reveal about the way American society is structured? Given the origins of policing in this country, is the term "good cop" oxymoronic? And most importantly, will anything change?

AFTER that, we're talking Soren Kierkegaard's famous essay, "On the Present Age." Is ours an age of hollow reflection and inaction? What is the mass media's role in flattening class consciousness? Is true rebellion even possible? Kierkegaard might have been on to something but given how 2020 has gone, we're hoping he's wrong.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited:

Naomi Klein: No Logo

Soren Kierkegaard: On the Present Age

How does the mass media function in American society? Is the media landscape really an egalitarian one, wherein news outlets aim to attract audiences by presenting information in a value-neutral way? According to Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, nah: they say the mass media is a system of propaganda that functions, ultimately, to preserve and protect the interests of media company shareholders, their advertisers, and governmental and corporate sources. But are they right? How has their model, originally published in 1988, stood up to the test of time? Are there distinctions to be made between organizations like The New York Times and Fox News? We're dissecting the mass media not as a cabal of nefarious execs scheming to deceive the public, but rather as a set of bureaucracies and incentives oriented, fundamentally, around the bottom line and maintaining the status quo.

Before that: when to shower during quarantine, cologne is superfluous trash, and the myth of Elon Musk as a self-made innovator who's invested in the welfare of humanity (he's not).

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited

Alex Graham: A Deep Dive Into Elon Musk's Investments

Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media

Jerry Hirsch: Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

Julia Carrie Wong: Tesla workers say they pay the price for Elon Musk's big promises

Matt Robinson and Zeke Faux: When Elon Musk Tried to Destroy a Tesla Whistleblower

Noel Randewich: Musk's Tesla stake worth $30 billion after electrifying stock surge

Philip de Wet: Elon Musk's family owns an emerald mine in Zambia

Will Evans and Alyssa Jeong Perry: Tesla says its factory is safer. But it left injuries off the books

It's the return of the Now That You Mention It podcast: Coronavirus thrust us into quarantine, and Amazon was slow to deliver the equip that'd allow us to record remotely. But we're here now, so enough with the preamble: in the opening seg, Kev gets into a theory about how Roc Marciano is the Marcel Proust of hip hop, and Dane delivers a monologue about the moral relativism of the Netflix doc "Tiger King".

And in the main segment it's all things COVID-19, from the ineptitude of the government's response, to the role of the federal government in general, to the misleading messaging about "essential workers", and much, much more Coronavirus bullshit.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

What explains the celebrification of the NBA? In other words: why is it that nowadays, fans gravitate towards individual players as opposed to teams? Are the days of loyal fans and regional alliances to teams gone? On top of that: does the notion of remaining a loyal franchise fan even make coherent sense, given how often teams undergo changes? We're casting a lot of "overrated" aspersions, too, and taking a big picture look at the reality show that is the NBA.

Before that: Lil Wayne dropped new music, Coronavirus is surging, and Bloomberg's out here lurking.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Before there was Biggie, Pac, Jay, or Nas--the gods of the hip hop pantheon--there was Rakim. No one before or since has changed the rap game as much as Rakim--but why does it still feel like his legacy goes unrecognized by the majority? Why do the innovators and trailblazers of hip hop get relegated to the periphery of its history? What does it mean to be a paradigm-shifter within a given art form? Has hip hop lost sight of its roots? In episode 22, we're taking on all these questions and more, but mostly we're celebrating and discussing the work of the John Coltrane of hip hop, Rakim Allah.

Before that: remembering Kobe, and Dane continues to get disrespected by doormen.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited:

Rakim: Sweat the Technique: Revelations on Creativity from the Lyrical Genius

What is hate speech? Is it legal or illegal, here in the United States, to engage in hate speech? What, for that matter, are the limits of free speech in general? And why is it so crucial to protect free speech above--seemingly--everything else? This is the culture wars episode: we're talking Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, campus culture, selective outrage, counterspeech, and much more.

Before that: parents need to get back on that corporal punishment tip, and New York City can't handle a little snow.

Intro and break music courtesy of Chris Giuliano.

Works Cited:

Nadine Strossen: Hate: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship