Aaron is a remarkable young man; of the caliber of Elbridge Colby. Just like Elbridge, Aaron's observations and commentaries deserve a re-reading on my part b/c he touched on so many subjects so deftly that I'll need to do a second look to digest it.
The fact that he's still in HS...well, I'm in awe, frankly. Someone tell his parents they've done a hell of a great job.
I get the feeling that you're groping for a 'mission statement' of some sort. They were very popular in the 80's & 90's, but maybe it's no longer the case. You want a succinct definition of what this show is about. Well, those mission statements were pretty much full of shit, so I'm not sure if that's the way to go. Cuz things change, man. Things change...
If there's one thing to note in the current social zietgiest it's that things change, and when they do, it happens fast. For example, until Jon Stewart's bit on Colbert, the very idea of promoting a lab leak theory was a verboten topic. Remember those good old days of six months ago? Or Dr. Faucci was going to be the medical savior of the USA; and now, he'll be lucky to not be arrested.
What I'm trying to get to is that nailing down a definition may, especially in these times of tumult, be somewhat limiting.
The nation and frankly the world is fortunate for this program. I'm not exaggerating. Two young men, thoughtful and intellegent examine important topics and discuss them with informed people who have done the deep dive. I'm thinking specifically of Stoeller and DiStefano as prime examples (of course Colby as well). Those examples are off the top of my head, but I could go thru show after show and keep finding examples.
Rather than a 'mission STATEMENT', maybe come up with a series of guiding questions...
The McConaghy episode on Breaking Points and the subsequent fallout for me is what strikes me the most. In fact, I've gone back to that a couple of times. So much that I'm going to actually listen to the cancer with lipstick that is Kara Swisher (she's truly odious) to hear Matt's words themselves.
But he raised the idea that it's the questions that are as important as the positions.
- What are the elements of a good society?
- What IS a good society?
- What are the benchmarks that we can use to decide if the society is moving towards those ideals?
Yes, I'm talking Phil 101 sorts of questions here, yeah. But those questions have never, ever been fully answered. Instead they've been shoved way in the background and instead we're talking about Don Lemon's asinine dunking on Joe Rogan and the definition of Ivermectin.
The USA right this moment is going through a deep reassessment of itself. I don't think the nation as a nation is even conscious of this, but the signs of a 'crises' in the psychological sense (see Sheehey) are prevalent. The sense I get is that people just don't believe that the country is working.
As Sorkin put it so masterfully in that classic scene in the first season of 'The Newsroom', "We didn't used to be so scared."
And if there's one common feature of the American Experience today, it's people are scared as hell. Job insecurity- check. Health insecurity- check. Fear the The American Dream is over- check.
And, of course, anger and rage are perfectly common responses to fear.
Maybe a question could be added to the ones I already put up: What are the things Americans feel afraid/ anxious about? Isn't admitting there's a problem the first step in resolving it?
The Realignment is not going to save America. But it's a move in the right direction. Everyone who earns a paycheck bringing this show to life is doing important work.
I think this young man needs a little more seasoning...
He needs to lock horns and debate w/ his intellectual equals. PLUS...
He's only in HS. He need to get his heart broken and break a couple.
What he doesn't need is to become Doogie Howser.
He's just starting out; but there are a lot of life lessons he's yet to learn... After all, he's really still a kid. Bursting w/ tremendous promise, absolutely....
I keep hearing people talk about what percentage of Americans are vaccinated,
The statistic that needs to be talked about is what percentage of those that are vaccinated didn't want to get vaccinated and only did so under duress.
My personal belief is that's about half, meaning there are a lot of people who hate the current administration for it.
On breaking points today I heard Saagar say %70. Authorities claiming success based on that figure is like someone saying they are very successful getting women to sleep with them, while neglecting to mention that they held a gun to their heads to get them to do so.
Big fan of the show, but wasn't impressed with the last episode "modern medicine post covid". You guys usually do a great job of doing some pushback to allow the speakers give solid defenses of their stances, but you just let this speaker go on without any challenges to his system of belief. Perhaps I am biased as a physician, but this speaker casted a very generalized and dark picture of doctors, which is the exception not the rule. I empathize with the poor man's bad experience with healthcare, but to characterize all doctors in such a fashion is an oversimplification. I could go into details, but that would make an already long post even longer.
I also wonder if this kind of messaging is good for society in the middle of a pandemic where we are risking our lives to help others, while we face increasing vitriol from a loud, but small segment of society? This episode felt like more of a pile-on.
An episode on Paul Volker could be interesting. He is a seminal character of 40 years of low inflation and low-interest rates. Saagar has been too idealogical on how fiscal and monetary policy affect inflation to be open to airing a debate on the subject. Milton Friedman would also be an interesting person to cover on monetary policy history, as well as being a promoter of UBI.
Great insights from Aaron. The trick is how to create the conditions for guests to be great, current crises to be brought into historical context, and listeners to be part of the conversation. Perhaps variety in episode sections so the guest isn't the only reason to listen. Ideas: Some host-driven sections like "What I'm Reading This Week," "This American trend is actually global (and how)," or a "Realignment Primer Topic." Just 5 or 10-minute blocks that listeners look forward to. You could also ask listeners what topic deserves a month-long, 8-episode arc with many guests weighing in on different aspects. The question I want a lot of long takes on from many perspectives (and generations) is this: How did Higher Education change from being part of the American Dream (RIP) to the over-priced, bueracracy-driven bastion of litmus tests and adjunt instructors it has become? And how can Realignment listeners help change that?
I was upset along with a lot of people when Saagar & Krystal left the Hill, until obviously we all learned they were going indie with the great success of Breaking Points. I was one of the folks who signed up for an account on the weekend before the formal announcement.
I'm sorry. Even though it was enjoyable and exciting to be part of something new. The show just turned out to be unbiased reporting on biased reporting.
I learned about The Realignment and was equally excited. I have looked for realignment content and have found none.
Maybe I'm missing it because I'm not looking hard enough. Has there been any discussion on 2022 Primaries? Campaigns for March elections have started and some filing deadlines are in December. That's where realignments occur.
There are literally thousands of organizations talking about change. They aren't talking to each other. Thousands of distributed efforts. No focus on Primaries. Which have been the most partisan events that are the root of our division. Yet, with ultra-low partisan turnout, they are the most vulnerable part of the election system.
Let's not waste an opportunity right in front of us.
Aaron is a remarkable young man; of the caliber of Elbridge Colby. Just like Elbridge, Aaron's observations and commentaries deserve a re-reading on my part b/c he touched on so many subjects so deftly that I'll need to do a second look to digest it.
The fact that he's still in HS...well, I'm in awe, frankly. Someone tell his parents they've done a hell of a great job.
I get the feeling that you're groping for a 'mission statement' of some sort. They were very popular in the 80's & 90's, but maybe it's no longer the case. You want a succinct definition of what this show is about. Well, those mission statements were pretty much full of shit, so I'm not sure if that's the way to go. Cuz things change, man. Things change...
If there's one thing to note in the current social zietgiest it's that things change, and when they do, it happens fast. For example, until Jon Stewart's bit on Colbert, the very idea of promoting a lab leak theory was a verboten topic. Remember those good old days of six months ago? Or Dr. Faucci was going to be the medical savior of the USA; and now, he'll be lucky to not be arrested.
What I'm trying to get to is that nailing down a definition may, especially in these times of tumult, be somewhat limiting.
The nation and frankly the world is fortunate for this program. I'm not exaggerating. Two young men, thoughtful and intellegent examine important topics and discuss them with informed people who have done the deep dive. I'm thinking specifically of Stoeller and DiStefano as prime examples (of course Colby as well). Those examples are off the top of my head, but I could go thru show after show and keep finding examples.
Rather than a 'mission STATEMENT', maybe come up with a series of guiding questions...
The McConaghy episode on Breaking Points and the subsequent fallout for me is what strikes me the most. In fact, I've gone back to that a couple of times. So much that I'm going to actually listen to the cancer with lipstick that is Kara Swisher (she's truly odious) to hear Matt's words themselves.
But he raised the idea that it's the questions that are as important as the positions.
- What are the elements of a good society?
- What IS a good society?
- What are the benchmarks that we can use to decide if the society is moving towards those ideals?
Yes, I'm talking Phil 101 sorts of questions here, yeah. But those questions have never, ever been fully answered. Instead they've been shoved way in the background and instead we're talking about Don Lemon's asinine dunking on Joe Rogan and the definition of Ivermectin.
The USA right this moment is going through a deep reassessment of itself. I don't think the nation as a nation is even conscious of this, but the signs of a 'crises' in the psychological sense (see Sheehey) are prevalent. The sense I get is that people just don't believe that the country is working.
As Sorkin put it so masterfully in that classic scene in the first season of 'The Newsroom', "We didn't used to be so scared."
And if there's one common feature of the American Experience today, it's people are scared as hell. Job insecurity- check. Health insecurity- check. Fear the The American Dream is over- check.
And, of course, anger and rage are perfectly common responses to fear.
Maybe a question could be added to the ones I already put up: What are the things Americans feel afraid/ anxious about? Isn't admitting there's a problem the first step in resolving it?
The Realignment is not going to save America. But it's a move in the right direction. Everyone who earns a paycheck bringing this show to life is doing important work.
Thank you!
Methods of obtaining feedback are proxies for the process of talking with every individual one on one.
I usually see quantitative approaches and rarely qualitative approaches to this.
Brené Brown's research process for Daring Greatly is a great example of what you guys should do. I'd be happy to help set up that kind of approach.
Aaron, contact me. You’re hired. We’ll figure out the job description later. Evan@traidal.com
I think this young man needs a little more seasoning...
He needs to lock horns and debate w/ his intellectual equals. PLUS...
He's only in HS. He need to get his heart broken and break a couple.
What he doesn't need is to become Doogie Howser.
He's just starting out; but there are a lot of life lessons he's yet to learn... After all, he's really still a kid. Bursting w/ tremendous promise, absolutely....
But he needs time right now, not a job.
I keep hearing people talk about what percentage of Americans are vaccinated,
The statistic that needs to be talked about is what percentage of those that are vaccinated didn't want to get vaccinated and only did so under duress.
My personal belief is that's about half, meaning there are a lot of people who hate the current administration for it.
On breaking points today I heard Saagar say %70. Authorities claiming success based on that figure is like someone saying they are very successful getting women to sleep with them, while neglecting to mention that they held a gun to their heads to get them to do so.
Big fan of the show, but wasn't impressed with the last episode "modern medicine post covid". You guys usually do a great job of doing some pushback to allow the speakers give solid defenses of their stances, but you just let this speaker go on without any challenges to his system of belief. Perhaps I am biased as a physician, but this speaker casted a very generalized and dark picture of doctors, which is the exception not the rule. I empathize with the poor man's bad experience with healthcare, but to characterize all doctors in such a fashion is an oversimplification. I could go into details, but that would make an already long post even longer.
I also wonder if this kind of messaging is good for society in the middle of a pandemic where we are risking our lives to help others, while we face increasing vitriol from a loud, but small segment of society? This episode felt like more of a pile-on.
🚫 etc 🚫 etc 🚫 etc
Virtue signal: "You know I hate (Trump, Rand Paul, 🚫 etc 🚫 etc 🚫 etc) but there was this one thing they might have been right about.
Just present whatever it is.
An episode on Paul Volker could be interesting. He is a seminal character of 40 years of low inflation and low-interest rates. Saagar has been too idealogical on how fiscal and monetary policy affect inflation to be open to airing a debate on the subject. Milton Friedman would also be an interesting person to cover on monetary policy history, as well as being a promoter of UBI.
Great insights from Aaron. The trick is how to create the conditions for guests to be great, current crises to be brought into historical context, and listeners to be part of the conversation. Perhaps variety in episode sections so the guest isn't the only reason to listen. Ideas: Some host-driven sections like "What I'm Reading This Week," "This American trend is actually global (and how)," or a "Realignment Primer Topic." Just 5 or 10-minute blocks that listeners look forward to. You could also ask listeners what topic deserves a month-long, 8-episode arc with many guests weighing in on different aspects. The question I want a lot of long takes on from many perspectives (and generations) is this: How did Higher Education change from being part of the American Dream (RIP) to the over-priced, bueracracy-driven bastion of litmus tests and adjunt instructors it has become? And how can Realignment listeners help change that?
Thanks. You guys are great.
You did a better job than I. So...
Fuck you! LOL
Great and thoughtful response.
I was upset along with a lot of people when Saagar & Krystal left the Hill, until obviously we all learned they were going indie with the great success of Breaking Points. I was one of the folks who signed up for an account on the weekend before the formal announcement.
I'm sorry. Even though it was enjoyable and exciting to be part of something new. The show just turned out to be unbiased reporting on biased reporting.
I learned about The Realignment and was equally excited. I have looked for realignment content and have found none.
Maybe I'm missing it because I'm not looking hard enough. Has there been any discussion on 2022 Primaries? Campaigns for March elections have started and some filing deadlines are in December. That's where realignments occur.
There are literally thousands of organizations talking about change. They aren't talking to each other. Thousands of distributed efforts. No focus on Primaries. Which have been the most partisan events that are the root of our division. Yet, with ultra-low partisan turnout, they are the most vulnerable part of the election system.
Let's not waste an opportunity right in front of us.