Episode 99: The Era of Apathy

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.”
— Elie Wiesel
“All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.”
— Noam Chomsky
“We’ve forgotten much. How to struggle, how to rise to dizzy heights and sink to unparalleled depths. We no longer aspire to anything. Even the finer shades of despair are lost to us. We’ve ceased to be runners. We plod from structure to conveyance to employment and back again. We live within the boundaries that science has determined for us. The measuring stick is short and sweet. The full gamut of life is a brief, shadowy continuum that runs from gray to more gray. The rainbow is bleached. We hardly know how to doubt anymore.”
— Richard Matheson, Collected Stories, Vol. 1

In the constant whirlwind of tragedy, hardship and struggle in our modern news and throughout human history, some individuals have still managed to stir great emotion and change. Many, though, appear increasingly apathetic, offering only cursory or superficial sympathies in the face of mass atrocities and looming misfortune. Whether widespread or less prominent, what is to blame for this phenomenon of apathy? Have we become inundated with stories exposing failure in our reality? Are we afraid to risk our energy and emotion? Do we presume others might take up the mantle? We welcome Henry Burbank this week to explore this idea and the ways in which we might think about apathy in our world. We also discuss the ways in which our immediate communities and environments affect our relative interest and apathy. Does our human nature dictate whether we are inclined to care or give up? 

Episode 98: Hamilton

“But over the past few months, Hamilton critics have come out of the woodwork. In February, performance studies scholar James McMaster, writing for HowlRound, pointed out how completely the show fails to pass the Bechdel test. In March, writer Gene Demby, a huge fan of the musical, wondered on NPR’s Code Switch why its audience is so resoundingly white. A week later, historian Nancy Isenberg, writing for Zócalo Public Square, cautioned audiences not to look to the musical for historical accuracy.”
— Rebecca Onion, Slate, April 5, 2016.
“The show, for all its redemptive and smart aspects, is part of this ‘Founders Chic’ phenomenon,’ said David Waldstreicher, a historian at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York who last September sounded an early note of skepticism on The Junto, a group blog about early American history. Amid all the enthusiasm for ‘Hamilton’ the musical, he added, Hamilton the man “has gotten a free pass.”
— David Waldstreicher, speaking to Jennifer Schuessler of the New York Times, April 10, 2019

Of all Broadway shows in recent memory, none has been so critically-acclaimed, insightful and as culturally relevant as Hamilton. Written in a passionate 6 years by Lin Manuel-Miranda, who also plays the lead, the musical tells the story of a lesser-known Founding Father. At a critical time in United States politics today, how do our current political landscape and patriotic sentiments reflect the life and times of the industrious, brilliant and orphaned architect of many systems still in place? This week we welcome Megan Carr to analyze some of the lyrical, social and historical complexity. What does the show's popularity say about our interests today? How do we respond to a racially diverse cast which leaves out prominent figures of color in the American Revolution? How are women characterized and described within the musical? How is Alexander Hamilton portrayed as a heroic protagonist and in what ways is his story altered to reflect a potentially idealized narrative? And in what ways has the musical shed light on the means by which we teach and tell history?

Episode 97: Finding Your Comedic Voice

“About those bombings–it will happen. And it will hurt you will question your existence. The true test of whether or not you have the comic gene is whether or not you keep doing it in spite of that. I’m not even sure it’s much of a choice. When I started I could eat it in a room with a “crowd” of four people and yet somehow I still wanted to go up again as soon as possible–it might be a behavioral defect or an uncontrollable need for attention. Either way, if you have the same compulsion, it will ensure that you stay on the talkie side of a mic in front of other humans.”
— Chris Hardwick of The Nerdist, August 31, 2009
“You find what feels wrong in your gut, and make sure you stop doing it. And make sure you do it every day, no matter how painful, because no laugh is worth sacrificing the vision that is going to make you different from everyone else.”
— John Roy, "A Brief Word on Honing Your Comedic Voice," February 8, 2015

In our daily interactions and social patterns, we might detect categories of humor but rarely consider our individual comedic voices. What are the factors in our lives which determine what we find funny, how we see the world and how we bridge these traits? How do our comedic voices demonstrate our most fundamental characteristics? How do our personal preferences in comedy illuminate inherent tensions in our personalities? This week we welcome back Mike Jest to explore how one goes about finding and sculpting a comedic voice. We discuss the value of clear communication in a refined comedic voice. Furthermore, we explore the roles listening, relaxation and self-reliance play in discovering one's personal tone in comedy.

Episode 96: "Islam and Liberal Democracy"

“From a historical perspective it would seem that of all the non-Western civilizations in the world, Islam offers the best prospects for Western-style democracy. Historically, culturally, religiously, it is the closest to the West, sharing much—though by no means all—of the Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman heritage that helped to form our modern civilization.”
— Bernard Lewis of The Atlantic, February 1993
“Comparing the relationship between property and power in the modern American and classical Middle Eastern systems, one might put the difference this way: in America one uses money to buy power, while in the Middle East one uses power to acquire money. That is obviously an oversimplification, and there are significant exceptions on both sides. The misuse of public office for financial gain is not unknown in the United States; the use of money to buy into the political process is not unfamiliar in the traditional Middle East.”
— Bernard Lewis of The Atlantic, February 1993

In an increasingly globalized world, many of us submit to generalizations, misunderstandings and politics of vehemence. Particularly in recent decades, sharp hatred and criticism have been cultivated in the West against the followers of Islam. This week, we welcome Sewar Al-Quraan to discuss a 1993 essay by Bernard Lewis which examines the history and relationship between Islam and the West. It should be noted that these are broad labels applied to billions of lives, and as such they fail to get at personal and nuanced experience. In what ways do we perpetuate these stereotypes? Do we ever treat the religious tradition of Islam as a form of government? Do we ever see religious devotion in liberal democracies like the United States? As ever, our conversation is not final nor declaratory. We will absolutely revisit this and similar topics in the future.

Episode 95: Why the Gun?

“When my kids started preschool, the teachers had to take away all the fake bananas because all the boys would pick them up and pretend that they were guns. Boys find sticks to play swords and anything that looks like a gun to shoot. It’s just inside of them. It’s who they are. ”
— Dean Norris
“Yes, people pull the trigger - but guns are the instrument of death. Gun control is necessary, and delay means more death and horror.”
— Eliot Spitzer

As Americans, we are often faced with news stories regarding mass shootings, fatal accidents and attacks involving guns. The issue has been heavily politicized, discussed and argued, but as a result, we have stopped thinking about why the gun appeals to so many. That's why we spoke with Alex Piper this week, to theorize about the ubiquitous weapon's appeal and relationship to humanity. We discuss the gun as a means of freedom and independence, both personally and politically. As a product of design and engineering, is the gun most powerful as a symbol? Why do some regard guns with fear while others relish and appreciate the gun as a tool?