Episode 104: The American Response to September 11

“On September 11, 2001, a tiny group of deluded men — members of al-Qaida, a fringe group of a fringe group with grandiose visions of its own importance — managed, again largely because of luck, to pull off a risky, if clever and carefully planned, terrorist act that became by far the most destructive in history.”
— John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart in "The Terrorism Delusion"
“Accordingly, it is surely time to consider that, as Russell Seitz put it in 2004, ‘9/11 could join the Trojan Horse and Pearl Harbor among stratagems so uniquely surprising that their very success precludes their repetition,’ and, accordingly, that ‘al-Qaeda’s best shot may have been exactly that.’”
— Mueller and Stewart quoting Russell Seitz in "Weaker Than We Think"

Nearly fifteen years ago, members of al-Qaeda hijacked four airplanes, killing 2,996 and injuring over 6,000 in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The unprecedented tragedy of the event led many Americans, including politicians, to wonder about the likelihood of similar atrocities in the future. This week, we welcome Sam Whipple to discuss an article written in 2012 entitled "The Terrorism Delusion: America's Overwrought Response to September 11". In the article, authors John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart suggest that the political and security responses since the attacks have been blown out of proportion and imply a false probability and reality of terrorism that statistics do not reflect. In what ways do our communal fears and feelings of empathy lead us to trust in any promise of safety? How do politicians capitalize on emotion rather than facts and statistics? How might we have a healthy conversation as a country and a globe which acknowledges both legitimate fears and consistent evidence?

Episode 103: TRAP Laws and Abortion Rights

“Four decades after the 1973 supreme court ruling Roe v Wade gave women a constitutional right to abortion, the Boyds say they are “deeply disturbed” by the march of anti-abortion laws. They believe the procedure has been hijacked as a political rather than a medical issue, causing women to feel more shame than ever before.”
— Karen McVeigh, The Guardian, November 21, 2014
“Empathy can be the foundation of profound understanding, communication and connection despite differences, the central mechanic of any personal or character-driven story, real or fictional. If indifference maintains a callous and unjust status quo, to be moved to feel deeply or strongly for another must therefore be positive and constructive, and if not helpful than certainly not harmful.”
— K. Talt Jarboe, The Toast, December 3, 2015

Given our belief in honest, thoughtful discourse, we must at times cover topics and issues that are politically, emotionally and personally charged. As issues themselves grow more controversial, we tend to internalize these very polarized arguments over critical debates. Our interest in objectivity is therefore more difficult to disentangle from our personal biases, whatever they may be. This week, we welcome Charlotte Graham to discuss controversial TRAP Laws dealing with a woman's right to an abortion. While we are both pro-choice individuals, we do hope listeners who feel differently will feel comfortable sharing their perspectives as well. We examine misunderstandings we perceive in the discussion as well as the political efforts made by those who disapprove of the access to abortion. What are some of the consequences for a woman's biological autonomy? Is the argument related to a quantity of life vs. a quality of life dichotomy? How can we have more respectful and open-minded discussions over such tense issues?

Episode 102: The Accelerated Audio Mentality

“Radio — like film, music, TV, theater, and dance — is a temporal art. It relies on the passage of time to play with anticipation, tension, and release. A good radio producer knows how long a thought will linger in a listener’s consciousness, and either grants her that time, or purposely denies it. A conversation between two hosts is riddled with pregnant pauses and interruptions designed to head off miscommunications. We’re used to these patterns, and a good podcast is paced to play into them. Why, then, should we mess with that balance in the name of efficiency?”
— John Lagomarsino, The Verge, February 17, 2015.
“No one has yet broken the four-minute ‘TED Radio Hour,’ but in Cambridge, Chris Kalafarski, a senior developer at the online platform PRX, the Public Radio Exchange, has trained himself to listen to podcasts at twice the speed of Ira Glass.
’My brain has adjusted to it,’ he said. His brother’s brain, he noted, has not, so even though Kalafarski uses an app that eliminates the high-pitched chipmunk problem that comes with a faster speed, his sibling hates being in the car when Kalafarski turbo-charges podcasts to twice the speed — or 2x, as the speed-listening crowd puts it.”
— Beth Teitell, The Boston Globe, November 6, 2015.

For those who listen to podcasts on any number of applications, software has paved the way to speed up content and consume it more quickly. Various listeners report enjoying shows at 1.5, 2 or even 3 times the recorded rate. While this may seem like a simple choice to some, what might be the long-term outcomes of such decisions? And in looking back, what aspects of our culture, our sense of patience and time and our personal interests might compel us to consume content more voraciously? Should content creators be more conscientious of listener needs and preferences?

Episode 101: Purity Balls

“When I first heard about the purity balls I imagined angry American fathers terrified of anything that might hurt their daughters or their honour. But as I learnt more, I understood that the fathers, like all parents, simply wanted to protect the ones that they love – in the best way they know how. It was also often the girls themselves that had taken the initiative to attend the balls.”
— David Magnusson, The Independent, May 23, 2015.
“I wanted to create portraits so beautiful that the girls and their fathers could be proud of the pictures in the same way they are proud of their decisions –- while someone from a different background might see an entirely different story in the very same photographs.”
— David Magnusson, The Huffington Post, May 5, 2014

As the modern era has developed and expanded various ideas and definitions, notable stigma and presumptions surrounding sex and sexuality still remain. In particular, the sexual freedom of some is cast down as promiscuity, fecklessness and misdirection by others. This led Swedish photographer David Magnusson to pursue stories related to purity balls, emotionally prominent events in which young daughters vow to abstain from sex until marriage, and their fathers promise to protect their purity in return. Certainly, where the realms of sexuality and spirituality combine, people tend to develop very strong opinions. What do purity balls teach us about willpower and personal devotion? How do we negotiate freedom of choice with deeply-held doctrine? Can we navigate these realms with a critical lens without offering judgment and condemnation of one side or another?

Episode 100: For the "Weird"

“There’s a whole category of people who miss out by not allowing themselves to be weird enough.”
— Alain de Botton
“I think what people call “weird” comes part and parcel with people who are brilliant in some way. So embrace your weird. Embrace your eccentricity.”
— Eileen Anglin
“There are people who are generic. They make generic responses and they expect generic answers. They live inside a box and they think people who don’t fit into their box are weird. But I’ll tell you what, generic people are the weird people. They are like genetically-manipulated plants growing inside a laboratory, like indistinguishable faces, like droids. Like ignorance.”
— C. Joybell C.

For our hundredth episode, I wanted to cover something I felt both universally significant and intimately connected to my personal experience. For as long as I can remember expressing myself and any multitude of thoughts and feelings I've had, others have labelled me as "weird". The term has always truck me as intentionally disparaging, a means by which we keep the herd homogeneous and deter social outliers. But what if our (rather common) use of the term stems from a place of fear of difference? This week I had the pleasure of speaking with Houda El Joundi about the word and its implications. How might those who cast judgment on others for being "weird" actually close doors and prohibit open-mindedness in themselves? How might the term promote a cycle of misunderstanding and a failure to empathize? Although I suspect many may not find the term nearly as hostile or polarizing, I hope all of our listeners will reflect on the profound power such a brief and ubiquitous word can have. - Kip