This week’s episode of the Broadly Focused Podcast – OK, yes, I get it. It’s been a long time. Where’d you go? Are you podfading? No one actually asked these questions, mind you, but we imagine some of you were at least thinking something along the lines… right? We talk about it.
iTunes is jacked up somehow. Maybe I did it when I tried to change our category… I don’t know. The people trying to help are clearly doing their jobs, and they have tried to offer helpful information, but unfortunately, some of it just doesn’t make sense. I talk about it.
Our show is now on Stitcher!
Listen to us on your iPhone, Android Phone, Kindle Fire and other devices with Stitcher. Stitcher is Smart Radio for Your phone. Find it in your app store or at stitcher.com
Stitcher SmartRadio- The Smarter Way to listen to radio
Broadly Focused Podcast: Still alive?
That’s right, we’re the damn news! We wanted to address the 800 pound gorilla in the intertube right off the bat – a series of events, some sad, some good times with family, some poor communication and planning…
A Republican congressman who’s retiring in frustration over political gridlock says he hopes the institution doesn’t have to hit “rock bottom” before people learn to work together.
Ohio’s Steven LaTourette tells MSNBC it’s more difficult for a reasonable person to get re-elected to Congress because “the red districts are turning redder and the blue districts are turning bluer.”
The red-versus-blue theory came to prominence when political analysts began breaking down the electoral map in terms of blue states as Democratic-leaning and red states as Republican. LaTourette says Friday that voters haven’t demanded enough. He says when Congress failed to make a deal on budget cuts, quote, “I didn’t get one phone call. I didn’t get one email.”
He says people should have been saying, “What’s wrong with these chuckleheads?”
Items of interest:
Brian – LevLight Project
Matt – SkepticalScience.com
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn’t what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that refutes global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?