Podcast Central

[PaloAltoCougar]

The latest Freakonomics podcast (no. 384) revisits the controversial Freakonomics chapter several years back tying the substantial drop in violent crimes to Roe v. Wade and the increase in abortions. A paper published later pointed out a coding error in the authors' research (and which many have used to claim their conclusions were bogus). But they've since corrected that and the conclusion remains. Interestingly, they've been attacked by people on both sides of the abortion debate, receiving more death threats from the left than the right.

It includes an interesting discussion about "unwantedness," and how that trait often results in criminal behavior as the child matures. Among the takeaways is that we should be focusing more on eliminating "unwantedness" rather than simply eliminating fetuses. Netherlands, with very liberal abortion laws, has a substantially lower abortion rate than the U.S. but it focuses more on improving "wantedness" than do we.

Take a listen.

[Green Monstah]

dax shepard is totally unlistenable. maybe the worst non-dehlin interviewer of all time.

I won't argue with you, but his guest list is solid, and he gets them to talk.

[old_gregg]

Dax Shepard's "Armchair Expert" is pretty good. He's got a solid list of guests, but I can't shake how annoying he is, especially since his wife is a 10/10.

Sincerely X is an interesting podcast from Ted. Real life stories told by the party involved anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the events in question.

dax shepard is totally unlistenable. maybe the worst non-dehlin interviewer of all time.

[Green Monstah]

Dax Shepard's "Armchair Expert" is pretty good. He's got a solid list of guests, but I can't shake how annoying he is, especially since his wife is a 10/10.

Sincerely X is an interesting podcast from Ted. Real life stories told by the party involved anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the events in question.

[Northwestcoug]

For those of you who listened to the second season of "In The Dark", Curtis Flowers' murder conviction was thrown out by the supreme court today. Not on the facts of the case per se, but because of blatant prejudice by the prosecutor by excluding black jurors, on...6...separate....trials....for....the....same. ....crime. I still can't believe that happened.

I'd bet the "In the Dark" team feels pretty proud of their work. They should be.

[PaloAltoCougar]

He really bugged me at first, but I am getting over it. The interviews are really interesting.

I like his voice, but a third of my practice is with Indian clients so he fits right in. Always an interesting podcast. I also like Freakonomics, Conan, The Remnant (Jonah Goldberg) and On Being (Krista Tippet). My happy place is doing 2-3 hr. hikes Saturday morning listening to those.

[BigPiney]

But what if I can't stand Shankar Vedantam's voice?

He really bugged me at first, but I am getting over it. The interviews are really interesting.

[falafel]

Sounds interesting.

I recently started listening to Hidden Brain groom NPR. It had probably been mentioned here before, but I find out really well done.

But what if I can't stand Shankar Vedantam's voice?

[Northwestcoug]

Sounds interesting.

I recently started listening to Hidden Brain groom NPR. It had probably been mentioned here before, but I find out really well done.

I’ve heard good things about that one. Haven’t listened to it yet though.

[BigPiney]

I got tired if waiting for Moliere, so I subscribed to Conan O’Brien’s podcast. I’m a fan, so I’m really enjoying it so far. But I’m surprised at how good of an interviewer he is with more time. I’ve listened to the David Sedaris and Jimmy Kimmel episodes. They’re pretty solid IMO.

Sounds interesting.

I recently started listening to Hidden Brain groom NPR. It had probably been mentioned here before, but I find out really well done.

[Northwestcoug]

I got tired if waiting for Moliere, so I subscribed to Conan O’Brien’s podcast. I’m a fan, so I’m really enjoying it so far. But I’m surprised at how good of an interviewer he is with more time. I’ve listened to the David Sedaris and Jimmy Kimmel episodes. They’re pretty solid IMO.

[Green Monstah]

My biggest beef with Simmons is that for a dude who is from Boston, he sure sounds like he grew up in SoCal.

I want my boston sports homers to sound like Jerry Remy.

[Northwestcoug]

He was really good and quite funny back before Boston was winning rings on the reg. The Pats and Sox first wins changed him a bit, and he became completely insufferable when the Celtics backed into a ring in ‘08. He’s clearly a bright, talented guy, as evidenced by the 30-for-30 series (he’s the brainchild behind that) but since arriving, he has mailed it in. The only clicks he gets from me are his guess the lines podcast during the NFL season, and that’s only because I love Cousin Sal.

I guess if you didn’t know how good he was before, I can understand why you might enjoy his current shtick.

No I remember. I thought his early stuff on ESPN was brilliant, even if the articles he posted were long. I don't listen to him regularly any more. I'll listen to a playoff/super bowl podcast here and there. I agree with you; he does mail it in more often than not.

[creekster]

He was really good and quite funny back before Boston was winning rings on the reg. The Pats and Sox first wins changed him a bit, and he became completely insufferable when the Celtics backed into a ring in ‘08. He’s clearly a bright, talented guy, as evidenced by the 30-for-30 series (he’s the brainchild behind that) but since arriving, he has mailed it in. The only clicks he gets from me are his guess the lines podcast during the NFL season, and that’s only because I love Cousin Sal.

I guess if you didn’t know how good he was before, I can understand why you might enjoy his current shtick.

COuld be true, but I have listened to him from time to time for a number of years, and I still think he is ok. He is certainly becoming increasingly self-indulgent and I wish someone he trusts would point out that not everything he says is clever, not every question he forms in his mind should be asked, and not all topics about Boston work for everyone else. That said, he does a nice job of describing his podcasts topics by time stamp so I can pick and choose if there is anything I want to listen and avoid the rest or all of it if not. You're probably right; he probably isn't as good as he once was, but he is still better than most and as good as many, from my POV.

[Donuthole]

I only know him through this podcast. He seems like a sports know-it-all sometimes, but that's almost everyone on this board, so, what sets him apart?

I don't get it either. The only thing that bugs me about him is that he is too much of a boston homer, but that's what the skip ahead function is for. Otherwise he isn't much worse or better than most of the blowhards with podcasts or that post here.

He doesn't bug me as much as others. But then again, Boston homers don't bug me

He was really good and quite funny back before Boston was winning rings on the reg. The Pats and Sox first wins changed him a bit, and he became completely insufferable when the Celtics backed into a ring in ‘08. He’s clearly a bright, talented guy, as evidenced by the 30-for-30 series (he’s the brainchild behind that) but since arriving, he has mailed it in. The only clicks he gets from me are his guess the lines podcast during the NFL season, and that’s only because I love Cousin Sal.

I guess if you didn’t know how good he was before, I can understand why you might enjoy his current shtick.