The even-more-spectacular 4-part final ICBW podcast of 2020 is now available for our listeners to (attempt to) enjoy.  Part 1 discusses COVID hypocrites in government; part 2 delves into election integrity, this year and beyond; part 3 explores recent political efforts to dismantle local criminal justice systems, and the motivations behind them; and part 4 explains the famous "Section 230" and its relationship to social media.  As always, we encourage listeners to leave comments here to respond to our arguments, or merely to let us know they exist... 

 The spectacular new 4-part post-election ICBW podcast is now available, and it's jam-packed with thoughtful and provocative conversation.  Part 1 briefly covers the election fraud issue, part 2 discusses the likely character of the Biden administration, part 3 is a meditation on the general nature of political power, and part 4 reaches back for a look at the affair of Hunter Biden's laptop.  As always, listeners are plaintively urged to respond via comments, if only to prove that they exist...

 The October edition of the ICBW podcast is now available for listening.  In part 1, we discuss the latest on the COVID-19 pandemic and the presidential debate; part 2 covers the recent rise in enthusiasm for censorship in certain quarters, and part 3 discusses Antifa and other anti-democratic movements, and how to deal with them.  Last chance to listen (and comment) before the election!

 The Labor Day edition of the ICBW podcast is now available.  In part 1, we discuss recent urban unrest, in part 2 we debate the sincerity of public figures' professed political positions, and in part 3 we speculate on the mental condition of this year's presidential candidates.  As always, listeners are encouraged to respond to our discussion by adding comments to this post, rather than by, say, rioting or looting.

 The August edition of the ICBW podcast is now posted.  Part 1 covers the Beirut explosion and voting security issues raised by mail-in ballots, discussion of which continues in part 2.  In part 3 we discuss the Orwellian--or perhaps not-so-Orwellian--semantic games recently infecting the discourse (including the constant introduction of ill-defined terms such as "the discourse" into the discourse).  As always, listeners are invited to post responses in the form of comments on this post, which, unlike most podcasters, we in fact actually read...  

The July ICBW podcast is now available, filled to the brim with pertinent topics and rambling, irrelevant digressions from them.  In part 1, we discuss recent unrest in US cities, with a lengthy digression on the question of whether the American Revolution was a good idea.  In part 2, we compare "cancel culture" with its predecessor, McCarthyism, before wandering off into topics such as crime and the cyclicality (or lack thereof) of political and social trends.  Finally, in part 3, we discuss MIT's response to COVID-19, which triggers general pondering of the questions of what should be studied in fields such as history and science.  Perfect listening for our ADD-afflicted fans!

The June edition of the ICBW podcast is now available.  Part one discusses the causes and consequences of the recent nationwide protests/riots/looting, part two delves into what the unrest reveals about policing, and part three looks at "expertise" and scientific integrity--how to identify the former, and how to preserve (or perhaps restore) the latter.  Perfect curfew listening! 

The May edition of the ICBW podcast is now available.  In part 1, we discuss (what else?) COVID-19 and how to deal with it, including the ideas in my recent post on the subject.  In part 2, we move to politics--specifically, the 2020 election and the Flynn case.  And in part 3, we discuss the recent wave of enthusiasm for Internet censorship, and its relationship to political partisanship.  Stay safe and healthy, listeners!

The current debate over "opening up" various cities and states, as opposed to "keeping them closed", in response to the local state of the COVID-19 epidemic, makes absolutely no sense to me.  First of all, "opening up" and "keeping closed" are not binary choices--there are infinitely many gradations between a complete lockdown and the pre-epidemic state.  In fact, no place (in America, at least) has been placed in a "complete lockdown" state since the epidemic began--every place, for example, allows "essential services", defined variously, to continue to operate.  Secondly, the continuum isn't even single-dimensional--rather, there are all kinds of specific rules that can be imposed that allow or prohibit various activities in various locations under various rules.  The possible combinations are endless.  So how do we decide among them?

The reason so many people are so baffled by these choices, in my opinion, is that we lack clear information on the effects of various restrictive countermeasures.  Suppose we require everyone in a particular location or pursuing a particular activity to wear some kind of cloth mask.  How much would that cut down on the spread of COVID-19?  What about requiring 6 feet of space between people?  12 feet?  6 feet plus a mask?  Does it matter whether it's indoors or outdoors?  As far as I know, we simply don't yet have good, quantitative answers to these questions, and until we do, we can't really determine what policy to impose on activities that involve interactions among people from different households.  (That's why most locales have been resorting to the one big hammer they know works:  fairly complete lockdown.)

Our first priority, therefore, should be to gather the data necessary to answer these questions as quickly and accurately as possible.  Once we have the answers, the issue of "essential" vs. "non-essential" activities will likely disappear.  Instead, we will be able to ask the question, "what set of restrictions makes a particular activity--whether essential or non-essential--under a particular set of circumstances acceptably low-risk for infection?  For example, shopping--whether for essential groceries or non-essential fashion apparel--is presumably reasonably safe under the right set of conditions, and once we have determined those conditions, we should apply them equally to all retail environments.  The same can be said of other activities, whether recreational, commercial, social or political.  (It's of course possible that for some previously popular activities, a reasonably safe set of conditions simply doesn't exist.  But one hopes that that set of activities is fairly small.)

Perhaps more importantly, approaching the issue in these terms is likely to mitigate a lot of the raucous political and social conflict surrounding it.  Right now, discussions about how and when to "open up" are dominated by loud, belligerent and largely ignorant voices, because more reasonable ones have little in the way of concrete proposals or supporting evidence to back them up.  Armed with a set of specific, transparent and scientifically supported policies, though--rather than a pair of vague, broad options--the reasonable voices might actually have a fighting chance.

The April Fools' Day edition of the ICBW podcast is now available to entertain anyone foolish enough to listen.  In part 1, we discuss--what else, COVID-19, what was done, why it was done, and what could (or couldn't) have been done instead.  In part 2, we discuss microeconomic responses to the pandemic, and in part 3, we discuss macroeconomic responses and their effects, along with our by-now-standard digressions into academia, environmentalism and Constitutional law.  All in all, perfect listening for fools everywhere!

The March 2020 edition of the ICBW podcast is now available for download or streaming.  In part 1, we discuss the novel coronavirus and its press coverage, digressing into a general discussion of the evolution of the press in the US over the last century or so.  In part 2, we assess the recent proposed peace treaties between Israel and the Palestinians, and between the US and the Taliban in Afghanistan.  And in part 3, we look at the recent protests by Canadian Native peoples against various energy projects, and consider the whole question of indigenous status in a modern country like Canada.  Perfect self-isolation listening!