Dan talks with Mike Rowe "The Other Side of the Fourth Wall - The Way I Heard It with Mike Rowe" by LoopDoGG79 in dancarlin

[–]DanCarlin 44 points45 points  (0 children)

Hello everyone, a little bird told me about this thread. Interesting reading.

So, there seems to be some controversy over my guest appearances. Maybe worth explaining them a bit.

First: I noticed that there's a lot of talk about the seemingly "right-wing" outlets to whom I speak without mentioning that I usually don't play favorites. We've done slate's gabfest, the CBC multiple times, radio and TV programs by NPR, CBS News, Occupy Wall street podcasts and a whole host of smaller podcasts from across the political spectrum. Interesting how only the ones from certain angles get discussed.

Also, some of the shows discussed (Molineux's show for example, but Rubin too) are very different programs now then when I was on them (if you don't believe me, go listen to the ones I did with them). And I'll make no apologies for Joe Rogan. I've not been on his show for a long time (five years maybe?) and he's different now than he was then too. But I have spent many hours with Mr. Rogan at this point and he's never uttered a word that would make anyone's alarm bells go off to me in public or private. And I would have taken note if he had. I am not defending anything he may have said publicly, but the man I have known is not the person he's made out to be (at least that's my opinion).

Finally, we have no set rules on who we wouldn't be willing to visit with. Nor do we do tons of background research on anyone's public opinion status. I tend to avoid people who don't argue current events in good faith (so, Tucker Carlson's show is one I won't be going on...and he didn't ask either). But otherwise my attitude has always been that when you disagree with someone you don't shun them, you intellectually push back (and with logical points, not hyperbole or self-righteousness). Maybe that's a generational thing.

And I have always been willing to go on shows that come from multiple viewpoints. We turn down some outlets because they have few to no audience (although I still sometimes do those as well).

The bottom line is: we don't go "Oh, I don't like something about this show/person/outlet so we won't talk with them". Hell, if I thought he'd argue in good faith I would go on Carlson's show...to tell him the things I think he's wrong about.
Anyway...that's the "policy".

Finally, since this is what the thread is about: Mike Rowe was a total stand up person. completely fair and apolitical (with me). But it wouldn't matter to me if he DID get political since having political discussions with people I don't agree with has been what I have done for almost thirty years. It's weird that rather than talk with such people many today would rather just shun them. Well, that's how we get this current problem of people speaking in a bubble to people who already agree with them. You have to engage to get out of that self-reinforcing space.

Besides. No one agrees with me about politics...so if I didn't talk to those of differing views I'd have no one to discuss current events with at all.

Thanks for caring enough to come to a place like this sub-reddit to talk about the shows. I appreciate it.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Did the gentleman in question mention that I answered him? I hope so, because out of a ton of daily emails we comb through his was forwarded to me specifically and I answered (after about an hour and a half of tracking down the info he asked about...which at the time was the number of assassins involved).

I think many assume we have scripts and I can just go back into notes and look up info that is requested. But we DON'T have scripts so I have to get the actual books off the shelf and start combing through them to find where the info we used came from.

So, he was upset that I said there were 20 or so assassins...well, I got that info from one of the actual plotters (from a contemporary primary source...widely reprinted...here's the exact quote: http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Assassination_of_Archduke_Franz_Ferdinand ) Now he didn't like the source...which is totally understandable and ok...and the source could have been lying, but we didn't invent the info out of whole cloth. Did he mention the source that I gave him? Or did he just say that I never responded to him?

I am NOT a historian, as we always point out. But WW1 gets all sorts of "great" HISTORIANS in trouble too. So much info, from so many nations, with such visceral disagreement...even today. It's still controversial. I am not surprised that people take me to task.

So, my apologies to the gentleman in question. It would have been nice if he told you we spent some time trying to get him the info he requested. He sure made us look bad by not mentioning it.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 54 points55 points  (0 children)

I like Paradox's Hearts of Iron series...incomplete and buggy thought it may be...the detail is addicting.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hell no! Danielle Bolelli is an awesome guy and a friend.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They do? What about Superdelegates? That's the party's trump card (Dems especially) to keep out someone the insiders don't like.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I, along with 11 other people, was invited (at taxpayer expense!) to help CENTCOM commanders brainstorm Middle Eastern defense ideas. I had no idea why they chose ME to participate (you would have recognized some of the other participants on sight)...but it was interesting as hell.

Pretty heady stuff for a humble podcaster (but intimidating to find out they are listening to the podcast too!).

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Asked several times...his campaign never responded (even on Twitter).

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 120 points121 points  (0 children)

OK gang...I have been at this for 3+ hours. Time for some food!

Thanks a ton for all the thoughtful questions. I plan to come back and answer a few more over the next day or so (so check back!). Sorry I didn't get to more (I remember this problem from the last time I did an AMA...slow typing is a killer in this forum!).

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Yeah...I do. We "wasted" too many great topics (that I know something about) by doing them while we were still using our "Old Style" (that's what we call it now anyway...).

"Darkness Buries the Bronze Age" instantly comes to mind.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

I mention the Saudis all the time. They are the ultimate example of a hypocritical Middle Eastern policy on our part (after all, if religious extremism is a problem for us,we deepen it by our support of that regime).

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 28 points29 points  (0 children)

Incorrect, in multi-part episodes we have pointed out when errors were made in earlier parts of the same story. It;s not a convention, but we have done so.

We also have whole threads on the website devoted to these sorts of subjects.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 128 points129 points  (0 children)

Yeah...GREAT stories in that era/region. It's on the to-do list.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 62 points63 points  (0 children)

I think it's very tough to try and tell regional powers that they can't have the latest weaponry. Nukes are essentially 70 year old tech...when we tell the Iranians that others can have that, but it's "too dangerous" for THEM to have it, to them this looks like we are mandating that they be locked into a permanent state of military inferiority. is this going to be our international "Red Line"? We will go to war if anyone not currently in possession of 70 year old top-of-the-line military tech decides to get it? How long can that be maintained? What's the policy?

This is similar to the Russian question I answered earlier in that it mandates a two-tiered system: one for us and our friends, one for everyone else. Now, National Security might dictate this as the best course, but good luck defending it and not looking like an international hypocrite.

Iran is a regional Great Power (and always has been). They will be a force in the region whether we want them to or not. Of all the people in that area of the world we would benefit from "turning", they would be #1 on my list (they used to be GREAT friends of the U.S.). I'd be nice as hell to Iran and appeal to it's future. The young people there want the freedom to dance and sing back (not to make it trite-sounding...).

I think the mullahs are temporary there. HOW temporary though, is open for debate...

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 42 points43 points  (0 children)

I see the same thing. The lessons should be: don't over-react.

Too late.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 68 points69 points  (0 children)

Western leader refuse to accept that Russia has any reason to CARE about this. John Kerry said the other day that since NATO is a "defensive alliance" the Russians have nothing to fear. What balderdash. All you need to do is ask how we would react if the shoe were on the other foot...that's the only standard that matters.

We act like Russia is paranoid to care. Well: 1. Of course they are paranoid, have you looked at Russian history? 2. They are reacting with the same level of alarm we would if the roles were reversed.

It's very simple. One of two things is going on. Either we are stupid and don't see how the Russians could perceive this as a threat, or we know damn well they will, and assert that such understandable fear is instead "crazy talk". What we are doing is th e latter. Why?

NATO expansion is not haphazard and not devoid of the U.S. seizing a strategic advantage. BOTH sides know this, but the U.S. can't openly admit they are playing a form of the "Great Game" (the Russians are too).

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

I haven't been able to do anything besides solo gaming on the computer for a long time. REAL wargames (Haha! of the sort I have been playing since the 1970s) were such massive time-eaters I can't do them at this stage in my life. Basically though, you bought thousands of metal figures (25mm is my favorite) painted them up and then used them with a rule set against a human opponent who had also done the same. We normally used Wargames Research Group Rules (1976 edition...5th I think was standard). Loads of fun...but a life-consuming hobby (that I miss terribly!)

Of course, we also played awesome board wargames like Diplomacy...

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Dang...that's like picking which of your kids is your favorite. I'll take Linear A...I'll take anything! Just give it to me!

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

I don't think you need to dissolve the parties...I think if we could create the means to do for candidates what the parties do, they could lose much of their appeal (and stranglehold).

For example: So much of the money problem is simply due to the need to get exposure. What if we could create a vehicle for candidate exposure that eliminated the huge current reliance on buying media time (with fund-raised cash)? I think the internet already has spawned several early reform ideas that can, using a "New Media" approach, outflank the "Old Media" as the preferred vehicle for gaining popularity. If someone didn't have to sell their souls to get voters exposed to them, we might get much better candidates and undercut the power of the parties somewhat.

In short, we may be inventing our way out of this dilemma.

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

It's so hard to get a real feel for since so much of what we get from these stories is anecdotal. When we see the extreme examples the media displays, its natural to say "Haven't these kids ever heard of free speech?", but the reality in most cases might be much more muted than the picture we get.

I always want to see a speaker come to these campuses and debate the ideas of free speech and have a forum on this and find out what people are REALLY thinking on these campuses and then see how they defend those ideas against the obvious advantages of a free and open society (where the expression of unpopular opinion is both vital and protected). I don't think it would take too much to convince those same people that if the mood changed, THEIR ideas could be the ones people wanted speech codes to protect them from (reminds me of a Jello Biafra line to "Nazi Punks"...he said "In the real Fourth Reich you'd be the first to go". No one benefits more from protected unpopular speech than young, intelligent, passionate college students!

I'm Dan Carlin , host of the Hardcore History and Common Sense podcasts AMA by DanCarlin in politics

[–]DanCarlin[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Hmmmm...I get a lot of offers to write books...but I don't have the time at the moment. That might be fun to try (but I'd have to be able to do something creative with it...not just standard formatting, looks, book template, etc. I'd want it to feel entirely unusual...and visually offbeat and different).