Follow us on Twitter

Podcasts - Remote Viewing: Episode 49

Tons of goodies this week, not the least of being....guess who shows up to talk about movies and tv shows with Cyrus and Brian?...CO-HOST!

2:12

12:12

19:40

33:45

44:12

48:00

57:22

66:34

82:02

88:56

94:40

99:33

103:23

108:47

111:05

120:53

Tags: podcast, spill, spill.com, remote viewing, dvd, blu-ray, review, cyrus, brian, luke, cohost

66 Comments for Remote Viewing: Episode 49

March 10, 2013 at 12:04 AM, cat said ...

I don't really like Keira Knightley in period pieces and especially in book adaptations as I never feel like she makes an effort to become the character. Never Let Me Go, Pride and Prejudice, Atonement, etc. I will probably catch Anna Karenina on DVD for the costumes but I'm not expecting a lot from the performances.
March 04, 2013 at 3:59 AM, Juan said ...

Life of Pi was easily the only film that was nominated for best picture that had a message and tried to have strong themes. Most oscar films dont have balls
March 03, 2013 at 5:15 AM, said ...

fuck you brian, life of pi deserved that Oscar
March 01, 2013 at 11:10 PM, said ...

OK, fair enough, AI Luo. But there are a lot of things in Objectivism that I still will never agree with. The main reason probably stems from the fact that the rich were the primary examples Ayn Rand used for "enlightened self-interest"; people we should look up to and nearly worship because they are so rich. Why I disagree with that is because 80-90% of the rich inherit their wealth from already rich families (Bush, Clinton, English Royal Families, Romney and you get the point) rather than achieve it through merit.

Other ideas in Ayn Rand's thinking, mainly disowning all emotions, encouraging dogma and throwing away benevolence for "enlightened self-interest" are stuff that I just can not see myself becoming involved in. Again, some of this stuff can work on paper, but not in the real world.
March 01, 2013 at 3:34 AM, said ...

@Chaos Jumper. That's what I'm not getting with some people's perceptions of Ayn Rand. It has nothing to do with wealth.

If you actually read the books you'll see that there are plenty of rich people in those stories that are most definitely the villains. In fact I'd venture to say that about 90% of all the "rich" and "powerful" people in the Rand books are in direct opposition to the protagonists. And the only protagonists in Rand books, like Dagny Taggart and Gail Wynand who could be considered rich and powerful, are portrayed as people who have their hearts in the right place, but on the wrong path. By the end of the stories, they are only saved by giving up their massive wealth and power.

I really don't understand why people think Rand = rich exploiting the poor. It makes no goddamn sense.
March 01, 2013 at 1:24 AM, crazypants88 said ...

@Cyrus, whether my sources are biased or not is irrelevant. If that was a basis to disregard arguments I could just disregard The Jungle as Upton Sinclair was blatantly biased. And if you actually read up on what the Meat packing companies reaction was to this law you'll see that they welcomed it as like I've said they realized that they could much more easily cartelize markets if there's even more barriers to entry than there already are and that they can leave the tax payer with the bill when it comes regulation.

I also never said that fiction can't influence public perception, that's again irrelevant of The Jungle's validity as a real life account of what actually went on in the Chicago meat packers. And again, most of the terrible things describe in The Jungle did not match reality. Again, annually there were about two million people that toured the stockyards and the meat packing companies, yet it wasn't until a blatantly politically motivated writer comes around that these supposed unsanitary and immoral acts get attention.

And again where my argument sound like they came from is once again completely irrelevant. Most of this info I've just memorized but I'll post some links I can find here.

The Jungle was very succesful at doing what it set out to do, but that does nothing to add to the validity of the book as an actual account of what went down there at that time. Also, again, what is "rightly condemned" is by every indication just stuff that Sinclair made up.

It's pretty much factual that The Jungle is not what you describe it as, even granting most of your arguments as valid, since there was already state regulation before the Meat Inspection Act which the book played a big part in getting passed.

Here I'll post some of the stuff I found on this topic.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Meat_packing

http://www.mackinac.org/4084

http://libertymaven.com/2010/06/08/the-truth-about-the-jungle-by-upton-sinclair/9929/

On a different note, just finished the podcast, good work guys keep it up.
February 28, 2013 at 10:31 PM, said ...

@AI Luo, that's just about EVERY philosophy since the Golden Verses of Pythagoras, it's just a matter of how Ayn Rand achieves it, which I do not agree with. As I said before, it's like Communism (To an extent); works on paper, but shouldn't be taken to such extreme levels, mainly letting the rich take control and doing whatever they want.
February 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Samah Fadil said ...

hahaha Co-Host, you're talking about Passions!! That was my ish back in the day...what a terrible, terrible soap opera.

Also, Cyrus or Brian, have you read the A Song of Ice and Fire series? Either way, we're all in for a hell of a season this coming March...I hate to put my expectations up, but at this point they are through the roof!!
February 28, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Cyrus said ...

Crazypants, you must be getting your information from some pretty heavily biased sources. Yeah, people tried to discredit it. People WORKING FOR the meatpacking industry who were so affected by the book. Fiction has been known to affect public perception and even political realities in no small fashion. To say otherwise is...disingenuous or just plain naive,. The Jungle is truth set inside a fictional story, That made it no less impactful. Your arguments seem like they came from a extreme right-wing sector of the libertarian party newsgroup desperately trying to defend something long since rightly condemned.
February 28, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Dr. Detfink said ...

The only thing I can add to Anna Karenina, "Jude Law, embrace your hairline..."
February 28, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Dr. Detfink said ...

Or made you think you're in LA club named Perversion...
February 28, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Isaac Retana said ...

The music of sinister intensified the creepiness
February 28, 2013 at 7:28 AM, Dr. Detfink said ...

Yea, I wanted BSG: Blood and Chrome to be great but when Ronald Moore resigned from the project, that was a danger sign. IF the main character was anyone but Adama, I might be less forgiving but every character was so generic. I DID like the concept of releasing chapters via the Internet at a time.
February 28, 2013 at 6:46 AM, said ...

Yay for Co-Host!
February 28, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Indolindo said ...

hey cyrus, every time you guys scream "VIEWER MAIL (x3)" I want to shoot myself in the face.

My ears dont like it, my speakers dont like it, my cats dont like it, but my girlfriend thinks its a blast. Thanks for the show .... and record a real fucking song for viewer mail PLEASE!

I beg of you.... seriously, i love you guys but shit.....please.....fuck.....
February 28, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Michael-Orian Bockus said ...

Brian sometimes infuriates me. How can someone seemingly so smart say the dumbest things sometimes (examples: Him not recognizing what a sunset is on The Amazing Spider-Man dvd; Saying there is no point fighting for life in The Walking Dead because you become a Zombie anyway; and in this podcast, believing a man that manages to make a movie about a boy on a boat so captivating and beautiful does not deserve an award more than someone pointing more shiny, moving things at us things at us.)
February 27, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Dr. Detfink said ...

Thank you for being fair about Sinister. The film has effort but it does have some flaws that for me, took away the impact of the first third of the film.
February 27, 2013 at 11:17 PM, said ...

The awesome actor in the scene Brian and Cyrus reference in "The Insider" review is Bruce Macgill. Here's the scene:

The Insider - Deposition in Mississippi
February 27, 2013 at 10:00 PM, crazypants88 said ...

@Cyrus, I did check the wiki page which said it was a novel, also you didn't specify that in your first comment toward me what was wrong, the fact that it was a novel or the fact that it was mostly made up. Both are essentially true.

The content of the book itself has been found to not only contradict itself but is also contradicted by people with working knowledge of the industry.

It should also be mentioned that during these times (early last century) there were on average two million people a year that would tour the stockyards and packinghouses in question. It's is peculiar that only one. overtly politically motivated writer, noticed these things and not the throngs of people who came before either has guests or workers.

There's also the fact that major state regulations regarding slaughterhouses was already in effect in Chicago, it was not the free market you made it out to be in the podcast.

Now I'm not saying you didn't have engaging debates about the Jungle but it is ultimately irrelevant to it's validity as a non-fiction book.So it's basically as valid of a critique of free market regulation as me writing "socialism is teh bad" on a napkin is a critique of socialism

There's also the fact that the meatpackers themselves welcomed the new regulations as they knew (and Sinclair to his credit figured this out too) that they could a) much more easily cartelize the industry with federal regulation creating a barrier to entry to any new competition and b) they could let the tax payer pay for their regulatory services.

And lastly, if you'd have claimed fascism doesn't work because 1984 is a true story than it's be analogues to our discussion, since you didn't it's not really analogues.
February 27, 2013 at 9:33 PM, Cyrus said ...

Next thing you'll be telling me is 1984 had no intentional political or social message because it too was a novel.
February 27, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Cyrus said ...

Yes, it's a novel that was based on fact that he used to make some huge assertions about wage slavery. It was WORLD renowned for the discussions that it intentionally began (or continued) on corruption in business. I had to read it in school and it provoked much discussion. Did you even so much as check the Wiki page? Geez.
February 27, 2013 at 9:04 PM, crazypants88 said ...

@Cyrus, no it's quite factual, it's fiction. I don't know if you know something I don't but if it's reachable through the internet maybe you could give me links or just educate me but every thing I'm looking at says that Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was a novel.
February 27, 2013 at 8:55 PM, said ...

I remember watching The Nest in theaters (yes, you have a listener who's old enough to have seen a movie in a theater in 1988) and nearly jumped out of my skin when I felt something crawling on my hand. I heard whatever it was hit the floor and scurry away. Roaches creep me the hell out. It's not a good movie that stands the test of time, but it's definitely worth watching if only for the practical effects.
February 27, 2013 at 8:46 PM, said ...

This week's song
February 27, 2013 at 7:59 PM, said ...

is his name C, Robert or Cargill?

Showing 25 out of 66 comments View All

Connect With Spill