In this episode, Jerry and Stably discuss Philip Roth's The Human Stain, focusing on the character Coleman Silk, a disgraced college professor whose downfall began after a misconstrued comment with a big secret. They analyzed the book's themes of radical individualism, societal judgment, and the complexities of Silk's relationships.

In this episode, Jerry and Stably discuss Bryan Burrough's book, Days of Rage: America's Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence, focusing on the complexity, motivations, and incompetence of 1970s radical groups like the Weather Underground, BLA, SLA, and FALN.

In this episode, Jerry and Stably discuss Hanno Sauer's book, "The Invention of Good and Evil: A World History of Morality." The discussion highlighted the book's exploration of cooperation in early hominid evolution, the emergence of punishment, the impact of agriculture and "big gods," and the influence of the Catholic Church on Western individualism.

In this episode, Jerry and Stably discuss Andrew Preston's book, "Total Defense, the New Deal, and the Invention of National Security," which explored the evolution of "national security" from territorial defense to an ideological concept linked with the New Deal and global interventionism.

In this episode, Jerry and Stably discuss two books by Mark Schatzker, "The Dorito Effect" and "The End of Craving," exploring how artificial flavors and government mandates have altered food, affecting satiety and nutritional wisdom. They also talked about the challenges of engineering natural flavors, the critiques of lab-grown meats, and the accessibility and cost of quality food.

In this episode, Jerry and Stably discuss Why Nothing Works: Who Killed Progress and How to Bring It Back by Mark J. Dunkelman. The conversation centers on Dunkelman’s core thesis that modern progressivism has become paralyzed by internal contradictions between its Jeffersonian impulse to decentralize power and its Hamiltonian desire to empower experts and centralized institutions. This unresolved tension has led to procedural gridlock and institutional ineffectiveness, which in turn fuels public distrust and reactionary populism. The hosts compare Dunkelman’s analysis to Mancur Olson’s and public choice theory, noting that while Dunkelman emphasizes process over interest groups, he largely overlooks incentive structures. Both Jerry and Stably appreciate the book’s historical scope and clear narrative but critique its lack of engagement with deeper structural limits and its vague, ultimately inadequate prescriptions for reform. They agree that Dunkelman’s call to “restore balance” is insufficient without grappling with constraints inherent in democratic governance.

In this episode, Jerry and Stably discuss The Cynic Philosophers: From Diogenes to Julian, edited by Robert Dobbin. The conversation centers on the core tenets of Cynicism, such as radical self-sufficiency, rejection of societal norms, and public acts meant to provoke reflection. The hosts explore how cynics challenged conventions through deliberately outrageous behavior, like Diogenes’ public defecation or spitting on opulence, aiming to expose hypocrisy and dependency. They contrast Cynicism with Epicureanism and Stoicism, debating whether these philosophies share a common telos and whether Cynicism’s austerity is a viable path to virtue. The episode ends with a preview of their next book: Why Nothing Works by Mark Dunkelman.

Jerry and Stably discuss The Unaccountability Machine by Dan Davies, a book exploring why large systems often produce irrational outcomes. While the subtitle promises insight into how “the world lost its mind,” the hosts note the book leans heavily into cybernetics and systems theory, which was unexpected. They reflect on a shared cultural sense that “something has gone wrong,” but critique the book for offering a diffuse diagnosis—pointing vaguely at free market capitalism and systemic complexity without a clear prescriptive argument. The conversation highlights both the book’s ambition and its lack of concrete answers to institutional dysfunction.