[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We'll end the show today with a kind of call-in we do from time to time, a call-in of ambivalence. What issue in the news are you ambivalent about these days and why? 212-433-WNYC. It's a call-in of ambivalence. What issue in the news are you ambivalent about these days and why? 212-433-9692. The premise or the reason we do call-ins of ambivalence sometimes is that we live in such a polarized media environment these days, especially on talk shows. That this is one of the ways we try to be unique and try to act in the public interest.

We try to run the show so that complexity is welcome here, nuance is welcome here, and yes, ambivalence is welcome here. It's a call-in of ambivalence. What issue in the news are you ambivalent about these days and why? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Your issue can be local or national or international. It can be something from your own block or your buildings, co-op board even, or whatever that's hyper-local. It can be about an issue with the neighborhood level for you, or it can be the big national or international stories. It's a call-in of ambivalence. Either way, what issue in the news are you ambivalent about these days and why? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692.

The thing is, though, we haven't done one of these in a while partly because it's a legitimate question to ask, is anyone ambivalent about anything anymore? It's fair to say many of today's big issues don't lend themselves to ambivalence. You're for truth in election results or you're not. It's fair to say if you're on the sidelines or mired in ambivalence when basic democracy versus authoritarianism is at stake, if we can call it that, you are de facto on the side of authoritarianism if you are mired in ambivalence. It's not a time for ambivalence in some important requests, and we always try to avoid false equivalencies, and that's another impediment to doing a call-in, another disincentive against doing a call-in of ambivalence.

The issues in our communities, the issues in our world are not limited to ones that have only false equivalencies, that have only one right side, and even with things like any of those that you may think come to mind right away. I'll give you some more examples. For taking climate change seriously, or for denying the reality in front of our noses, right? This has been the hottest July on record. All nine of the hottest years on record globally have been the last nine years. It's not really open to debate or ambivalence that the world is warming.

You're not going to be ambivalent about that, or either you're for treating trans people and other LGBTQIA people as fully human or you're not. You're for teaching history as what really happened, not as an exercise in sentimental patriotism or you're not. Yet, the issues that we all face in our world are not limited to those. Even with things like those, there can be areas of nuance and ambivalence in some respects within.

Let's do it and remind ourselves that the world isn't just politically black and white. It's a way to talk to each other. It's a way to listen to each other. It's a call-in of ambivalence. What issue in the news are you ambivalent about these days and why? Just to throw out some headlines to help jumpstart this, although I see a lot of calls already coming in. Are you ambivalent about congestion pricing? Are you ambivalent about how to solve the housing crisis that we were talking about earlier in the show?

Are you ambivalent about how to treat subway fare beaters under the law or e-bikes? Are you ambivalent about tax rates? Are you ambivalent about whether Trump should be indicted criminally for January 6th and the big lie generally? Are you ambivalent about whether we should make it harder for so many asylum seekers to enter the country? Are you ambivalent about whether athletes and legacy applicants and people based on geography should get any leg up in college admissions now that affirmative action based on race has been banned?

Are you ambivalent about how far to go to help Ukraine? Are you ambivalent about the Mets' decision to give up on this season and trade some of their best pitchers? Oh, wait, how did that get in there? On anything big or small, hyper-local to hyper-global, it's a call-in of ambivalence. What issue in the news are you ambivalent about these days and why? Yes, ambivalence is welcome here. If nowhere else, 212-433-WNYC, and we'll take your calls after this.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer of WNYC as we're devoting the last ten minutes of the show now to your call-ins of ambivalence. What are you ambivalent about these days that's in the news and why? 212-433-WNYC. We'll start with Tim in Manhattan. Tim, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Tim: Hello, Brian. I love your show. Thanks for taking my call.

Brian Lehrer: Sure.

Tim: I'm a little bit ambivalent about one of the issues you kicked off, and by the way, several of them inspired thoughts of ambivalence as you went along, including rooting for the Ukrainians as the good guys in a war. It doesn't feel right to root for somebody in a war. Affirmative action being done, I'm totally against that, I deplore that. I think it's extremely cynical the way the conservatives manipulate this idea of racially blind and completely neutral merit-based admissions criteria.

We still have to redress centuries of injustice, but it bugs me a little that just as Jewish students 100 years ago were, "Oh, well, there's a stereotypical thinking that, well, they're very smart, but we don't want them to overrun the place." That kind of thinking is happening now. I think about Asian kids, and to their detriment. Therefore, some of the arguments raised by those who defended the junking of affirmative action, I have to say, I see some possible theoretical merit in although I think it was a cynical and way premature thing. I think we do want to get to a place where we're looking at individuals.

Brian Lehrer: There is your ambivalence. Tim, thank you very much. Thanks. Marcia in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hi, Marcia. What are you ambivalent about?

Marcia: Hi, brain. Thanks for taking my call. I'm ambivalent about the upcoming Democratic primaries both at the most local levels to the federal level, but I'll start with President Biden. I think just last week some counsel he has started addressing corporate mergers, high food prices, looking at what they can do to limit these types of just carte blanche raising of prices. I appreciate that, but it always feels like it's too little too late. I've been a registered Democrat my whole life, and I work on elections in Pennsylvania for Democrats who have been ousting Republicans in state legislatures and in Congress.

It's not that I'm deserting the party. I haven't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since the theft of the election by the Ryan Quest Supreme Court in 2000. The reason I haven't is because the Democratic Party had the ability to go back then and file more lawsuits around Pennsylvania and Ohio corruption of that election, passed the hanging chads, and made the choice not to. That is when I started to really look at how the demo corporates, from my perspective, had forsaken the party's working-class progressive agenda.

Brian Lehrer: Might you be ambivalent a year from now if things go along the trajectory that they seem to be voting for Cornell West as an independent as opposed to Biden, if nothing else, to keep Trump out of the White House again if he's the nominee.

Marcia: Because I live in New York, I have the privilege of doing that without worrying that I will add my vote to the vote for the [unintelligible 00:09:13].

Brian Lehrer: Less ambivalence in the local context, but maybe if you lived in Georgia. Marcia, thank you very much. Charlotte in Jersey City, you're on WNYC. Hi, Charlotte, what are you ambivalent about?

Charlotte: I'm ambivalent about my property taxes in Jersey City. I bought a house pretty cheap many decades ago. My property taxes are now $36,000 a year. I pay it because I can afford to. I have two pensions. I have an apartment I rent, I have an Airbnb, so cobbling it all together in order to stay here, I can. I don't really want to, but I know the city needs money, and property taxes go to education and all that stuff, so I'm continuing to do it. I'm not appealing it because I feel like I can afford it, but I feel very ambivalent about paying that kind of money today, considering my husband and I are both over 65 and who knows what's going to happen.

Brian Lehrer: That'll get your attention when property tax bill is $36,000 in one year. Charlotte, thank you very much. A few that are coming in on text message. A listener writes, "I'm ambivalent about turning on the air conditioning. I know it hurts the environment, but it's so very hard to live without it." Another listener writes, "Totally ambivalent about all things Hunter Biden." I think Susan in the West Village is going to go there too. Susan, you're on WNYC. Hi, what are you ambivalent about?

Susan: Hi, Brian. Hunter Biden and his tax issue and the gun issue. He's certainly not the first person and won't be the last to have those issues. They've just been blown out of proportion from my perspective.

Brian Lehrer: Susan, thank you very much. Short and sweet. Larry in Livingston, you're on WNYC. Hi, Larry.

Larry: Hi. My ambivalence is about military aid to Ukraine. The one side of me says, let this finally be a European problem. America's passion for involvement in almost virtually every off its shores military conflict, and usually ends in disaster. I sometimes think it's driven. I'm anti-Putin and I'm anti the invasion, of course, but I sometimes think it's the military-industrial complex desire to sell weapons that's part of the political passion for defending Ukraine against Russia. That's my ambivalence.

Brian Lehrer: Larry, thank you very much. Jay in Litchfield County, Connecticut, you're on WNYC. Hi, Jay. What do you ambivalent about?

Jay: Hey, Brian. I am a progressive liberal. I'm ambivalent about one particular aspect of zoning reform. I support zoning reform environmentally, and I support affordable housing both as a political activist locally and through the non-profit world, but what I'm ambivalent about is eliminating the restriction of residential locks to one single-family dwelling, because the majority of my retirement is tied up in the value of my home, same with my neighbors.

My neighbors definitely do not support the elimination of this restriction. I know, I have a three-and-a-half acre-- Let me excerpts. I have a three-and-a-half-acre meadow on my property, and I could easily put a four-unit apartment on the corner with parking that wouldn't really be an eyesore from my home, but it would change the entire character of my neighborhood. I haven't worked it all out yet.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for articulating that ambivalence. Will in-- Oh, Will went away. Walter in Marlboro, New Jersey, you're on WNYC. Hi, Walter.

Walter: Hi. How are you doing?

Brian Lehrer: Good. What are you ambivalent about?

Walter: Well, the whole topic of nuclear disarmament. I believe that the fewer nuclear arms there are in the world the safer the world is. However, if we look at Ukraine, we got Ukraine to disarm 1,500 nuclear weapons in 1994, and look what happened. Its neighbor invaded it. Now, can we go to Israel and say, "Disarm yourself?" It is a deterrent invasion from, I guess, a hostile country.

Brian Lehrer: Walter, thank you very much. One more. Judith in Hackensack, you're going to get the last word for today. What are you ambivalent about in 30 seconds?

Judith: Hi, Brian. I'm ambivalent about this question regarding the aging of politicians. Specifically, there were two incidents reported last week about Dianne Feinstein and Mitch McConnell. The idea of people-- This calls for immediately stepping down. People should not be in professional positions after the age of 70 or in some places 75 or whatever it is. Law state is offensive. I find it personally offensive. Yet, there are indications that sometimes there-- Also committee assignments is a problem.

Brian Lehrer: Judith, I have to leave it there because we are flat out of time. Listeners, we don't solve our problems necessarily by unburdening ourselves of our ambivalences, but at least it makes it easier to talk to each other on multiple levels. At least we humanize each other when we talk about our ambivalence. Thanks for your call-ins of ambivalence today. We will do more.

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.