Take 10 with Will Luden

View Details

With the current emphasis being on it is all about the guns, this episode will add a strong pitch for tough gun crime penalties. That is the subject of today’s short-form episode. It is always dangerous and wrong to ascribe responsibility 100% to any person or group; there is always shared responsibility. It is as true in ending gun violence as it is anywhere else. “It is all about the guns,” is just as wrong as, “It is all about the criminals. With the current emphasis being on it is all about the guns, this episode will add a strong pitch for tough gun crime penalties.

The announced purpose of various levels of proposed additional gun control laws is to reduce gun crime. The ten of thousands of gun laws on the books are obviously not doing much to reduce gun crime, which is why we need more. And the proposed and recently enacted laws will also accomplish little. Here is a different approach: enact and enforce tough gun use laws. The point here is to attack the criminals doing the crimes: To take a whack out of gun violence, take a whack out of the criminals.

=========================== CONNECT WITH ME: =========================== YOUTUBE: Subscribe here - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q?sub_confirmation=1 WEBSITE: https://revolution2-0.org E-MAIL: Will@Revolution2-0.org SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 APPLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/revolution2pod TWITTER: https://twitter.com/WillLuden LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/revolution-2-0/ ----- Revolution 2.0’s mission is to deliver on the promissory note and continue the founding direction that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are: 1. Personal Responsibility - Take it, teach it. 2. "Be Your Brother’s Keeper" - Taking care of one another. I'm Will Luden, the creator and host of Revolution 2.0. We do not advocate for people or parties here—we advocate for principles and policies. Those that include having a moral compass, searching for, and implementing common goals, and using a combination of facts and unbiased, agenda-free reasoning. Today, you and I have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in continuing to move America forward.

View Details

If we are going to get the politicians the nation needs, we must be the voters the nation needs. Politicians reflect the electorate. That is the subject of today's short-form episode. Question: How do we get a government of thoughtful, dedicated public servants, committed to the people and the nation? Candidates and office holders who do deep dive research before taking a position, and are willing to learn from those with opposing opinions? Office holders committed to the people and the nation, not to themselves?

We need to be thoughtful, dedicated citizens and voters. Voters who do deep dive research before taking a position, and are willing to learn from those with opposing opinions. Voters who are committed to others and the nation, not to themselves.

View Details

Post WWII in Berlin, Russia engaged in one of its many and continuing attempts to expand its land, power and influence by harming millions of others. The US responded with the heroic and surprisingly successful Berlin Airlift, saving Berlin from the vengeful grip of Joseph Stalin. At the same time, then US Army pilot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Halvorsen (Gary Halvorsen) became famnous for being the Candy Comber, delighting and encouraging the children, their parents and all of Berlin by “bombing” the hungry, deprived children of Berlin with tons of candy. This sequence of events had started with the Allied bombing of Berlin during the war, moved to the Soviet post war aggression, then onto the Airlift, next to the Candy Bombing, to, eventually, freedom for all Germans. Each step played a critical part. Recently the legend of the Candy Bomber was honored when a modern group brought in critical supplies to beleaguered Ukraine in the name of the Candy Bomber.

Today, each of us, in our own way, can be a Candy Bomber, bringing delight and hope to anyone or any group in our lives. What is your way? What could be your way of doing exactly that?

View Details

Independence Day, AKA the Fourth of July, and Juneteenth both represent relentlessly continuing progress and freedom for all. That is the subject of today's short-form episode. Of the usual 11 Federal Holidays, 4 of them, over one-third of our holidays, celebrate the necessarily difficult and bloody rise from slavery to freedom, listed in order of their annual celebration: 1. Martin Luther King Day 2. Memorial Day 3. Juneteenth 4. Independence Day

View Details

"Believe all women," hurts MeToo. Fair trials with competent attorneys on both sides support both justice and MeToo. No coincidence. That is the subject of today's short-form episode. The Johnny Depp/Amber Heard celebrity abuse and poop spectacle proved a few things:

The Enquirer and Star magazines are tame by comparison.
The bizarre admonition that we should, “Believe all women,” should never have been uttered, much less insisted upon, as a way of adjudicating abuse claims made by women against men.
MeToo is strongly intact. MeToo was not on trial. Amber Heard was, and she lied many times about key issues.

View Details

"Enough is Enough" is an empty phrase, right up there with “Do Something!” We need implementable specifics, or it is all just posturing. That is the subject of today's short-form episode. An empty phrase, right up there with “Do Something!” Unless the people and groups shouting these sentiments are willing to: 1. Detail exactly what changes need to be made. 2. Work through how they would be implemented. 3. Outline how these changes would create the desired results. 4. Accurately define terms like assault weapons and be clear about what you want to ban or further restrict. 5. Stop using phrases like “We need gun control,” implying that we do not already have tens of thousands of laws on the books. And stop the accusatory, self-righteous cliche wars like, “Republicans want to save fetuses and kill children,” and, “Democrats are fascists who want to take your guns and control your speech.” 6. Stop making “need” an argument against gun ownership. No one needs a vacation home, or a sports car, a $500K annual income, or a 3K square foot home.

…then the shouting on both sides is nothing but self-serving grandstanding, guaranteed to squash any fixes.

I have been podcasting for years, pulling together my decades of experience as a high-tech CEO, two years by the banks of the Charles River in the Harvard B-School, 3 years, 2 months and 25 days (but who’s counting?) in the Army, including 27 months in the Far East, and a lifetime of rich experiences, including many successes as well as failures, to deliver insights, well researched facts, questions and calls to action. These episodes will give you specific information, combined with ways to think things through, that you can use to clarify and grow your thinking on the issues of the day. And to know how to take action on the issues that are important to you. I focus on culture, because politics is downstream from culture. I touch on religion because culture is downstream from religion. A recurring theme is that we, not they, are the ones who need to make things work. We are the people in charge, not the politicians. We, not the corporate chieftains. We, not our neighbors. We. Us. Together. We make it happen, or it happens to us.

View Details

Financial literacy for our kids and for us. Simple rules, hard to follow. I often learn, including learning financial literacy, by teaching my children. The rules for understanding financial literacy, and financial success, like the rules for succeeding in life, are simple to understand, and hard to follow. And once you know both of these truths, financial success gets a whole lot easier.

Make more than you spend
Spend less than you make
Debt is a four letter word. NEVER finance anything that depreciates
Pay yourself first
Delayed gratification
What’s the ROI?

"Compound interest is the 8th Wonder of the Word" - Einstein

If you find value in what I provide...

=========================== CONNECT WITH ME: ===========================

YOUTUBE: Subscribe here - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q?sub_confirmation=1

WEBSITE: https://revolution2-0.org

E-MAIL: Will@Revolution2-0.org

SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 APPLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/revolution2pod TWITTER: https://twitter.com/WillLuden LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/revolution-2-0/

Revolution 2.0’s mission is to deliver on the promissory note and continue the founding direction that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are:

Personal Responsibility - Take it, teach it.
"Be Your Brother’s Keeper" - Taking care of one another.

I'm Will Luden, the creator and host of Revolution 2.0. We do not advocate for people or parties here—we advocate for principles and policies. Those that include having a moral compass, searching for, and implementing common goals, and using a combination of facts and unbiased, agenda-free reasoning.

Today, you and I have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in continuing to move America forward.

View Details

This is a combination of what I call Everyday Wisdom and political oddities. Get back to me with a few of yours. That is the subject of today's 15 minute episode. =========================== CONNECT WITH ME: ===========================‍ ‍ YOUTUBE: Subscribe here - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q?sub_confirmation=1‍ ‍ WEBSITE: https://revolution2-0.org‍ ‍ E-MAIL: Will@Revolution2-0.org‍ ‍ SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9‍ APPLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552‍ GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv‍ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/revolution2pod‍ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/WillLuden‍ LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/revolution-2-0/‍ ‍ -----‍ ‍ Revolution 2.0’s mission is to deliver on the promissory note and continue the founding direction that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”‍ ‍ The core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are:‍ ‍ 1. Personal Responsibility - Take it, teach it.‍ 2. "Be Your Brother’s Keeper" - Taking care of one another.‍ ‍ I'm Will Luden, the creator and host of Revolution 2.0. We do not advocate for people or parties here—we advocate for principles and policies. Those that include having a moral compass, searching for, and implementing common goals, and using a combination of facts and unbiased, agenda-free reasoning.‍ ‍ Today, you and I have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in continuing to move America forward.‍

View Details

The two critical questions in the abortion debate are: 1. When does human life begin? and 2. When is it permissible for the state to sanction the taking of that human life? My answer to question 1. At the time of conception. Regarding question 2. The state, government, sanctions, even encourages, the taking of life in wars, law enforcement and self defense. Some states allow for capital punishment. Is it okay for the state to sanction the taking of a human life to protect the life of the mother, when the conception results from rape, when the child is likely to grow up disadvantaged, or merely for convenience? I believe that many, and perhaps most, of those who support abortion know that all, or at least some, of those aborted are indeed human and duck the human issue question because they do not want to admit, out loud or to themselves, that at least is some cases they support abortion for convenience.

Understanding issues like this is part of our overall Revolution 2.0™ goal of creating better lives for ourselves, our communities and for America.

=========================== CONNECT WITH ME: ===========================‍ ‍ YOUTUBE: Subscribe here - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q?sub_confirmation=1‍ ‍ WEBSITE: https://revolution2-0.org‍ ‍ E-MAIL: Will@Revolution2-0.org‍ ‍ SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9‍ APPLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552‍ GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv‍ FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/revolution2pod‍ TWITTER: https://twitter.com/WillLuden‍ LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/revolution-2-0/‍ ‍ -----‍ ‍ Revolution 2.0’s mission is to deliver on the promissory note and continue the founding direction that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”‍ ‍ The core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are:‍ ‍ 1. Personal Responsibility - Take it, teach it.‍ 2. "Be Your Brother’s Keeper" - Taking care of one another.‍ ‍ I'm Will Luden, the creator and host of Revolution 2.0. We do not advocate for people or parties here—we advocate for principles and policies. Those that include having a moral compass, searching for, and implementing common goals, and using a combination of facts and unbiased, agenda-free reasoning.‍ ‍ Today, you and I have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in continuing to move America forward.‍

View Details

Once, Disney nurtured, delighted and educated the young, and gays were fags. Neither is true today. One change is bad, the other is good. That is the subject of today's 10-minute episode. What's the resolution? How do we go forward in the 14 months before the Florida bill takes effect?. 1. Read the https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF (bill). 2. Get involved with your local schools. Kids are indeed the future of our nation--and the world. 3. Disney and DeSantis can work it out to their mutual satisfaction. It should not be that hard. 4. Allow freedom of speech to corporations as well as individuals.

View Details

As our country grew, the places that we were able to gather and speak freely were many, and changed over time--all while preserving the ability to speak freely. That is no longer true. Declaring support for free speech means nothing if all that means is support for speech you can tolerate. Supporting free speech means something only when you support speech you personally find intolerable. “I Disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death Your right to say it.” Voltaire, French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher. Understanding issues like this is part of our overall Revolution 2.0™ goal of creating better lives for ourselves, our communities and for America.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode. Please listen or watch on YouTube, like, subscribe, and comment.

View Details

Telling the truth in love is always a winner. And it leads directly to the core goal of Revolution 2.0™ of creating better lives for ourselves, our communities and our nation. What are some similarities between truth and love? Hint: neither loving only the loveable nor accepting only the truths that confirm our current worldview are praiseworthy, nor do either create any change. And change is needed.

Understanding issues like this is part of our overall Revolution 2.0™ goal of creating better lives for ourselves, our communities and for America.

View Details

Focus on two differences: 1. Unlike God, government has nothing to “give away” until it first takes it away. 2. No matter what we give to God, we get more in return. With government, it grabs a slice of what it takes before giving anything back. Casinos take about 5% of every dollar bet; government keeps close to a third of everything it collects before it “gives back.” Understanding issues like this is part of our overall Revolution 2.0™ goal of creating better lives for ourselves, our communities and for America.

View Details

Being "dissed" verbally does not justify a violent response. We must learn to control our emotions, and not blame them as the root cause. That's the subject of today's 10-minute episode. =========================== CONNECT WITH ME: =========================== YOUTUBE: Subscribe here - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q?sub_confirmation=1 WEBSITE: https://revolution2-0.org E-MAIL: Will@Revolution2-0.org SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 APPLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/revolution2pod TWITTER: https://twitter.com/WillLuden LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/company/revolution-2-0/ ----- Revolution 2.0’s mission is to deliver on the promissory note and continue the founding direction that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are: 1. Personal Responsibility - Take it, teach it. 2. "Be Your Brother’s Keeper" - Taking care of one another. I'm Will Luden, the creator and host of Revolution 2.0. We do not advocate for people or parties here—we advocate for principles and policies. Those that include having a moral compass, searching for, and implementing common goals, and using a combination of facts and unbiased, agenda-free reasoning. Today, you and I have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in continuing to move America forward.

View Details

The alternative title of this episode might be, “My feelings make it true.”

In today’s Take Ten With Will Luden, we go over why unless we–you and I–get over this feelings based approach to everything important in our lives, we will never fix the ruinous political divide in America. And fixing this is a part of our overall Revolution2.0™ goal of creating better lives for ourselves, our communities and for America.

N.B. This is a complete blog, also acting as a signpost, pointing you to this episode on both the new Revolution 2.0™https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q ( YouTube) channel, and where you enjoy your podcasts, e.g.,https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 ( Apple),https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv ( Google) andhttps://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 ( Spotify).

Continuing.

Our feelings are a part of us that we feel cannot be challenged. “It feels cold outside,” and “This is how you make me feel,” are statements of absolute truth that we want others to respect, not challenge as either false or ill conceived. When our feelings are challenged or denied, we tend to double down in our own defense, and become further wedded to those feelings while rejecting both the feelings and reasoning of those contesting our feelings. And then rejecting them as well. That is why feelings based political thinking will forever preserve and deepen the disastrous divide here in our America. We need the opposite. Facts and logic can and often should be challenged, tested and revised. Divides narrow and can disappear this way.

Both opinion- and agenda-driven politics are in exactly the same league as feelings-based politics. Only politics–any important thought for that matter–based on facts and logic is separate and better. Far better. That does not mean that you have to be a greasy grinder about your thinking. Just rational, thoughtful and open to better facts and logic. BTW, “greasy grinder” is a term that I heard in my freshman slide rule class. My teacher described himself as dedicated to his craft; immersed in his professions–a greasy grinder.

Challenge our feelings, and things can easily fall apart. Challenge facts and logic, and things might get better. When our politics are feelings based, nothing will get better, and can only get worse. Challenge facts and logic, and things might very well get better.

One of the core issues we deal with in everything from politics to finances to law enforcement is the substitution of feelings and opinion for facts and logic. This is the lazy approach, requiring little or no research, and no logic. Just state your position, and hold forth. And you never have to say things like, “You were right. I have changed my mind.” This lazy approach delivers terrible results.

Describing the feelings based approach reminds me of the times, perhaps the many times, in high school when I had not done my homework, and still wanted to be given credit for participating in class. I did not know what I was talking about because I had not done the reading or the work, but I leapt in anyway. Full of passion–and feelings. But no facts. I was lazy–and loud. The students who had done the work knew I was full of it. The ones who had not might very well have thought I was onto something. Sound familiar? If we want better results, we need to be responsible citizens and careful voters. It is on us, not them. It is never on “them.” It is not us v. them, and it is not them v them. It’s us. I am recruiting you into the ranks of citizens and voters who are careful to apply facts and logic before forming opinions, and, further, to be open to changing those opinions when new information is available. That’s how we–we–drive the change we need.Using feelings and opinions to choose preferences like your favorite color, sports teams, ice cream...

View Details

Not delivering the needed, behavior-changing consequences to Putin and Russia is the international equivalent of defunding the police. And will have similar results.

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

Continuing.

Russia is governed by paranoid, autocratic rulers. It has been invaded three times, twice by the Germans, and once by France under Napoleon. Napoleon captured Moscow before retreating, and Germany under Hitler came within spitting distance. Partly as a consequence, Russia is hungry for huge amounts of “buffer” countries on its borders to help protect it.

Russia has long been a bold, cruel aggressor notably in the last 90 or so years. 1. In 1932/3, Russia under Stalin induced a famine in Ukraine, killing upwards of 3M people. Stalin then replaced the dead population with Russians, helping to create today’s minority Russian-leaning population in eastern Ukraine. 2. In 1939, Russia invaded Finland with 21 divisions totalling 450,000 men. 3. Also in 1939, Russia under Stalin sided with Hitler and Nazi Germany by signing the Molotov–Ribbentrop non-aggression pact, allying the two dictatorships. 4. In 1948, Russia under Stalin attempted to https://revolution2-0.org/kyiv-kiev-we-need-candy-bombers-not-city-bombers-will-you-volunteer-ep-390/ (starve and freeze out divided Berlin) in an attempt to have the entire city for himself. 5. More well known is the failed 1979 Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The US supplied the Afghans with the highly effective Stinger missiles, essentially creating a No-Fly zone over Afghanistan. 6. In 2008, Russia used force to occupy the 20% of the country of Georgia it declared to be leaning to Russia. Sound familiar? 7. Russia has twice attacked Chechnya, attempting to topple its anti-Russian government. In 1999, then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin led the military response against Chechnya. https://www.history.com/topics/vladimir-putin (Putin), Boris Yeltsin’s handpicked successor as President, said of the Chechen defenders, “We will rub them out, even in the toilet.” Again, does anything sound familiar? 8. In 2014, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, then a part of Ukraine.

And now Ukraine itself. What country is next? Does anyone believe that almost a century of Russian aggression will end with Ukraine? Does anyone believe any dictator when he says that he is finally satisfied, and does not want to gobble up more territory, power and people?

In 1938, British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, believed Hitler when the Nazi leader signed the Munich Agreement saying that he would finally be finished with his many territory grabs if he could just have Czechoslovakia. Even as Chamberlain was triumphantly waving the paper signed by “Herr Hitler,” claiming that, “We will have peace in our time,” Winston Churchill responded with, “He (Chamberlain), had a choice between war and dishonor. He chose dishonor.” Hitler attacked Poland in 1939, breaking the agreement and starting WWII. Churchill became Prime Minister the next year.

Sanctions might be hurting Russia, but they are not stopping the invasion and the killing. We must do more now to help Ukraine, Eastern Europe, NATO, and ourselves. It’s past time for a No-Fly Zone over Ukraine.

In the mid-seventies, Fram oil filters became well-known due an ad campaign that featured the slogan, “You can pay me now, or pay me later.” The mechanic in the ad offered the viewer a simple proposition: Pay me now...

View Details

As Russian bombs rain down on Kyiv and other cities in Ukraine in Putin’s effort to expand his rule, let’s remember when another Russian President, Joseph Stalin, tried to freeze and starve out most of divided Berlin in 1948 in his attempt at expanding his rule. Perhaps more importantly, let’s remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Halvorsen (Gail Halvorsen), the justifiably famed “Candy Bomber,” an Air Force pilot who gave joy to the kids of Berlin, and hope to the adults, by parachuting–parachuting candy in enormous quantities to the children of bombed out post WWII Berlin. Children who had little or nothing, and were simply hoping to survive. Stalin failed in his effort. Let’s work and pray that Putin also fails. And work and pray that future bombs are like candy, not explosives–nuclear or otherwise. And work to be one of the candy bombers.

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

Continuing:

In 1948, three years after the end of WWII, Russian President Joseph Stalin closed off land and water routes to war-torn Berlin in an attempt to drive his erstwhile war partners, the US, Britain and France, out of divided Berlin so that he could have the entire city to himself. This was one of the major–and cruel–Russian moves in the First Cold War. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is the major–and cruel–Russian moves in the Second Cold War. I hope and pray that it stays cold.

Then Lieutenant Gail Halvorsen made history by being part of the heroic https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/berlin-airlift (Berlin Airlift), a seemingly hopeless response to Stalin’s attempt to steal Berlin from his Allied partners. The Allies, primarily the US under President Truman, made the decision to fly in everything the citizens of blockaded Berlin needed to survive: Coal, food, clothing, medicine–everything. A flight every 30 seconds for 18 months, totalling 300,000 flights in all. In cold, drafty propeller driven planes which were forced to fly in a narrowly defined air corridor. During a record cold winter. After a year and a half and against all odds, flying in 23 million tons of critically needed supplies, the Berlin Airlift succeeded, and Stalin was forced to lift his blockade.

At the same time, C-54 Skymaster pilot Halvorsen made a different type of history by also becoming the Candy Bomber, giving joy, laughter and reasons to celebrate just being alive to tens of thousands of kids in devastated Berlin. And hope to all of Berlin. Halvorsen and the other pilots he recruited dropped candy from tiny, handmade handkerchief parachutes from their Airlift planes. We can all do the same in our own way today.

Halvorsen noticed a need, and found a way to meet it. We can all–and should–do the same in our lives. His first encounter with the children came when he noticed a group of them standing behind the wire fence blocking entry to Tempelhof Airfield. When he approached them, he was disheartened to find that he had only two sticks of gum in his pocket; breaking each of them in two, he handed out four half sticks. The kids who got gum, handed the empty wrappers to other kids, who sniffed and licked the wrappers to get as much flavor as they could. “They came right up to me, speaking in English. Those kids were giving me a lecture, telling me, ‘Don’t give up on us. If we lose our freedom, we’ll never get it back.’ American style freedom was

View Details

In our time together today, our “Take Ten” with Will Luden, we will compare Putin and Hitler, Biden and Chamberlain–and look for today’s Churchill. I normally resist parallels to WWII Germany, but there are too many now to ignore. Russia is following Nazi Germany’s path to expanding its territory, using the same lame excuses backed by significant military strength. In September of 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany. In May of 1940, Britain made Winston Churchil l its Prime Minister. Resisting the powerful appeasers in his own cabinet, Churchill rallied his nation to stand up to Hitler. Eventually, even strongly isolationist America was drawn into the war only by the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor in December, 1941.

Had Britain either negotiated or surrendered, Germany would likely have won WWII. And where do you think we’d be today? We need our own Winston Churchill, or we will lose, and lose big. Where is he? Or she?

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

Continuing:

Putin is following part of Hitler’s playbook play by play. 1. Go back with me to the point in history when Adolph Hitler started adding tens of millions of people and entire countries to Nazi Germany without firing a shot. Under the guise of uniting all German speaking peoples, Hitler added the Rhineland, Austria, and the Sudentland, the German speaking part of Czechoslovakia. Putin is adding parts of Ukraine under the guise of uniting all Russia loving people. 2. Hitler exclaimed long and loudly about how Germany needed to build military strength and increase its size and international prestige to assuage the undeserved embarrassment and humiliation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles (Treaty of Versailles). Putin is being equally loud and devious when he claims that Russia needs to avenge the underserved embarrassment of the breakup of the Soviet Union. 3. Just as Hitler invaded Poland after creating a false flag attack, Putin created an excuse to invade the rest of Ukraine, the vast bulk of that country’s territory and population. 4. Prediction. When Germany invaded Poland, both Britain and France had had enough, and declared war. No country will find the courage to find a response that will drive Putin out of sovereign Ukraine. There is no Churchill to swim against the tide and stand against Putin. Sanctions will not deter Putin any more than the Treaty of Versailles post WWI, the ultimate in sanctions, kept Germany from rearming. Biden will be the modern version of Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who hande4d over Czechoslovakia to ol’ Adoplh, believing Hitler’s lie that Chamberlain could trade Czechoslovakia for peace. No other country has the strength to stand up to Russia, even if they could summon the courage to try. If anything is to change, we the voters in the US must force that change. We must take on that responsibility. We, the US, have the required military strength and other resources to take on Putin and his territorial and power and influence ambitions. We lack the desperately needed leadership.

And without America leading, the world lacks leadership on any issue of this magnitude. We need leaders who can see clearly what is unfolding, have the political courage to speak out, even if that means going against popular opinion, and, finally, summon the courage to act when danger looms.

From

View Details

In our time together today, our “Take Ten” with Will Luden, we will separate the causes people are protesting or supporting from the tactics used; they are most often incorrectly blurred to favor the person or group making the comments. Let’s go over some foundational principles first: 1. The ends do not justify the means; means are ends in and of themselves. As soon as you say that your ends justify your means, you are saying that might is right. 2. “Whatever it takes,” might be an acceptable strategy if: A. Your cause is fundamental to the survival of mankind and B. You’re dead, no pun intended, certain that you cannot be wrong. 3. Follow Revolution 2.0™’s Golden Rule of Political Tactics: Use only the tactics that you are okay with being used against you.

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

Continuing:

It is the height of arrogance to claim that tactics that you approve of using in support of causes you favor are unacceptable to the point of being criminal when unemployed to support causes you do not believe in.

The trucker protest in Ottawa crippled the capital city of Canada for over two weeks, and shut down the https://www.ambassadorbridge.com/ (Ambassador Bridge) that carries 30% of the annual trade between the US and Canada. A 2004 Border Transportation Partnership study showed that 150,000 jobs in the Detroit–Windsor region and $13 billion in annual production depend on the Detroit–Windsor international border crossing.

Ambassador Bridge map and discussion.

Trucker protest photo

Latvia protest photo.

Many of the same people and groups who enthusiastically support the trucker protest get self-righteously irate and want to shut down other protests when they block an intersection for an hour or two. And these people and groups want to export the trucker protest to other cities and other countries.

Now for more about separating the causes from the tactics:

Truckers and others have every right to protest, but they have no right to cripple cities and major thoroughfares. We can either approve of or criticize the anti-mandate cause for the protests, but we cannot approve of the tactics.

Civil Rights protesters, including those supporting BLM and wanting change post the George Floyd murder, have every right to protest, but they have no right to block streets, burn and loot businesses, and invade police stations. Once again, we can debate the worthiness of the causes, but we cannot approve of the tactics. 3. Supporters of a failed presidential candidate have every right to protest, but they have no right to invade our nation’s capitol. Debate their stolen election promise if you will, but do not support the tactic of invading the capitol.

The intentional mistake that I see in all three areas, truckers, civil rights, Jan 6th, is that people who are in support of the cause focus on the cause, and gloss over the tactics. Phrases like, “Mostly peaceful,” and “Peaceful protest supporting democracy,” come to mind. People who are against the cause, focus on the worst of the tactics, and gloss over the cause. Phrases like, “Another night of violence, burning and looting,” and, “January 6th was the worst and most dangerous event in America since the Civil War,” come to mind.

Separate the causes from the tactics, the fly poop from the pepper. Stop making people and events either all good or all bad. Either all black, or all white....

View Details

The Sound of Ignorance. In our ten minutes together today, our “Take Ten” with Will Luden, we are focusing on the jarring sound of ignorance in political, economic and other discussions in our country. From the very top with the most powerful political leaders and cultural influencers to the anonymous cowards on Twitter. This raging ignorance has taken the form of warring cliches substituting for knowledge and reasoning. This, not the alleged election fraud from both sides, is indeed a threat to our democracy.

Let’s start with an example that is much in the news: CRT–Critical Race Theory. One side claims that if you don’t teach CRT that you are distorting history. The other side says that if you do teach CRT, that you are distorting history. But very few on either side have sufficient knowledge of history to even begin having an intelligent discussion. Even fewer take the time to put the facts, should they have any, into a useful, coherent argument. Think back to any time that you heard either CRT or the 1619 Project being discussed in the media–pro or con–with anything more than cliches and claims, laced with partial truths, being thrown back and forth.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana, noted writer and philosopher.

“Those who do not know history, are condemned to stand by as their country is destroyed by those who make it up for their benefit.” Will Luden, podcaster.

That’s what’s going on in our country today.

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

Continuing:

The Sound of Ignorance. With apologies to Simon and Garfunkle and their mega hit “Sounds of Silence.” Paul Simon wrote the song quietly referring to the social isolation people were feeling–even 60 years ago. Today’s version, The Sounds of Ignorance, loudly refers to us and our country becoming more and more ignorant of history, of the core facts pertaining to any key issue; unwilling to listen or learn, and unable to reason.

Along with the 1619 Project, CRT loudly and often makes the claim that race and oppression, with whites being the oppressors and POCs being the oppressed, was a desired goal of the Founders, and played a vital part in the creation of wealth and power in America, and is still with us, preserved in our culture, legal, political and business systems, and that America must be torn down and radically reconstructed if we are to be rid of scourge of racism and oppression.

One of our responsibilities as citizens is to understand enough of American and world history to make sense of the many political statements and claims that are tossed at us every day. To start, let’s go back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Wait, Will, didn’t the Revolution end with Lord Cornwallis’ defeat in 1781? Why wait six years before having a constitution? We did have an original constitution, The Articles of Confederation, enacted in 1781. These Articles provided only the loosest form of confederation, with little or no central power. It was often correctly called a “league of friendship.” No central military, no central taxing authority. Simply the 13 states calling themselves friends.

Pause for a quick question. What percentage of voters could tell you which year the Declaration of Independence was signed? Going furtner, what percentage of voters could tell you which country we fought to gain our...

View Details

The 7% Supreme Court Justice. President Biden promised that he would pick his VP candidate from a pool of only black women. From that pool, representing 7% of the United States, he chose Kamala Harris. The same thinking that led to Ms. Harris being the Vice President of the United States is going to give us the next lifetime appointee Justice on the Supreme Court. With the 2020 nomination slipping through his grasp after a series of primary defeats, Biden turned to the powerful US Representative, Jim Clyburn, D-SC and the Majority Whip in the House to make a deal; Biden would appoint the black female Justice Clyburn wanted in exchange for Clyburn’s support. The rest is political backroom history.

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

N.B. This is a complete blog, also acting as a signpost, pointing you to this episode on both the new Revolution 2.0™ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q (YouTube) channel, and where you enjoy your podcasts, e.g., https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 (Apple), https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv (Google) and https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 (Spotify).

Continuing:

The 7% Supreme Court Justice. In the tradition of former Mayor and Chicago political boss, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_J._Daley (Richard J. Daley), President Biden is paying off a political debt by fulfilling his promise to appoint a black female to the Supreme Court, the highest count in the United States. Richard J. Daley held political office in Illinois for 38 years, including 24 years as the Mayor of Chicago. His son, Richard M. Daley, held office in Illinois for 39 years, including 22 as the Mayor of Chicago. You don’t create a dynasty like that without receiving and paying off many and large political debts.

That’s exactly what then candidate Biden set in motion when he rescued his failing presidential candidacy by promising the powerful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Clyburn (Jim Clyburn) that he would nominate a black female to the SCOTUS in exchange for Clyburn’s campaign-rescuing political support. Going into the SC primary Biden was trailing Bernie Sanders badly–many pundits had written him off. After making the deal, Clyburn delivered SC to Biden, and the rest is political dealmaking history. More specifically Clyburn wanted US District Judge http://www.cnn.com/2022/01/26/politics/shortlist-breyer-replacement-supreme-court/index.html (J. Michelle Childs) on the Court. Guess who is on President Biden’s short list for the nomination.

Far beyond just the stench of a deal promising a nomination to SCOTUS in exchange for turning around a failing presidential campaign, is just how deeply wrong Biden is in citing race and gender as his initial and fundamental criteria. Why on earth would the President restrict the pool of candidates to the 7% of the population that is both black and female? Is that how you get the best qualified candidate? No, but that is not what Biden is looking for. He is paying off a political debt while appealing to blacks on the basis of race and not on the basis of making their lives better economically or in any real way. All while pandering to the Affirmative Action set. You know, the people who believe that two evils can make a right. What really happens is that when you create the second evil, it does not erase the first–it simply perpetuates it.

Affirmative Action, and this is by definition an affirmative Action nomination, substitutes “qualified” for “best qualified.” It must make that substitution, or Affirmative Action would be completely impossible for anyone to defend. Listen carefully to those supporting this nomination and other Affirmative Action policies; they always emphasize things like how many qualified candidates that their process surfaces. How many...

View Details

Voting Rights Scam: There is a voting rights scam, but it is not the one in the news. This accusation shouts that our democracy is threatened because of intentionally restricted access to the polls. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The voting rights scam that does threaten our democracy is the one that pushes for everyone from illegals to the completely unmotivated to vote in the many millions in favor of the party that encourages them to vote, and promises them other people’s money in return. That’s the voting scam threatening our democracy.

Today, right now, all voters in all states have multiple days and more than one way to vote. Any voter with even the slightest motivation can cast a ballot with little or no inconvenience.

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

N.B. This blog is a summary, a signpost, pointing you to this episode on both the new Revolution 2.0™ YouTube channel, and where you enjoy your podcasts, e.g., Apple, Google and Spotify.

Continuing:

Voting Rights Scam: Major League Baseball punished Georgia for its “restrictive” voting laws by moving the attention-getting and lucrative All Star Game from Atlanta to Denver. Here is a summary of these so-called restrictive Georgia voting laws.

Absentee voting starts 78 days before an election, and ends 11 days prior. You have 67 days to vote absentee.
Advance voting starts on the 4th Monday prior, and ends the Friday before. By my count, this year that would add up to 19 days of advance voting, which must include 2 Sundays.
On Election Day, polls are open 7-7.
Dropboxes were codified in the election laws for the first time.

Tell me, can you honestly (the key word here) say that anyone with any level of motivation at all could not manage to vote with these rules? And isn’t it highly insulting to claim that anyone, especially minorities, can’t manage this?

At Revolution 2.0™, we often talk about common goals. What could be a reasonable candidate to be the goal, ideally the common goal, when it comes to voting rules and regulations? How about: Every eligible voter should have reasonable access to the polls, such that any voter who wishes to do so has multiple ways over many days to vote. If that is the goal, we have more than met it.

For many, the goal seems to be: Every resident, regardless of motivation, must have their ballot cast. The process needs to include shotgun ballot mailing, indiscriminate ballot harvesting and drive-by voting. Voter eligibility is assumed by residency. The people and groups pushing this free-for-all voting also support the US becoming more of a welfare state than it already is. Intentionally combining the loosest form of voting rules, if any at all, and a welfare state is self-perpetuating. Overall, the less motivated voters will be less well informed. They are far more likely to follow the siren call of, “It’s free because you are a victim,” and feel beholden to the party that artificially loosened both the voting process and other people’s purse strings. The clear idea behind this voting free for all is to have more and more Democratic voters, regardless of motivation or qualification.

Rights do indeed come with equal or greater responsibilities. What are the responsibilities that come with the right to vote? My position is clear. It takes an average of about 30 minutes a year to:

Keep your voter information current.
Have a valid photo ID (you will need that anyway).
Go vote, or
Vote the mail-in ballot sent to your correct address, to you as a registered voter.

Where else is a photo ID required to live anything like a normal life?

Airports – Try boarding a commercial flight these days without a photo ID.
Buying alcohol or cigarettes
Opening a bank account.
Applying for food stamps or other types of welfare.
Applying for Medicaid, Medicare or Social Security.
Applying for unemployment.
Or a job.
Renting or buying a home.
Rent or buy a car.
Gun Shop – Right! Try buying a gun or ammunition without a photo ID.
Get married.
Pawn Shop – Laws have tightened up so much on pawn shops to prevent them from purchasing stolen property that pawn shops require a form of ID, preferably a photo.
Adopt a pet.
Rent a hotel room.
Apply for a hunting or fishing license.
Public Schools – Many schools require any non-student to present an ID at the office before being allowed to visit the school for any reason.
Adoption Agency – It is almost impossible to adopt a child without an ID and a stack of other information.
Buy a cellphone.
Auto Insurance – You are required to have an ID in order to obtain auto insurance.
Traffic Stop – In most states you are required to present your driver’s license, proof of insurance and vehicle registration if you are pulled over by a police officer.
Passport – You have to produce an original birth certificate and photo in order to obtain a U.S. passport. (Makes you wonder how Barack Obama obtained a valid passport.)
Post Office – I’ve had to show a photo ID to pick up packages at the Post Office.
Pick up a prescription.
Donate blood.

People who do not have proper ID are forced to live in the shadows. Do you want people who live in the shadows to vote? Powerful people and groups are pushing for just that. One of the powerful people who want exactly that is none other than our very own President, Joe Biden. He likens those who do not support his disingenuously titled Freedom To Vote Act to the segregationist George Wallace, the infamous racist Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis, president of the secessionist, slaveholding Confederacy.

We all have the personal responsibility to cast a valid, well informed ballot. Speaking of personal responsibility, this principle does not stand alone; the two main and interdependent principles at Revolution 2.0 are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Where do you stand? What are you going to do? Remember, it does not matter where you stand if you don’t do anything. You can start by subscribing to these episodes, and encouraging others to subscribe with you.

As always, whatever you do, do it in love. Without love, anything we do is empty. 1 Corinthians 16:1.

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me on Twitter, @willluden, Facebook, facebook.com/will.luden, and LinkedIn, www.linkedin.com/in/willluden/. And you can subscribe on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and wherever you listen to podcasts.

YouTube

This is Will Luden. We’ll talk again soon.

View Details

Passing as a POC. Rewarding people and groups because they are slightly or completely non-white is just as unacceptable as the previous wrong of punishing people and groups for having exactly that physical trait. Both are blatantly racist, and have no place either in our hearts or in our country.

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

N.B. This blog acts as a transcript and a signpost, pointing you to this episode on both the new Revolution 2.0™ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q (YouTube) channel, and where you enjoy your podcasts, e.g., https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 (Apple), https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv (Google) and https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 (Spotify).

Continuing

In the earlier, ugly days of racist America, if a person was in any way noticeably black, they were treated as all black. And especially in the slave and Jim Crow states, that was done to create an unfair and undeserved advantage for the whites; they even had names indicating your fraction of offending blackness. Someone who was half black would have been called a mulatto. A quadroon was ¼ black, and an octoroon ⅛ black. I would have been a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me (hexadecaroon). It was terrible, cruel and is a remaining stain on our nation. On the other hand if you had any portion of black blood but looked white, you were said to be able to “pass,” pass as being white–a huge advantage. Appearances were all. And for those many continuing to seek advantage today, still are.

Today, if you have the slightest amount of non-white features, you can pass as a POC, a person of color. And today this is the advantage. This is just as unfair and wrong, and is done to give unfair advantage to people who look in any way non-white. Today’s color preference flip is still wrong, unfair and needs to be stopped now. All we have done is flip the evil.

Story: In 1969, a Star Trek episode showed the hatred and unfairness that existed between two differently colored peoples on the planet Cheron. Each group had half black and half white faces, with a vertical dividing line down the middle of their faces. The group whose faces were black on the right side felt justifiably and completely superior to the group whose faces were white on the right side. This developed into a race hatred that completely baffled the crew of the Starship Enterprise. As it should have. It made no sense at all. Insane and damaging. Flipping the colors side-to-side makes all the difference? Takes an evil and makes it into a good? And it’s exactly what we are doing today. Black or POC used to be bad and white good, and now black is good and white is bad. Insane and damaging.

This kind of insanity breeds absurdities that underscore the wrongness. For example, taking calculated advantage of the race flip, Rachel Dolezal, a white woman born to white parents, faked being black to the point where she became an NAACP chapter president. Senator Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, gained advantage in her work and in politics by pretending to be Native American.

And stranger things yet fall out of this insanity. George Zimmerman, a man of mixed race, was accused–and acquitted–of murdering Treyvon Martin, a black youth. The identity politics crowd felt the need to invent a new term, “White Mexican,” to describe Zimmerman, who is clearly a POC. Lots of twisting and shouting needs to be done to make everything black and white–with the white at fault.

President Biden said loud and clear that he was going to select a black female as his running mate in 2020. Seems that being half-black and all female helped qualify Ms. Harris to be our Vice President. Despite having paltry support even from her home state of California in her quickly failed presidential run....

View Details

Gratitude: Does The Left Have Any? Does The Right Demand It? We are busy politicizing everything, including science, law enforcement, religion, sports, medicine, history and education. Now we are doing the same thing with gratitude. We are making gratitude political. To our peril.

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

N.B. This is a useful blog, a signpost, pointing you to this episode on both the new Revolution 2.0™ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q (YouTube) channel, and where you enjoy your podcasts, e.g., https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 (Apple), https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv (Google) and https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 (Spotify, )as well as reading them here.

Continuing:

Perhaps the most pernicious form of ingratitude is encouraging others to refuse to be grateful.

Many on the Left are clearly ungrateful for much of anything, and are encouraging others to join them in this harmful thinking. The 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory distortions of history encourage us to be angry at America instead of knowing how fortunate we are to be in the country that is the most successful of all time, and offers the most freedom and opportunity of any country in the history of history. With claims that everything from healthcare to housing are human rights, there is little to be grateful for here, either. But note the irony: These so-called rights are to be supplied by the very country, America, which is vilified by the same people who claim that America is so deeply flawed that it needs to be re-built. And the taxes in the main come from people the Left criticizes as privileged capitalists.

For their part, many on the Right seem to be demanding that people be grateful. Their position is that people must be grateful for what they get, especially for what they get from taxpayers. That’s nonsense. You can’t demand gratitude any more than you can demand love or respect. All three must be offered up voluntarily.

We are surrounded 24/7 with things we can–and should–be openly grateful for. If you have access to running water in your home, be grateful. One in three people on the planet don’t have access to a decent toilet, and one in nine don’t have clean water close to home. How about electricity? We all get frustrated when the power goes out; when it returns, our response is likely to be, “Well, finally! What’s with those people?” Over 1.2 billion–with a “B”–people don’t have any electricity to lose in the first place. Their power is always out.

Let’s pause for an important distinction: Gratitude is not the same as contentment. The masthead of the Denver Post used to include the saying, “There is no hope for the satisfied man.” Being grateful for everything you have does not mean that you have to be content with everything you have. Some people confuse, “I’m grateful.” with, “I’m good with things the way they are.” Being grateful does not mean going limp. In fact, it takes more strength and discipline to be grateful than to complain. We all can–and should–strive for improvements. And setting new plans and striving, pushing is best done while resting on a firm foundation of gratitude.

And being grateful just works. And I like things that work.

OK, your turn. Going from water and electricity, to freedom and opportunity, add some things that you are grateful to have. Take your time. Share them with friends and family, and in the comments.

We all have the personal responsibility to practice and encourage gratitude, entirely independent of any...

View Details

Victims and shared responsibility: There are many reasons that we take precautions even if we would be legally in the right had we not taken those steps. These reasons can be centered around personal safety, money, or legal or moral issues. These reasons apply to law abiding, contributing homeowners, as well as those in the criminal justice system. And everyone in between. We can avoid being victims by taking action even when we are “in the right.”

This 10 minute episode will help us in our lives, and help us to think through the issues surrounding us.

N.B. This is a summary, a signpost, pointing you to this episode on both the new Revolution 2.0™ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q (YouTube) channel, and where you enjoy your podcasts, e.g., https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 (Apple), https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv (Google) and https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 (Spotify).

Continuing:

Victims and shared responsibility: Personal safety and money reasons: We lock our cars and homes when empty. Many homeowners have installed cameras and alarms. We have homeowner’s insurance, and renters should have renter’s insurance. We add smoke and fire alarms to help protect us, and all of us should have fire extinguishers.

If someone, perhaps a random vandal or a mentally unstable person, set fire to a portion of the outside of our home, we would call the fire department, then start hosing down the burn area. We certainly would not say, “That’s wrong; that should never be happening”, and do nothing. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, our responsibility is to minimize the damage. That is the opposite of doing nothing, then embracing our status as a victim to gain attention, sympathy, or money or other compensation.

Legal reasons: Right-of-way analogy taught in Driver’s Ed in a public school. Last clear chance to avoid. Don’t die holding onto the concept of having the right-of-way. You might indeed have had the right-of-way, but you are still just as dead after the crash. The last clear chance doctrine says that in personal injury cases, even if the plaintiff was negligent in an accident, he can still recover damages, if the defendant could have avoided the accident by using ordinary and reasonable care.

The military taught me a related and equally important lesson. If you think an order is stupid, unfair or wrong, don’t disobey. Follow the order, then complain and sort things out afterward. This piece of wisdom can clearly be applied to the criminal justice world. If a cop gives you an order, follow it. If an injustice has been done, seek compensation and other sorts of satisfaction later. And we all know that resisting arrest is far more likely to cause harm to the resistor than it is to lead to any type of perceived justice by allowing the suspect to escapeMoral: “Lock your car, take your keys. Don’t help start a kid on a life of crime.”

That was the beginning of an oft-played public service radio announcement I remember from my youth. Note the emphasis on protecting the youth, not on saving the listener from having their car stolen. And I am certain that this announcement was not absolving car thieves of any crimes if they found keys that were left in an unlocked car. It was clearly pointing out that victims can bear some responsibility as well as the perpetrators. And I love it that the central point of this spot was to avoid tempting the would-be car thief. The implied–but secondary–point was about keeping your car from being stolen. Of course, people have every right to ignore this good advice, and if their car is stolen, the thief still needs to be caught and punished.

Let’s look at a recent example: Former cop Kim Potter’s manslaughter conviction for killing Daunte Wright; three entities share responsibility here. Ms. Potter made a tragic and inexcusable error when she pulled and...

View Details

The Dinner Table: Some of the most valuable and enduring lessons that we need to learn are best taught at home. Conversations at the dinner table is one way, but activities and conversations in the car, during exercise, or while just hanging out are all wonderful opportunities. I include all of it under “The Dinner Table.”

Continuing:

The dinner table is where we share values, skills, tips and tricks–anything that if passed along might make a difference. The dinner table includes where we eat, in or out, traveling in the car, watching TV, hanging out–anything we do with other members of our family.

There is rich evidence in sports and politics about the value of the dinner table.

The Mannings (football), Kennedys and Bushes come immediately to mind. Go as far back as the Adamses.

The government cannot possibly be either our dinner table contributors or other participants.

This is the only way to pass along our values as well as knowledge to our children and grandchildren.

Passing along values and knowledge is far more valuable than money or possessions.

The world is our dinner table.

This podcast makes the case for the nurture side of the nature vs. nurture discussion. And let’s take the vs. part out; both are powerful influencers, and should not at all be looked at as being in opposition one to the other. Nature and nurture. And we are also going to talk about the different roles and responsibilities we all have around the dinner table–part of the nurture element. The family dinner table is the metaphor we’ll use, but the roles and responsibilities are transportable to other settings. Conversations at the dinner table can certainly be effective, as are doing activities together, conversations in the car, during exercise, and talking while just hanging out. I include all of this under “The Dinner Table.”

For the dinner table to work, to start with someone has to know something worthwhile. No, I am not talking about biases or opinions based on preconceived notions. And I am not talking about lecturing anyone, or trying to be right simply because you know, by God, you’re right. I am talking about things that will make the people around you better if they listen and take action on what you said or showed them by example. Making your case verbally with logic, making your case by example, making your case with care and with the other person’s benefit in mind can open a path for you to be heard. Share what you believe if you can also share, calmly and logically, why you believe it. And for the dinner table to work, someone else has to be willing to listen. Not be willing to buy into everything that’s said, but to be respectful enough to listen. Imagine that; a conversation where the speaker has something valuable to say, and the listener has enough intellectual curiosity and respect to actually listen.

The evidence of the power of the dinner table is all around us. I’ll pass along some examples I have read about, and some from my own experience. And, my guess is, you have examples of your own.

In sports, one of the first examples that comes to mind is the Manning family. Archie, Dad, and sons, Peyton and Eli, were all starting NFL quarterbacks; the sons have two Super Bowl rings each. Had the eldest son, Cooper, not been diagnosed with spinal stenosis the summer before he was to play football at his Dad’s alma mater, the University of Mississippi, he could easily have been the best of the three sons. How did that happen? Football,...

View Details

School Choice: Vital To America’s Future (EP. 380)

At Revolution 2.0™, we talk about foundational principles, e.g., like having a moral compass, gratitude, personal responsibility, and often the critical issues of the day, using the Revolution 2.0 principles as a foundation for the discussion about the issue. Our last episode featured the timely issues of the Rittenhouse and Arbery self-defense trials. Today’s topic is about a far larger and lasting issue: School Choice.

If we want to get our country back on track, and keep it there, the best possible education, starting early in life, is vital. That makes school choice my No. 1 political issue. Real school choice means that the national average of $15K per year per student spent on public school K-12 education would follow the student, to be spent as the parents see fit. Parents would be able to choose amongst freely available and equally funded traditional public, public charter and private schools via vouchers.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing:

“The caribou feeds the wolf, but it is the wolf who keeps the caribou strong.” Keewations (Inuit) proverb.

One of the signature environmental books of the 70’s was “Never Cry Wolf” by Farley Mowat (how’s that for a name?). A wonderful book with many intriguing, fun, and memorable anecdotes, with the core message being that wolves had been getting a bad rap. Until the publication of Mowat’s book, wolves were broadly seen as dangerous predators, with few–if any–redeeming characteristics. In his view-changing book, Mr. Mowat provides convincing proof that wolf packs make the caribou herds stronger. A truth the Inuit had known for generations.

How could that be? Don’t wolves prey on caribou? Indeed they do, but Mowat proved that the wolves attacked and killed only the weak, diseased and injured caribou, leaving the herd stronger. He observed that even the fastest wolf had a nearly impossible time felling a healthy caribou. This limitation caused the wolf to make the caribou herds stronger by eliminating the weak animals who would slow the herd, reproduce and compete for food.

In the same way that wolf packs make the caribou herds stronger, charter schools and vouchers will make public schools stronger. No sane parent would choose a charter school or take advantage of a voucher if the local school was strong, producing good results with its students. They would opt out only from the weaker schools. And unlike the caribou, weak schools get a second chance. If parents start opting for other choices in significant numbers, the troubled school has time to improve and strengthen. If the school cannot or will not improve sufficiently, it will close and improve the overall quality of the herd. If this happens repeatedly and over time, there might be fewer public schools. But the remaining public schools will be stronger. Even more importantly, the “herd”, public schools, charters, and private schools, all serving the students, parents and the community, will be stronger.

Vouchers are another type of helpful wolf. Charters provide one type of strengthening competition–vouchers another. Vouchers could be used in a broad variety of schools, likely more schools with more types of choices than local charters. Obviously this further expands the choices available to parents and students. And more competition will make the K-12 herd stronger.

View Details

Rittenhouse innocent: Arbery killers guilty. Both correct.

Our nation of laws, created in 1776 and refined over time, won and kept at terrible costs in blood and treasure, is in danger of devolving into a nation of warring cliches and uninformed biases. What began with a triumphant bang might well end with a selfish whimper. Stay with me and I will go over the why and the how of this.

America was once arbitrarily ruled by King George, backed by his military, later arbitrarily ruled by the powerful in the Wild West backed by violence, and again by the Robber Barons of the late 19th Century backed by massive wealth and the willingness to use it selfishly. America, that’s us, is now in danger of being ruled arbitrarily by cliche-based biases, agenda and lies wielded by politicians, media, pundits and power brokers. “Whatever it takes is their motto.” The end justifies the means they say.

Contining:

As America grew and developed, rule by power and influence was replaced but the rule of law. Rule by King George gave way to the Constitution. Rule by gunfire in the Wild West was replaced by courts and juries. Today the direction is reversing; rule by law is being replaced by biases and agendas, enforced with their “whatever it takes” approach.

Both the Kyle Rittenhouse and Ahmaud Arbery trials, featuring self defense, delivered the correct findings: Rittenhouse was innocent, the three accused in Aubrey guilty.

Both Rittenhouse and Aubrey made major mistakes. Rittenhouse, 17, young, stupid, and naive. Followed false patriots by showing up armed in Kenosha during the Jacob Blake protests and riots. Governor Evans should have exerted far more control over the looting and burning; the teenager should have stayed home. The 25-year-old Arbery was seen on security video trespassing in a home in the defendants’ neighborhood that was under construction and unoccupied. The owner reported items stolen from his boat that was on the property, but there is no evidence Arbery was the thief. On the day of the murder, Arbery had entered the home again. The three murderers chased Arbery because he was trespassing. When Arbery turned to confront the one with the shotgun, he was fatally shot. Arbery should never have trespassed; the men should never have followed him.

What did not happen. Rittenhouse did not cross state lines with a firearm. He did not go to Kenosha with the intent of gunning down innocent protesters. Aubrey did nothing to deserve being followed and confronted by 3 armed men.

Disingenuous to laud one outcome, and decry the other. Takes lies to even try to make that case. Let’s hear some of those lies and focused misinformation:

President Joe Biden, then a presidential candidate, instantly branded Rittenhouse a “white supremacist” in the aftermath of the August 2020 shootings, and even used his photo in a tweet to do so. He also demanded to know why then President Trump did not “disavow white supremacists” like Rittenhouse.

Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, D-MA, tweeted: “A 17 year old white supremacist domestic terrorist drove across state lines, armed with an AR 15. He shot and killed 2 people who had assembled to affirm the value, dignity, and worth of Black lives. Fix your damn headlines.”

Pressley’s colleague, Congresswoman Cori Bush, D-MO, tweeted: “When we marched in Ferguson, white supremacists would hide behind a hill near where Michael Brown Jr. was murdered and shoot at us. They never faced consequences. If Kyle Rittenhouse gets acquitted, it tells them that even 7 years later they still can get away with it.”

This new lie adds to the “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie about Mr. Brown that is being perpetuated to this day.

After the verdict, Bush tweeted: “The judge. The Jury. The defendant. It’s white supremacy in action. The system isn’t built to be held accountable. It’s why Black and brown folks are brutalized and put in cages while white supremacist murderers walk free....

View Details

A complete immigration solution is one of the important issues facing our country today. And there is a clear, workable, fair and comprehensive solution set that has been ignored for decades. Why? Some groups want illegals flooding in to get voters, others want the same illegals for cheap labor.

(N. B. With the weekly first Revolution 2.0™https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioLesnCIp_Y ( YouTube) video posted November 4th, and the podcasts continuing into their 4th year, this space is now a summary, more like my speaker’s notes, pointing to both the audio podcasts and the videos.)

I want a complete immigration solution. I don’t want open borders. No nation can exist for any length of time like that. And I don’t want to be the State of America in the United Nations of the World. What I do want is a secure, prosperous, welcoming America; an America that can continue to be attractive to and lead the way for the rest of the world. Here’s how we get to a complete immigration solution:

First, secure our borders. Stop using the term “wall.” We don’t need a wall everywhere; technology, human observation and intervention, and natural boundaries will be very effective.

Insist that employers use https://preview.e-verify.gov/ (E-verify) prior to hiring. No more paying illegals an under market wage, and under the table.

Use technology to track those who overstay their visas; by most accounts some 50% of those who are here illegally have simply overstayed their visas.

Create a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally. Put them behind those who came here legally. And no voting; that’s a bridge too far for anyone who snuck in.

Allow in a generous number of legal immigrants every year based on 1. Merit–who we want–and 2. People who need to be here, regardless of what they can contribute. It seems like an 80/20 mix of merit and need is about right with 1.5M-2M per year. Today; 1M legal and .5-1M illegal.

=========================== CONNECT WITH ME: =========================== YOUTUBE: Subscribe here –https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q ( https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5C…)

WEBSITE:https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqa0JPZVU2SHVhUmxHeVB0ZVR2Q3VzR2FFYU1ZZ3xBQ3Jtc0trTFB4Y2lNMmtyOC1YMWhEQ3Q1OUF2OWVZTW5ESW9pOVZhTHZSNmVqVjAxR0lFaTBqdElnbEdkeVlZTGNfZU5EaGNZUjg3Q1h4SHJwMFpuR2dZNUhQN2FxQlVCbjF6UUZtSXBUMWJ1d21WLUlvcS0ybw&q=https%3A%2F%2Frevolution2-0.org ( https://revolution2-0.org) E-MAIL: Will@Revolution2-0.org

SPOTIFY:https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbFg2V1NWZTFqUUxLYlZXM2ZSay1aWVQ1VXc4Z3xBQ3Jtc0tsd1ZWb2p5bDY5Q1I1eXZIS2FXY1dRNkI0OVJtTS1CNExtTVFWVGx1ekhMU0hSbG50NGsxUTM5U3lrSEdPOXJLaFl1RVBZdHo4VlRmNnlSOUpsMy1vakpRZVNqdDJsdkQxakRTTjJOQVJkSEFHbVNIUQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Fopen.spotify.com%2Fshow%2F6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 ( https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3…)

APPLE PODCAST:https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbUN3U0FfbWZEMDd2UHVnNVJfY25FN2dnbXgwZ3xBQ3Jtc0trYjl4QjlzLU4tWFY5eFNieklJTDBQeUVJWmFtaDRhd1FzT2lCcXFZRUltWUFrYWU4ZVA3SzlrT2NOVm5MOEtSZDFmRmNycFV4M3RBbk40NVNwU3VIeHVNcllKYkR1YURHVzZBb0tFWWFweTRUZ1J4Yw&q=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.apple.com%2Fus%2Fpodcast%2Frevolution-2-0%2Fid1353135552 ( https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast…)

GOOGLE PODCAST:https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqa2o5QlFiNEhiVjRRbGZXbE1ZNENGMEM1ZUhSUXxBQ3Jtc0trQWU5bjhuSjMxSlYyU0tPQjhJMmxUcWowLVNZX255TXFMMW9Sa2xYa192cFk3TmUwelYxbWdxRDVraUZYV3hhZlFmUHd2REdsdUM3RjhzbnJrbkp1TjU3czRybUtEUVE5bmhHUzZDS1pRN0d1WDZQTQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.google.com%2Ffeed%2FaHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv ( https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0…)...

View Details

There are a lot of agenda-based partial truths and downright lies being tossed around about the capitalism v socialism discussion. With occasional self-serving comments about communism.

A few episodes ago, we spoke about personal finances, and the need for personal understanding and discipline. Today we are applying the same process, understanding and discipline, to public finances.

Capitalism v socialism.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode

Continuing:

Capitalism is the greatest wealth producing engine the world has ever seen. Out of poverty. A system wherein people, individuals or groups, including corporations, own the means of production and engage in voluntary exchanges of money for goods and services.

Profit: Selling things for more than it costs to make them, drives everything; capitalism, democratic socialism, traditional socialism, communism, no matter what the system is. Here we are not talking about taxes or what you do with taxes; we are talking about how you make the money and wealth that is taxed in the first place. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it. That is done through generating profits. The gozindas have to exceed the gozoutas or nothing works in any system.

Socialism; so-called “Democratic” or not, means governments own the means of production. We don’t. Denmark is often used as an example of democratic socialism. But Denmark disagrees; their model is capitalism with heavy income redistribution. After seeing his country held up as an example in the 2016 US Democratic presidential debate, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen used an address at Harvard to explain the Nordic model to a US audience suddenly very interested in Denmark. “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

Redistribution is not socialism. All societies redistribute wealth. All of them. If all a particular society did was to tax enough to provide roads, some would pay more for those roads than others. Most people are likely to use the roads disproportionately to their tax contribution. Some more, some less; that’s an example of redistribution. The question is not whether to redistribute wealth, but what is the proper level of redistribution.

Communism means you are not allowed to own your own business. Leading communist countries, including Russia, China and Vietnam, have all finally allowed free market practices to exist legally. Out of necessity. Communism has simply not worked anywhere. And never will. Those countries need free market profits to support their economies and to keep their one-party leaders in power. Capitalist engine supporting communist dictatorships. Capitalism v socialism.

What government does uniquely well. Not start with big or small. What should it do, cost, fair taxes. Answer.

Clear: Roads. First responders.

Fund but not provide: K-12, Utilities? Corrections?

Not at all: Manuf, service industry, the vast art of our economy, etc.

Stories can paint pictures and make points in memorable ways; this story is a case in point. Here we have a tourist from America, travelling in an Eastern European socialist country engaged in a conversation with a local. They are involved in a discussion about socialism, with the European touting how devoted he is to the concept. The American asks, “So, if you had 1,000 horses, you’d give away 500?”

“Of course,” was the reply.

“And if you had 500 sheep, you’d give away 250?”

“Absolutely.”

Impressed, the American had one more question before...

View Details

The founding of our nation, the United States of America, in 1776 included a stunning claim of the creator-granted rights of the individual by a pipsqueak country, hurled in the face of the most powerful empire the world had ever seen. A key part of America her heroes

And our nation has been deeply flawed, and to a far lesser extent, still is. Yet it remains the last, best hope of earth. Lincoln and Powell.

Christopher Columbus was courageous, and dedicated to the heretical notion that the earth was round, not flat. He opened the New World to Western Civilization. And he was deeply flawed.

All nations, and every person was or is greatly flawed. We must not search for and punish imperfections; we must search for those entities whose contributions were far in excess of these flaws.

(N. B. With the first Revolution 2.0™ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioLesnCIp_Y (YouTube) video posted November 4th, and the podcasts continuing into their 4th year, this space is now a summary, more like my speaker’s notes, pointing to both the audio podcasts and the videos.)

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Declaration. Virtually all countries were monarchies or other forms of dictatorship.

Summary: We lost, and we lost and we lost, then we won. Miracle. Flawed.

First to declare that man’s rights came from his creator, and that government was there to defend those pre-existing rights.

Lives, fortunes, sacred honor. Honor, much less sacred?

Powell quote re constitution (operational 1789): “Just as they did in Philadelphia when they were writing the constitution, sooner or later, you’ve got to compromise. You’ve got to start making the compromises that arrive at a consensus and move the country forward.”

No nation without the Constitution. Articles of Confederation (1781-1789) did not work. What entity would have defeated slavery?

Commitment when time was right. Union dead. Massive casualties. 110,100 Union soldiers died in battle: 67,088 KIA, 43,012 MW. 224,580 died of disease. 2,226 were wounded. 1 Army commander, 3 corps commanders, 14 division commanders, and 67 brigade commanders, including 32 generals, were killed in the Union Army.

Regression line of progress.

Jim Crow

Integration. Military in 1948. Before Browne v School Board. Powell saw as a meritocracy. Where is our meritocracy?

America and her heroes. Wars: Revolution, Civil (oxymoron), Native Americans, WWI, WWII, Marshall Plan, Vietnam, Iraq. Middle East.

America and her heroes. People: Jefferson, slaves; Washington, slaves; MLK; Columbus on a 62′ ship with 40 men on board for 36 days, inept and cruel administrator. Hitler. Yes, Hitler. Loved dogs.

Glass is 95% full, or completely empty. On balance. Preponderance.

Us? Our flaws? Do we hold ourselves to the same standard?

Today’s Key Point: fix not curse.

I don’t like him. I need to get to know him better. Dislike Washington and Jefferson until you get to know them better.

Democracy is the worst form of government, until you compare it with all the others. America–is the worst country. Get to know her. History. Warts and all. were Fix not curse. History. Roll around in it; get it all over you.

We all have the personal responsibility to be at our best. And when our faults come to the fore, apologise, recant, ask for forgiveness, make it right, and keep on improving. Speaking of personal responsibility, this principle does not stand alone; the two main and interdependent principles at Revolution 2.0 are:

https://revolution2-0.org/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,
Be https://revolution2-0.org/am-i-my-brothers-keeper-2/ (Your Brother’s Keeper). The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Where do you stand? What are you going to do? Remember, it does not matter where you...

View Details

I often learn, including learning financial literacy, by teaching my children.

The rules for understanding financial literacy,and financial success, like the rules for succeeding in life, are simple to understand, and hard to follow. And once you know both of these truths, financial success gets a whole lot easier.

(N. B. With the first YouTube video to be posted November 4th, and the podcasts continuing into their 4th year, this space is now a summary, more like my speaker’s notes, pointing to both the audio podcasts and the videos.)

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing:

Make more than you spend

Spend less than you make

https://revolution2-0.org/ducking-our-debts-student-loans-taxes-credit-cards-etc-ep-355/ (Debt) is a four letter word. Never finance anything that depreciates. Cars. Appliances. Vacations. 3a Car dealer information. Beater car.

3b Compound interest is the 8th Wonder of the Word. Einstein. Earn or pay interest on interest.

Pay yourself first.

Delayed gratification.

What’s the ROI? School. Opportunity cost included?

Today’s Key Point:

Brookings Institute. 1. At least finish high school, 2. Get a full-time job and 3. wait until age 21 to get married and have children. Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class.”

“Two bits” 2, 4,6, dollar–holler. My two bits. Gits were eights of a dollar coin.

We all have the personal responsibility to be financially responsible and to teach and help others to do the same thing. Speaking of personal responsibility, this principle does not stand alone; the two main and interdependent principles at Revolution 2.0 are:

http://resultswithreason.com/2018/12/07/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,
Be Your http://resultswithreason.com/2018/03/23/am-i-my-brothers-keeper-2/ (Brother’s Keeper). The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

As always, whatever you do, do it in love. Without love, anything we do is empty. 1 Corinthians 16:1.

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me onhttp://twitter.com/willluden ( Twitter), @willluden, https://www.facebook.com/revolution2pod/ (Facebook), facebook.com/will.luden, andhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/revolution-2-0/ ( LinkedIn), www.linkedin.com/in/willluden/. And you can subscribe on your favorite device through https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/revolution-2-0/id1353135552 (Apple Podcasts), https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yZXZvbHV0aW9uMi0wLm9yZy9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv (Google Podcasts), https://open.spotify.com/show/6rr6fi3AMW0GoAfYQ64lf9 (Spotify) and wherever you listen to podcasts.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw5CDliD-PRQE_8bO4Eg98Q (YouTube)

This is Will Luden. We’ll talk again soon.

View Details

Alec Baldwin pointed and fired a loaded gun on the set of the movie “Rust,” killing https://apnews.com/article/halyna-hutchins-cinematographer-dead-d5e1671e61d7b38e225489680f3f1901 (Halyna Hutchins), 42, the cinematographer, and wounding director Joseph Souza, 48.

The answer to the posed question is clearly both. Mr. Baldwin is an actor, and he killed Ms. Hutchins with a bullet fired from the gun he pointed in her direction–and then pulled the trigger. The more important question relating to Baldwin is: Is Mr. Baldwin guilty of involuntary manslaughter?

(N. B. With video coming in a few weeks, this space is now a summary, more like my speaker’s notes, pointing to both the audio podcasts and the videos.)

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing:

Three basic rules for handling any gun. The gun used by Baldwin was a high caliber, Colt 45 revolver.

In-store experience.

Chain of events.

Live rounds on the set. 500 live rounds on the set.

Armorer. Inexperienced–low budget movie. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, 24, received the fatal gun from crew member Sarah Zachary. The armorer, who also goes by Hannah Gutierrez, appeared on the “Voices of the West” podcast last month where she admitted she was initially uncertain about her abilities. “I just finished up working on ‘The Old Way’ with Nicolas Cage, his very first Western. It was also my first time being head armorer as well. You know, I was really nervous about it at first and I almost didn’t take the job because I wasn’t sure if I was ready. But doing it, it went really smoothly,” she said. Turns out she was not ready. No one dies when the armorer is ready. Additionally, around half a dozen camera crew members had walked off the “Rust” set just hours before the shooting in protest of working conditions, a person familiar with the matter told NBC News. Earlier, https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set (The Los Angeles Times reported) that there were two previous prop gun misfires on set, one the previous week and one on the prior Saturday. Assistant Director Dave Hall, described as the last line of defense, handed Baldwin the gun, saying “Cold Gun.” Live rounds.

Alec Baldwin himslef, as are all of us, was the last line of defense. He failed. Here’s Mr. Baldwin himself on the subject of guns. “I’m in favour of people owning guns but I’m in favour of there being the most arduous process for them to qualify to own that gun. We license many things in our society. You can’t walk into a store to get all the drugs you need. You could be in agonizing pain, and you still have to go to a hospital and stand in line and you have to go to a doctor and get a prescription from a pharmacist. We license cars. We license a lot of things and I think that we need to license guns beyond the way we do it now.” Qualification must include training and responsible handling, eh, Alec?

Baldwin was not just an actor on the movie Rust, he is a major co-producer of the movie. As the actor who pulled the gun’s trigger and as one of the film’s top producers, he’s facing serious civil liability; insurance liability. Should he also face criminal liability?

Involuntary manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing. http://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/Codified_Laws/DisplayStatute.aspx?Type=Statute&Statute=22-16-20 (Involuntary manslaughter) usually involves acts of negligence or recklessness that lead to another person’s death.

Penalties for involuntary manslaughter are generally less severe than other forms of homicide. However, in New Mexico, it is still a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in prison and up to $5,000 in fines.

This is very much about gun control–personal responsibility. No need for the predictable overreaction coming from the usual suspects.

Hutchins, 42, was...

View Details

(N. B. With video coming in a few weeks, this space is now a summary, pointing to both the audio podcasts and the videos.)

Longtime friends are walking away from decades of affection and mutual enjoyment over vaccines. Families are split over who voted–or did not vote–for Donald J. Trump. Nobody wins any of these discussions; all that happens is that love and friendship are lost.

We have completely lost sight of what is important.

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

View Details

(N. B. With video coming in a few weeks, this space will become more and more of a summary, pointing to both the audio podcasts and the videos.)

Introduction:

A University of Michigan music professor is facing backlash after showing the 1965 film “Othello” with star Laurence Olivier in blackface.

President Joe Biden issued the first-ever presidential proclamation of Indigenous Peoples’ Day, lending the most significant boost yet to efforts to refocus the federal holiday celebrating Christopher Columbus toward an appreciation of native peoples.

Sanitizing, well, rewriting, history is deeply wrong and will lead nowhere but to the destructive–and intended–results.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

1984 Super Bowl.

“Professor Sheng’s actions do not align with our school’s commitment to anti-racist action, diversity, equity and inclusion,” David Gier, dean of the School of Music, Theatre & Dance, said last week, adding that Sheng has been reported to the Office of Equity, Civil Rights, and Title IX.”

Students who saw the film were upset that Olivier’s face was covered in black make-up as he portrayed Shakespeare’s Othello. One of Sheng’s students, Olivia Cook, told the Michigan Daily that she was “stunned.”

“’In such a school that preaches diversity and making sure that they understand the history of POC in America, I was shocked that [Sheng] would show something like this in something that’s supposed to be a safe space,’ Cook said.” Ms. Cook speaks for herself and millions of others, including the bulk of our education establishment, when she declares that: 1. Universities should be safe spaces and 2. Diversity has a limited, non-diverse definition. Ms. Cook, the education establishment and the Biden administration are taking the position that history must be sanitized in order to be safe for public consumption.

Safe spaces.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell’s famous quote comes from his justifiably famous science fiction novel “1984.”

No one whose heart is in the right place and whose head is on even close to being on straight is afraid of the truth.

In “1984”, the authorities were constantly inventing new lies to justify their absolute authority.

Only those with nefarious and under-the-table agendas hide the truth. And what is happening today is far worse; more than hiding the truth, lies are being substituted wholesale for the truth. Instead of hiding part or all of the truth, entirely new and completely fabricated stories are now being held up as the truth.

The truth about Christopher Columbus is that he was a fiercely dedicated man, who backed his heretical convictions about the world being round and not flat with everything he had. He was courageous, focused and a superb navigator, opening up the Americas to Western Civilization starting in 1492. It is also true that he was a deeply flawed human, and caused a lot of damage in his role as a governing administrator.

Columbus was a hero, and a flawed human. George Washington was another hero. And a flawed human. I am no hero, and I am flawed. And you?

The truth about the 1963 movie “Othello” is that Laurence Oilvier played the Moor Othello in blackface. Othello is one of the best known plays by the timeless and brilliant William Shakespeare. Mr. Olivier is unarguably one of the best actors of his day, and clearly the best Shakespearean actor of his day. Othello, the Moor, was meant by The Bard to be black. Over time a variety of white actors have played Othello. It was not until the 1830s that a black actor, Ira Aldridge, played the role. Nearly 100 years later, the black singer, activist and actor Paul Robeson played Othello, a role he reprised at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1959. Today we take it for granted that...

View Details

Introduction:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/barack-obama/ (Barack Obama) began his climb to the presidency by serving for three years as a community organizer.

The school boards that have a heavy hand in steering and managing our young are made up primarily of unpaid people who were elected in little-noticed elections.

Everyday our nation is changing, rarely for the better, by mob and media reactions to singular events. For example, George Floyd, a habitual criminal and drug user, was murdered in cold blood by an out-of-control cop. Mr. Floyd was a victim who has been made into a martyr for causes where the claim that he was martyred is one of their more logical arguments.

If you have beliefs and convictions different from those that are taking hold in our nation today, then you must step up and get involved. Not just by voting, and certainly not just by posting on Facebook or other social media. The alternative is to allow the truly active people to control everyone’s future. Including yours.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

When states pass laws restricting abortion, pro-abortion activists, supported by much of the media, take to the streets and capture headlines with signs and slogans like, “My Body, My Choice,” and “Abortion Is Healthcare.” If you are against abortion, what are you doing about it?

Certain news outlets and politicians promote the belief that if groups of color are disproportionately negatively impacted by anything from bad grades to arrest and conviction records, that this is prima facie proof of racism. If you believe that some next level digging needs to be done here, e.g., are there any cultural or habitual explanations for these negative outcomes, what are you doing? Anything? If you believe that these groups and the people in them can benefit greatly from discovering–and correcting–these root causes, are you contributing to a real solution, are you contributing in any way to improving their lives by posting on social media?

For the moment, let’s go to just one more example. Some people believe that the way to end poverty is simply to give people money. Hey, if you give them enough money, they will no longer be poor, right? Our President, Joe Biden, actually said that the recent, and temporary, Child Care Tax Credit reduced poverty by 40%. Now the administration wants that temporary cash benefit to become permanent. Extending their, well, logic, you would just give even more money away to the same people to eliminate poverty entirely. And if you want to expand the middle class, well, just give more people more money, and voila: an expanded middle class. Easy, right?

If you believe that if the policy of giving away money to reduce poverty was made permanent that it would create more generational poverty not less, what are you doing about it? If you believe this money-for-nothing approach not only is wrong for the people receiving the money, but sets the broader expectation of cradle-to-grave entitlement care in America, how is your voice being heard?

You are hearing my voice now. Together we are at episode 371, with a year of written blogs prior to these podcasts. Last week I switched from two episodes per week to one, with YouTube and Vimeo videos planned for October–this month. The two a week podcasts required a full time effort, as will the one per week videos. Much is involved; thinking and praying about what I am meant to say, to communicate, writing, rewriting and rewriting. Practicing my delivery. More practicing. And then more. Constantly learning new technology. Implementing current technology. Work to expand my audience. Rinse and repeat.

When we disagree, as we very likely will from time-to-time, I am just as eager for your voice to be heard as when we agree. Here are a couple possible examples. If you disagree with having any mandates, e.g., healthcare workers and decisions made by...

View Details

Introduction:

The strongest teams are made up of strong people, with different strengths, who advocate strongly for their positions. And when a decision is made by their leader, they sit down in the boat and row hard in the direction that was chosen.

Donald Trump’s style, in business and government, is to insist on his way, ignoring or even removing any dissenting voices. Blind loyalty above all. Joe Biden’s style has devolved into reading the teleprompter, with little knowledge–or care–about what is going on in his administration or in the world around him. In other words, abdication is Biden’s style.

Neither President has a clue about building and leading strong teams. But such were our choices in 2020, and heaven forbid, may be yet again in 2024.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Today’s Key Point: If we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters.

The “Team of Rivals” concept has been around at high levels in the US even since Abraham Lincoln’s presidency. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Winston Chruchill, were strong leaders who are well known for putting together teams of rivals to successfully navigate their country through deep crises; WWII for Roosevelt and Churchill, and the Civil War with Lincoln. These teams of rivals included not only those with very different political and financial thinking, but former bitter rivals–and even those who had held their current offices before them.

Lincoln knew that he needed the help that would come from a strong cabinet, so he made the strategic decision to include his major Republican party rivals in his Cabinet: Salmon P. Chase as secretary of the treasury, William H. Seward as secretary of state, Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war and Edward Bates as attorney general. Chase, Seward and Bates had been competitors for the GOP presidential nomination, and all of them, especially Chase and Seward, had a shockingly low regard for Lincoln’s abilities and promise.

Democrat Roosevelt’s cabinet included strong Republicans, notably Frank Knox, a rival Republican Vice Presidential candidate in 1936–and the man who FDR picked to be his Secretary of Navy during WWII. Prime Minister Churchill went a step further by appointing the immediate former Prime Minister and head of the opposition party, Neville Chamberlain, to be his number two man. Lincoln, Roosevelt and Churchill picked the best people, regardless of political affiliation.

No one can imagine anything like that happening today. Instead of using the talents of their rivals, our politicians are besmirching and belittling them. But aren’t many of us doing the same thing? Cancelling people because of their beliefs. Shunning family and former friends–on social media and in the real world–because of their political beliefs.

At the official founding of our nation, with the ratification of the https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified (Constitution) in 1789, only propertied white males could vote. This was the opposite of inclusiveness and diversity, but it had temporary advantages. These were the very men who had just gone through a revolution, an impossible revolution pitting a tiny country with an ill trained and poorly equipped military against the most powerful force the world had ever seen. Here’s a summary of our miraculous victory: We lost and we lost and we lost–until we won. This country, our country, had risked everything and won. America and its fighters risked their lives, property and money–everything they had–to gain their–and our–freedom. They had, in the most expansive meaning of the term, “skin in the game.” You can believe that they had enough of themselves invested in their country, that they–each one–would do a deep dive into the candidates and issues before voting. A deep...

View Details

Introduction:

Joy Reid, an MSNBC Host, was exactly right when she dubbed the extensive and continuing news coverage of the disappearance of Gabby Petito a case of “missing white woman syndrome” and questioned if people of color involved in similar cases are given the same level of attention by the media. She correctly observed that when a white woman went missing, that missing person report received massive media attention. Women of color, crickets.

Ms. Reid missed the opportunity to report on the equally obvious and far more fatal “dead black man syndrome” where the 1% of black male deaths caused by cops are major and lasting media events, and the other 99% go unnoticed and unmourned.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Most so-called news sources are focused on pandering to their target audience; “details” like real news and the truth are not merely lower priorities–they are seldom considered at all. If you want the truth, and who doesn’t, there is no one source any more. You must go to several disparate sources, ignoring various amounts of anger and bias, and distill the truth on your own.

Joy Reid followed the example of researchers who came up with the name “missing white woman syndrome.” Michelle Jeanis, an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, says it has been in existence for decades. Ms Jeanis studies the relationship between missing persons and the media. She contends the news media’s use of a “cautionary tale framing” around white women as victims is lucrative to the industry and reinforces systemic social biases, especially on social media. “Young, beautiful, typically middle class, white women are incredibly newsworthy when bad things happen to them,” she told the BBC.

The media have the right to focus on any stories they wish. Publications like People and Star Magazines and the National Enquirer have very different selection criteria than, say, the Wall Street Journal. From the Enquirer you will get headlines like, “Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby,” and from the WSJ, “China Declares Cryptocurrency Transactions Illegal; Bitcoin Price Falls.”

I have no problem with the National Enquirer publishing stories about Ms. Cinton adopting an alien baby. No one with a room temperature IQ takes that publication seriously. And People magazine is clearly all about so-called celebrities and gossip. But Fox News, CNN, The LA Times and many more hold themselves out to be hard news sources, when in fact they curate their content and editorials to play to their selected audience. In other words, they are frauds. These three and more are versions of Star Magazine masquerading as hard news sources.

It was not always this way; for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite (Walter Cronkite) was an American broadcast journalist who served as anchorman for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Evening_News (CBS Evening News) for 19 years (1962–1981). During the 1960s and 1970s, he was often cited as “the most trusted man in America” after being so named in an opinion poll. Many people preferred to get their news from CBS because they liked Walter, but you could go to NBC or ABC, CBS’ rivals, and get the same information. Only the personalities were different.

Mr. Cronkite was a liberal, but more importantly to him, he was a professional. He had many wonderful qualities including sincerity, calmness and a professional demeanor and delivery. Perhaps the greatest compliment that I can give Cronkite is that I had no idea what his political leanings were until after his death in 2009; he simply never turned that card over, either explicitly or implicitly. No one can say that about a single news source today. Not. One.

Most of us know the story of the six blind men working to determine what was in front of them, then announce to the world what it was. Working

View Details

Introduction:

I remember neighborhood parties, do you? In my neighborhood as a youth, we knew each other, the kids played and argued together. Parents looked out for all the kids. Hitchhiking was safe.

Halloween was cause for big neighborhood events, as was Independence Day. The Schumacher family would occasionally hold recitals, with family members playing different instruments. Dads would tolerate the kids shoveling snow back onto the road from snowy lawns when the sledding hill was cleared by the plows.

The first crack, the first disturbance in the force, came when we all heard and read about people hiding things like needles and razor blades in the kids’ candy. I was too young to understand the concept of random evil, so I just went along with it as my candy was inspected before I was allowed to chomp down.

Working to put kids at risk of injury as they bite into a free apple or Fifth Avenue candy bar is an act of random evil. There is no purpose, no point other than injuring an unknown child, and being happy about it if you are lucky enough to read about the damage you caused in the paper.

The evil being perpetrated in the world today is not at all random; it is focused and determined, with specific people and groups being targeted and those doing the targeting.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Before we get into the far greater dangers that permeate today’s world, come back with me to simpler times, some of which are as recent as the early 2000s. I grew up, well started growing up, for almost 16 years in Strafford Village, PA, a town so small that it did not have its own post office. Chris, the white haired taxi driver, worked part time. He drove an all black four door sedan, wore a black uniform complete with a black tie and cap. Also black. He was polite and always on time. The Uber of the day. Dr. Kay, our family primary care physician, lived up a small hill from our house, with an attached complete office. His daughter, Linda, was in my same grade. The podiatrist that I saw one summer had his home office w-a-y across the open field the kids used for baseball–kinda like deep right field.

Independence Day was a major event. Children would enter the kids parade, often wearing homemade costumes, vying for prizes and recognition. Organized, well, semi-organized, games and feasting would follow. The Dads would handle the games, while the Moms dealt with the food. One year, one of the games included having blindfolded Dads line up to walk about 15 yards to reach out and identify their sons. The other boys and I were lined up directly across from the line of Dads, in the same order. My Dad was hesitant in how he walked, and seemed embarrassed at being the last to make the correct ID. My heart was bursting with the desire to tell him that I did not care at all about the results, that I was just wildly proud to be there with him. But I did not find the words. To this day, I wish that I had. Don’t miss those opportunities in your life.

Halloween was also a big deal. Despite the often freezing temperatures at that time of year in Pennsylvania, kids mobbed the streets. It was not at all uncommon for a group of kids to stand outside the home of a reluctant trick or treater to encourage him to come out and join in the fun. Yes, the dentist gave out toothbrushes, but his neighbor made up for it by giving out money.

Fast forward to San Mateo, CA in the early 2000s. The Independence Day parties were fun, but only a few homes participated. For a couple years, the New Year’s Eve parties were epic. We would go from home to home for the various stages of dinner, and if anyone imbibed more than they could handle, they could roll 20 yards downhill and be home. The men wore tuxes, and the ladies cocktail dresses. Save for one guy who dressed up as Saddam Hussein–and was a dead ringer. Saddam’s doppelganger.

Gradually, the neighborhood changed. The parties stopped;...

View Details

I Am A Liberal* (EP. 367)

Introduction:

*Classical liberal, that is. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty, and equal rights. They believed these goals required a free economy with minimal government interference. The first liberals won the initial levels of, well, liberalism, against the illiberal monarchy of King John in 1215 with the signing of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta (Magna Carta).

With that signing, the world took its first steps away from the illiberal monarchies and other dictatorships that covered the world toward the liberal democracies that appear in the world today.

Liberal meant free, as in free from autocratic rule, replacing that with a democracy where the people choose their leaders (not rulers). Liberal did not mean free as in most things ought to be free to the people who vote for certain politicians. Has the word liberal been hijacked to mean, “Free for you if you vote for me?”

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Words such as liberal, liberty, libertarian and libertine all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means “free”. One of the first recorded instances of the word liberal occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man.

Let’s hear from https://www.wsj.com/news/author/barton-swaim (Barton Swain) writing in the Wall Street Journal, “Liberalism is in trouble. I don’t mean the narrow “liberalism” of the post-1960s Democratic Party, although that’s in trouble, too. I mean liberalism in the wider, classical sense—a view of government and society embracing free markets, representative democracy, individual freedom, strict limits on state power, and religious neutrality.”

That’s exactly what liberal meant, and still means to me.

Free markets instead of business and commerce controlled by the monarch or the dictator.

Representative Democracy. Not rule by unmotivated, disinterested people who are cajoled into voting. And certainly not rule by career politicians who are in their professions primarily to acquire, increase and keep power.

Individual freedom. That’s the default condition. Any abridgement of individual freedom must be proven to be necessary not simply assumed while freedoms are sacrificed for the “greater good.”

Strict limit on state power. Similar to the above, our Constitution enumerates the powers granted to the government; any assumed powers beyond those are by definition unconstitutional.

Religious neutrality. That includes not allowing, and certainly not encouraging, state-tainted, quasi religions like CRT, climate change, COVID beliefs, government largesse and paternalism, etc. The primary tactic in every case is to present opinions masquerading as fact, then rewarding the believers, and insulting, castigating and cancelling the non-believers. I am not saying that all of the above have no foundation in at least some truth, any more than I am saying that none of the religions of the world have any foundation in truth. I am saying that much of the time truth is used in the presentations of these beliefs only when convenient. Then emotion, presentation skills and appeals to those in certain groups, ethnicities and those with biases and prejudices take over. Now that I have ruffled some feathers, let’s go on.

From time-to-time, I am asked to identify myself as a conservative or a liberal. More often, I am labeled as one or the other after someone hears or reads only one opinion of mine. For example, if they listen to an episode about fiscal responsibility, they assume that I am a conservative. Conversely, if they listen to an episode where I am promoting vaccines, they assume that I am a liberal. And once someone labels me, they expect that I will follow the religious-like complete dogma they associate with that label. And many people act that way themselves; once they adopt a label, they adopt

View Details

Introduction:

California is a one-party state. Democrats hold a supermajority in the legislature, and a 2-1 advantage in voter registrations. California elections rules allow for sending mail in ballots to all registered voters, and allow for vote harvesting, inviting low interest, low motivation voters to have a say in our democracy far in excess of their willingness to do even marginal research into the candidates and policies. And to be even marginally inconvenienced every two or four years in order to cast their votes

The recent recall never had a chance. And the California model is how the Democrats intend to create a one-party nation, where a Republican will never again be elected to national office. And this from a registered Unaffiliated voter.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Today’s Key Point: The, “You are a victim and deserve to have everything as close to free as possible,” pitch has its greatest appeal with the uninterested and uninformed. Anyone who has done even a little bit of reading, including some history and, perhaps, cursory reading in economics, will know that nothing is free. And, more importantly, that while getting things for free may form an appropriate safety net, it teaches nothing. With a little more reading and study, it becomes clear that safety nets are not where we were intended to live. Imagine, for example, going to a circus and seeing the trapeze artists spending the entire performance in the safety netting. After about five minutes, the crowd would boo the performers out of the arena. But politically, progressives are doing exactly that with our nation with goods and services like healthcare, housing, food, etc., needing to be free because they are all “human rights.”

The Democratic Party currently holds veto-proof supermajorities in both houses of the California State Legislature. The Assembly consists of 60 Democrats and 19 Republicans, with one independent, while the Senate is composed of 30 Democrats and 9 Republicans, with one vacancy. And instead of booing, we are expected to cheer, and insist on having more things to be delivered at no cost to the recipients. Hey, let’s add clothing and appropriate recreation to the list of human rights.

Even with all of those advantages, the media in California felt the need to weigh in on the recall. “Larry Elder is the Black Face of White Supremacy,” screamed the headline of a column in the LA Times. This is the same paper that completely ignored the recent story where a white woman wearing a gorilla mask threw eggs at candidate Elder, while screaming insults at the top of her voice. Imagine for a moment if a white person wearing a gorilla mask had thrown an egg at VP Haris, then verbally assaulted her.

More from the LA times: The editorial board on Wednesday celebrated Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s victory in his recall election, writing it was “a sigh of relief” that “extremist, intolerant” Larry Elder would not be replacing him.

“Phew. After months of worrying about the fate of California, we will sleep easier now that Gov. Gavin Newsom will not be removed from office early and replaced by right-wing provocateur Larry Elder, a radio host with no experience in elective office and who doesn’t seem interested in being a governor for all Californians — only those who share his extremist, intolerant views,” the board wrote.

Here is a quote from Mr. Elder, stating the core of his political views. “The biggest challenge in California in general is the intrusiveness of government,” he said. “I believe that a government that governs less governs best.” Mr. Elder was quoting Thomas Jefferson, apparently a fellow intolerant extremist.

CNN trumpeted, pun intended, “California Gov. Gavin Newsom was facing a tight race. Then Larry Elder came along.” The idea was that, oh thank you, thank you, Newsome’s main challenger was easy pickins. Nah. The fix...

View Details

Introduction:

“The 9/11 terror attacks on America changed our country forever.” Wrong. Not even close. “Never forget.” We forgot shortly after September 11th, 2001. The only permanent change is the ever-powerful, and marginally useful, TSA.

We profess to commemorate those who died, and to honor the first responders, with vows of unity and remembrance. Yet in our ever increasing and aggressive disunity, from all parts of the political spectrum, we dishonor them–and ourselves.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Today’s Key Point: Neither those terrorists nor the TSA are the core problem: We are. We’ll get back to this and elaborate, but first let’s look at the history of 9/11.

Everyone, at least everyone over 30, remembers the horror of the 9/11 attacks. President’s Bush’s stirring speech at the site of the destroyed towers. Fresh rows of American flags on homes. For those who don’t remember, we have had days of a virtual media blitz, showing and talking about the attacks. Commemorating the fallen, honoring the first responders.

President George W. Bush gave an impromptu, stirring bullhorn speech at the site of the fallen towers, on September 14th, just three days after the attack, in part promising revenge. “Go get ‘em, George!” came from the crowd. The President was interrupted loudly and often with chants of “USA!” The nation came together–for about a month. There was a frenzy of flag buying, with most of them made in China. Millions of people complained about the wait to get their post 9/11 flags. And fussed about the increased prices. Today, we are back to where only a very few fly the flag. Likely the same ones as before 9/11. And our son, the one who lives nearby in Colorado, felt the need to warn me against changing it out for one with the “Back the Blue” stripe, because it would make his parents a target. And he was right.

I was living in Silicon Valley during the 1989 earthquake, and was at the earthquake interrupted Game 3 of the World Series in Candlestick Park when it hit. That busy, bustling area, including San Francisco, was transformed by destruction and human tragedy. People cared for each other. Were polite on the freeways. Genuinely showed concern. For about three days. Then traffic and human behavior returned to normal. The 9/11 “transformation” lasted a whole month.

We were attacked by 19 Islamist terrorists with box cutters. Box cutters. Only four of the 19 terrorists had any flight training, and then only enough to fly a plane into a fixed target, and then only in good weather. When overheard, their last words were said to have been “Allahu Akbar”, a phrase meaning “God is most great”, used by Muslims in prayers and as a general declaration of faith or thanksgiving.

It takes a sick puppy to be thankful to God for the ability to kill thousands of civilians in a sneak attack. But it should not take much to stop sickos armed with box cutters. TSA spends billions of taxpayer dollars each year checking for metal objects and liquids in excess of 3.4 ounces, including that $3.50 bottle of water you purchased in the airport concourse 15 minutes prior. How good are they at finding real weapons? Let’s hear from Forbes magazine, “Undercover investigators working for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) managed to sneak fake guns, knives and explosives through checkpoints earlier this year, getting the mock weapons through a depressing 70% of the time. The unclassified summary noted ‘We identified vulnerabilities with TSA’s screener performance, screening equipment, and associated procedures.’”

Back to Today’s Key Point: Neither those terrorists nor the TSA are the core problem: We are. We’ll start with a quote from Abraham Lincoln, a quote that is featured on the Revolution 2.0™ website. “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we lose our freedoms, it will be because we have...

View Details

Introduction:

Sometimes slippery slopes are indeed slippery. When President Bill Clinton announced in 1992, just shy of 30 years ago, that abortions should be, “Safe, Legal and Rare,” I am guessing that a lot of people bought into that as a standard. And others saw it as the camel’s nose under the tent, which is why we are where we are today.

And today, both sides of this most controversial issue are getting it all wrong; both sides beg the basic questions with their emotional arguments. Those supporting abortion cry out, “It is a woman’s right to choose!” and “My body, my choice!” Those opposing abortion are equally emotional when they say that there is no Constitutional right to kill innocent babies. Both sides ignore the key questions: 1. When does life begin?, and,

When is it appropriate for the state to sanction the taking of a human life?

And tying into one of the two fundamental principles here at Revolution 2.0™, do these unborn beings qualify as our Brothers as in “Am I my Brother’s Keeper?”

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

This is a highly controversial subject, but it should not be. Using simple common sense, it becomes so very clear cut.

In the United States alone, we perform over 600K abortions each and every year. I start with this concrete fact to alert all of us to the critical nature of this discussion, and to the vital importance of getting the answer to this much discussed and controversial question absolutely right. The core of this question is life and death on a massive scale. Many times bigger than all of our war deaths, gun crime fatalities, deaths due to alcohol and other drugs. Anything.

And don’t we need to know exactly when life begins; I mean with great precision? Without being able to pinpoint the moment when life starts, we are clearly left with an agonizing grey area. As in the grey area when the fetus might be a life, and then again, it might not be. Is it a non-viable tissue mass or is it a human? In this grey area, aren’t we obligated to give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus, and treat it like a living human? We can’t be willing to abort a fetus if it might be a living human any more than we would fire a shotgun into a darkened room, not knowing if anyone was there or not.

Now that we know that we need a precise moment, what is that moment? Using trimesters as a standard does not give us that precise moment. Cutting the cord is a precise moment, but we clearly have a child by then, so that does not help. Is it when the entire baby emerges, or just the head? And if we call the baby fully emerging from the mother the test for the precise moment, what is so special about the feet? And how do you handle your thinking with breech babies and C-sections? The only precise moment in the whole process is conception. That’s when human life begins.

Now, what about the taking of a life for economic purposes, or simply for convenience or personal preference? As in the prospective parents cannot afford to have that child? Or convenience, as in it would be a 20-year burden to have this child? Or because the child might be mentally challenged? Or the wrong sex? What about when it is highly likely that the child will grow up with few–if any–advantages, and be born into the middle of a drug-infested, gangbanger neighborhood? Is it OK to kill the child under any of these circumstances? Because that’s exactly what we are doing now. We don’t want this baby, so we pretend that it is not a human. And when we convince ourselves that a class of beings is not human, we have given ourselves permission to do anything we want with them. Blacks were not seen as human, so it was OK to enslave them. Jews were...

View Details

Introduction:

The world will have a top cop, a nation that uses its strength to instill its preferred way for the world to be and to act. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, international politics will fill the void if a world cop is either not obvious, or, as today, abdicates. With America stepping away, running away, from the role, will the top cop be Russia, or China. Or…? The question is not whether the world needs a cop, but which nation will fill that role.

Being the world cop does not necessarily mean that the cop needs to indulge in “nation building”. Historically the nation acting as the world cop has its own interests in mind; it is not interested in the welfare of the nation it seeks to control. The only nation it seeks to build is itself.

It is naive to think that any nation would seek to spend its blood and treasure to create benefits for other nations if the cop nation’s national interests were not at stake. Ah, but perhaps we should be exactly that naive.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Those who say that nation building does not work are either ignorant of or simply ignore history. I’ll give you three examples: South Korea, Germany and Japan. When we defended South Korea against attack from Communist North Korea, the South was ruled by the aristocratic and corrupt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngman_Rhee (Syngman Rhee), who held power from 1948 to 1960. Only after the fall of its military dictatorship in the late 1980s has democracy become consolidated in the Republic of Korea, South Korea. Like South Korea, historically autocratic Germany and Japan had rocky transitions to democracy–and all three needed American “nation building” help. Neither Germany nor Japan had had a democratic past; it took patient, painful and expensive nation building. Now both countries have robust and successful democracies. Here is a bonus example: Taiwan. Even that defiant beacon of democracy, doing its best to stare down Communist China, was formed under the autocratic and cruel leadership of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek (Chaing-Kai-shek). Once again, the patient nation building of the US has helped give rise to the robust democracy enjoyed by the Taiwanese today.

Does this history of only recently democratized major countries put into perspective our Revolution in 1776, Revolution 1.0? Not only was tiny, poor, upstart America taking on Britain, the greatest economic and military power the world had ever seen, we were standing up for the rights of man when the world was almost entirely ruled by monarchies and dictatorships.

And even when we do not have the stomach for nation building, we can avoid a lot of damage by acting against the bad guys in that neglected nation early and often. It is one of the many and continuing ironies, hypocrisies, really, of political life here in the USA, that many of the same people who support our full and complete withdrawal from Afghanistan are wringing their hands and bemoaning the Taliban’s reinforcement of Sharia law, including everything from denying girls an education to beating women in the street. No surprise here: This is exactly how the Taliban ruled from 1996 to 2001, when the US, that’s us, came in and drove them from power. Pick one: either protect the people in countries like Afghanistan with boots on the ground, or harden your hearts and turn your backs on them.

Does anyone remember the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic (Weimar Republic), that shaky, corrupt, imposed-from-the-outside and thinly democratic government that ruled Germany from the end of WWI to Hitler’s ascendency in 1933? The parallels between Weimar and the imposed government that ruled Afghanistan from 2001 until 2021 are many and stark; too bad the Administration did not give that part of history a 30 minute read. Both governments were imposed on war weary populations, populations that had never experienced, and likely knew little...

View Details

Introduction:

The wording on a bumper sticker I saw was, “Young, Poor and Angry”. I did not add the italicized emphasis. And from the looks of the car, the young male driver was hardly poor. For purposes of the discussion in this episode, I substituted “Misled” for “Poor.” He was not poor; he has been misled into thinking that he is poor, that he is oppressed and disadvantaged. And misled to the point where he was proudly advertising his adopted anger.

Does this embraced angry demeanor, this angry lifestyle, explain causes and movements like microaggressions, CRT, and the collapse toward socialism?

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

I saw this colorful, professionally done bumper sticker on a late model car driven by what looked like a mid-20s, white male. “Young, Poor and Angry,” screamed the sticker, with “Angry” in italics.

Why? What was he angry about? Today’s Key Point: This young man has joined the ranks of the perpetually angry. He and the millions of others like him are angry that to get what they want requires focus, hard work, delayed gratification and, well, commitment–over time. And over a long time. It is not easy, and they are increasingly being promised easy. Worse, they are being told that if life is not easy that is proof they are being oppressed. And they are angry at being “oppressed.”

The charlatans selling this dangerous oppressed/oppressor lie are not trying to help anyone but themselves. The leaders want the votes and power that comes from promising free, and the followers want the free. You know, as in everything that is either necessary or valuable in life is a human right. The “Life is supposed to be easy,” con artists are even putting out (likely selling) professionally done bumper stickers. Not just clean letters on an attractive background; full graphics are needed to pitch this con. And, yes, this “Life should be easy” con gives rise to ethnic-based cons like affirmative action and CRT, and the class war con, socialism. All of them promise free, and free is easy. And easy works; it takes far less effort to be angry than to work hard and be successful. But easy only works for a short while.

Let’s take a deeper look at why this young man was advertising his anger by taking a look at what he might have to be angry about. Certainly not about being young. And it is highly unlikely that he was angry about being white. So it must be about the poor part. Let’s think this through together. Young is not a permanent condition, and overall, it’s a good thing. Anger is a moment-to-moment choice. No matter what the stimulus is, no matter how compelling or outrageous the stimulus may be, before we react there is choice. Between stimulus and response there is always choice.

And poor is also a choice. Really, Will, some people choose to be poor? Really? Unlike our ability to choose how to respond to stimuli moment-to-moment, choosing to be–or not to be–poor is a choice, one that we need to act on over a longer time period. The center/left Bhttps://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/ (rookings Institute) lists three simple steps, which if followed will allow 75% of the people on this path to be the middle class. (Which, BTW, in the US is pretty good.) Only 2% of people who do these things will be poor. And we’d have to re-do all of those bumper stickers.

What are these steps?

Graduate High School

Have a full-time job

Don’t have kids until you are married.

How hard is that? And the reward is substantial.

If the young man in the car, and millions of others like him, did these three simple things, he and they would benefit greatly.

View Details

Introduction:

There are three things I know about God: 1. There is one, 2. You are not Him and 3, Neither am I.

Wait, Will, why are you talking about God? Isn’t https://revolution2-0.org/ (Revolution 2.0™) about culture, society and politics?

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing:

Core to everything we do, including culture, society and politics is having a moral compass. Mine is God, yours might be something else; in a moment we will talk about what a moral compass must be to be effective. But back to God for now. My first point is that there is a God. Some believe that the Big Bang theory explains things without needing a God, but who said “Bang!”, and who put the stuff together to go bang in the first place? Oh, and show me the person, the scientist, perhaps, who can make a blade of grass. No, don’t tell me you will start with dirt, seeds, water and sunlight. Just stand there and give me your best, “Let there be grass,” and show me what happens.

And God clearly would want to communicate with his thinking creations. If not, what’s the point? The Bible is one of the ways that He communicates. Church, prayer, and other people and texts are also ways He communicates. And it is our personal responsibility to listen. And act upon what we hear.

Let’s return to the moral compass part of this episode. Some people call it your True North. No matter; the questions are

Do you have one?

If you have one, what is it?

Why is that your True North/Moral Compass?

Do you follow it?

Needing a moral compass is a recurring theme for those of us at Revolution 2.0™. I refer to its importance frequently in my semi-weekly episodes, so it is entirely appropriate for us to return to the subject from time-to-time.

If you don’t have a solid moral compass that you follow, then nothing else matters. Nothing. You will simply be a cork on the oceans of life, following the changing paths of the tides, currents and waves. I know; I have been there. And I still have to fight to stay with and strengthen my adherence to my moral compass.

Pause for definitions. For purposes of this discussion, Moral compass and True North are interchangeable. I like the term moral compass because it means more to me, it anchors me better. I will use both here in the event that your preference is different from mine. A mechanical compass works because when used at all correctly, it points to a fixed point outside of itself, allowing the user to stay on track. The location of the magnetic north, which is what the compass points to, is not in the exact location as true north. To get to true north using a compass, you would need to apply declination to the compass heading. But precision like that is entirely unnecessary and beside the point. We are working to find our way in life, not shoot missiles 5K miles with the intention of hitting a precise location.

What are some examples of an effective moral compass? And how do you know? Two things: 1. Your north has to be something born and fueled outside of you–with externally inspired values, goals and checkpoints. The danger is that our own internally generated principles may lull us into a false sense of commitment. There must be an outside entity to learn from, and to act as a touchstone–a place to check in to see how we are handling ourselves. This does not mean that you don’t need to internalize the external teachings and examples; all is certainly lost if you don’t. But it is equally certain that it cannot be just you. 2. That outside entity must be powerful enough to keep you on track even when it is hard. If your north’s power and influence in your life is weak, so will be your adherence to it.

What are some examples where both criteria are met? God comes immediately to mind. Whatever your definition, God meets both criteria–external and powerful. Depending upon your path to God, the external writings, religious leaders, ceremonies, legacies,

View Details

Introduction:

Vice President Harris waited months before doing anything after being assigned by President Biden to take charge of our southern border, and deal with the huge and growing problems there. She basically sat on her hands, not wanting photo evidence of her being anywhere near the cages, and the desperate people with no direction about where to go or what to do. All after being essentially invited in with the promise of more “humane” immigration policies under the new administration.

VP Harris is again AWOL (military: absent without official leave) in Afghanistan, leaving her overwhelmed boss to twist in the wind. Remember, this is the same Kamala Harris who accused Mr. Biden of being racist during the primaries.

We all know that VP Harris wants to be President Harris. What we don’t know, but we are getting strong hints about, is the lengths she will go, including being outright diployal to the man who rescued her after her failed campaign in the primaries. She seems quite willing to throw her boss under a bus; one carrying immigrants, or under a passing tank, to realize her ambitions.

Et tu Brute?

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

There has been consistent speculation that Biden was just a “safe” choice, the non-Trump choice, and little more than a placeholder for the future President Harris. The idea was that the US would finally get the female President that it should have gotten in 2016. The headlines would declare, “MADAME PRESIDENT” for the first time. Some even speculated that Biden’s deficiencies would be revealed in his first term, with Ms. Harris stepping up to the Oval Office after Biden resigned–voluntarily or not. Many more predicted that he would not run again, leaving VP Harris as the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination in 2024.

Back then, no one could see that as VP Ms. Harris would be such a dud. She has taken no action of any significance with her main task at our southern border. Harris deals with her staff with the back of her hand, and responds to tough questions with a laugh and a verbal dismissal. The most damning evidence against her is her blatant disloyalty to her boss, the President. Who would even think about elevating anybody to an important position if that meant promoting someone who had hung her boss out to dry in order to get the new job?

As we have done in the past, let’s hear from liberal media on this topic. AP. “President Joe Biden has tapped Vice President Kamala Harris to lead the White House effort to tackle the migration challenge at the U.S. southern border and work with Central American nations to address root causes of the problem.

“Biden made the announcement as he and Harris met at the White House on Wednesday with Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandra Mayorkas and other immigration advisers to discuss the increase in migrants, including many unaccompanied minors, arriving at the border in recent weeks.

“In delegating the matter to Harris, Biden is seeking to replicate a dynamic that played out when he served as President Barack Obama’s vice president. Obama turned to Biden in his first term to lead the White House effort to draw down U.S. troops in Iraq and oversee implementation of stimulus in response to the Great Recession.”

After all that, Vice President Harris did nothing.

Back to the news. “‘When she speaks, she speaks for me,’ Biden said, noting her past work as California’s attorney general makes her specially equipped to lead the administration’s response.” Apparently that is correct; Biden does not do much of anything, either.

More from the AP, this time about Afghanistan. “Kamala Harris said she was the ‘last person in the room’ with President Biden when he made the decision to pull all US troops out of Afghanistan. In an interview on CNN’s ‘State of the Union,’ Harris was asked about Biden’s statement that he wanted the VP to be

View Details

Introduction:

The beautiful, misty contrails, condensation trails, that we can see behind planes high in the sky are primarily made of water, in the form of ice crystals. Some believe them to be “chemtrails,” consisting of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon (chemical) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_agent (biological agents) left in the sky by high-flying aircraft, sprayed for nefarious purposes undisclosed to the general public. They say that is the only explanation for the longer lasting trails.

The moon landings were the fulfillment of many dreams, and a point of pride for all of us on earth. Moon landing conspiracy theorists claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA, possibly with the aid of other organizations.

Before we scoff at, then dismiss, those who hold those beliefs, let’s remember that tens of millions believe that COVID vaccines are either ineffective or even do more harm than good. And some even believe that COVID is a hoax.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

There are dozens of conspiracy theories, ranging from the moon landings to New Coke to Disney. Q. How do people get themselves wrapped up in clearly unfounded theories; theories that are embraced as lifelong causes and often become embedded in the lifestyles of those embracing them? A. Some people are looking for causes, looking for ideas to believe in, and groups to embrace; a place to be wanted, accepted and to belong. The hunger to believe and to belong is powerful and compelling. Sadly, all too often not much discernment is used when choosing the beliefs and the group. That’s how people can fall into beliefs and groups that can range from just silly to downright dangerous. It’s a version of looking for love in all the wrong places.

A few years back I was listening to a talk show in the San Francisco Bay area, where the host was interviewing a guest from BASS, the https://baskeptics.org/ (Bay Area Skeptics Society). The specific topic was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis#:~:text=Psychokinesis%20(from%20Greek%20%CF%88%CF%85%CF%87%CE%AE%20%22soul,physical%20system%20without%20physical%20interaction. (psychokinesis), the alleged ability to control physical objects with the human mind. The BASS guest proposed an on the spot experiment. He announced that he was going to stop watches and other time pieces using nothing but his mind, and invited people to call in if that happened to them. Sure enough, several people called in, reporting everything from stopped wrist watches to stopped wall clocks–and at least one stopped alarm clock. When the host expressed surprise at the result, the “skeptic” guest replied saying that with the large number of people who were listening at that time, with most of them having several time pieces, the odds were that several of them would have clocks that would stop naturally within 10-20 seconds of his announcement. His point was that things like this fool people, most often those who want to be fooled, those who want to believe in things like non-existent mental powers. Or that Bill Gates wants to microchip us all with the use of COVID shots. Yes, there is a live conspiracy theory here, too. This theory claims that the coronavirus pandemic is a cover for a plan to implant trackable microchips and that the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates is behind it.

Without anchors of some kind, it is a short leap from timepieces seemingly stopped by mind power, and believing that long duration vapor trails can only be explained as nefarious chemical deposits, to COVID denial and vaccine refusal. Having access to and knowing how to analyze large amounts of data is certainly an anchor; clearly scientists use this–something called the scientific method. Here is a definition: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in...

View Details

Introduction:

The question is not whether https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden (Mr. Biden) is a great, or even good, President. The question is whether or not he is even barely competent; can he at least adequately handle the tasks that face him and our nation.

Afghanistan gives us our first real clues about how to answer this key question.

We were never going to get an answer to that question until he became President. Mr. Biden has never worked in private industry where you are responsible for specific tasks, small or large, with bosses giving you feedback, rating you as competent, incompetent or perhaps even very good at your job. Biden has certainly never run anything, even a corner hotdog and hamburger joint, where he would have been responsible for staffing, inventory, accounting, meeting payroll and making a profit so he could give raises, hand out promotions–and just do what was necessary to stay in business.

He was never a governor, or even a mayor. The United States of America is the first entity of any kind that Biden has ever run.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing:

Mr. Biden spent decades in Congress, then 8 years as the Vice President. In Congress, unless you are the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader, your vote, win or lose, is counted as part of a group, and you are never in charge of or personally responsible for anything. You may or may not be a contributor. You might be a leader or a follower. Your politics and policies might or might not make sense. What is certain is that you were always a committee member, never the CEO. Even worse, all American VPs do is go to funerals of second tier foreign leaders, and stand by in case the President dies.

When Biden ran for President this last time, his third attempt, he did not stand on his record. During the primaries, his claim to fame was not being one of the progressive left. That claim may not hold up today, but it worked well enough to give him the nomination. When he ran in the general election, his platform was “I’m not Trump.” That claim is still true. So the campaign did not offer much to assess competency.

I want to be clear that I am not talking about his well publicized gaffes, mispronunciations and apparent brain freezes; those things happen to many people. I want to focus on his performance, his judgement, his decisions and results as our President. The leader of the free world. So far, in general what we have seen is a strong drift to the left, an orderly rollout of vaccines developed under the previous administration, and his following–not leading–Congress as it pushes to spend unheard amounts of money. All while claiming that the cost of living will not go up, and that the value of the dollar will not go down. No real leadership here, nothing to go by to judge competency.

But what about Afghanistan? He clearly led here, giving us the first real handle on answering the question about his competency. “I stand squarely behind my decision,” Biden said. And a month prior, “The likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country [of Afghanistan] is highly unlikely,” President Biden confidently proclaimed in July.” Let’s examine what President Biden is standing “squarely behind.” First off, everyone gets it, everyone agrees, that leaving Afghanistan was the right decision. You can even make an argument that we should have left after a year or two, in 2002 or 2003, when we found that Bin Laden had left. “Mr. Bin Laden has left the country.” The only conversation to be had is how the leaving, the withdrawal, was handled. It was an embarrassing, domestically, internationally and militarily, unmitigated disaster.

Today’s Key Point: Joe Biden is not competent. More than not being a great, or even a good President, he is simply not competent. And given how Biden is mismanaging a clear, simple situation where he...

View Details

Introduction:

Abandoning tests and other standards of success as measurements of admittance to better schools, and no longer requiring even minimal proficiency in reading, writing or math prior to graduation from high school, is far worse than what it has been labeled: The soft bigotry of low expectations. It should be called what it is: cruel and dysfunctional application of racist beliefs. Those determined to succeed, despite their strong academic record and test scores, will find a way to earn a great education even in this anti-merit environment. And the elites will be there to tax these hard working students as they succeed in life, and give those tax proceeds to the people and groups they cruelly allowed to slide by.

Continuing:

Let’s start with an example from the Wall Street Journal. “Politicians and school officials in Oregon are embarrassed that too many minority children fail tests designed to confirm they’ve mastered the ‘essential skills’ that high school is meant to teach. So in the name of racial equity, they’ve now done the progressive thing. Instead of lifting graduation rates by boosting student performance, they’re eliminating the proficiency requirement. Governor Kate Brown signed the bill on July 14, but the Oregonian reports her office never issued a press release and the bill was not entered into the legislative database until two weeks later—a ‘departure from the normal practice’ of entering bills the same day they are signed. The Secretary of the Senate blamed the delay on a staffer experiencing medical issues. But it’s hardly surprising that Gov. Brown and the Democratic Legislature would not wish to draw attention to this attempt to dumb the state down.” BTW, when blacks and browns graduate without the basic skills expected of a high school grad, disaster looms. If it turns out that they cannot either get or hold a job, they will be very tempted to blame racism. After all, other grads, like whites and Asians, have the same degree, and they have jobs. Must be racism, yes? Yes, and it is the racism of cruelly low expectations.

And this from Bloomberg. “Opponents of standardized tests for college admissions were jubilant after the University of California system https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-14/university-of-california-set-to-drop-sat-act-through-2025?sref=AMvrlaMu (agreed) May 13th to extend its policy of test-free admissions. But the SAT and the ACT are the thermometer, not the fever. Getting rid of them only makes it harder to identify, and ultimately to fix, the very real problems of educational inequity in California and the nation.

“The decision by the regents of the University of California—whose https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/uc-system (10 campuses) educate 280,000 undergraduate and graduate students—resolves a 2019 lawsuit charging that the SAT and ACT are biased against the poor and Black and Hispanic students. Another lawsuit filed last year, and aimed mainly at protecting students with disabilities, said that even making the tests optional didn’t go far enough and that they should not be considered under any circumstances.”

And now from https://revolution2-0.org/ (Revolution 2.0™). “A Baltimore high school student failed all but three classes at Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts over four years and almost graduated this June near the top half of his class with a 0.13 GPA, 62nd out of 120 students. The single Mom blamed the school. ‘The school failed at their job. They failed. They failed, that’s the problem here. They failed. They failed. He didn’t deserve that,’ she said after learning that her son was being sent back to 9th grade to give high school another try.” Both the Mom and son are part of the groups being “protected” from needing to achieve. The Mom is not only fully brought into the not responsible because I am a victim philosophy, she is actively selling this destructive thinking. This is from...

View Details

Introduction

We have a massive, entirely avoidable and inexcusable crisis at our Southern border. But the crisis is merely a symptom; the disease is in DC–and in us.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The Democrats want more voters who will be in their camp, with the idea of ensuring that no Republican will ever again be elected to national office–and fewer to state offices. The Republicans in part want cheap labor, and in larger part have no idea how to either get their act or their courage together and get the right things done. And as is often the case the right thing is so very clear. More clear specifics on border and immigration solutions in a few minutes.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/ny-times-washington-post-ignore-biden-admin-admitting-error (The Washington Post) criticized the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border crisis and pushed for a coherent strategy to deal with the record number of migrants trying to enter the U.S. illegally.

In an editorial, the Post predicted the “incoherence” of the Biden administration’s policies could lead to Democrats losing control of the House and Senate in the 2022 midterm elections, and there was likely nothing in its current strategy that would change that outcome.

“In its apparent desperation to fashion an immigration strategy that will impose order on increasingly out-of-control migration, the Biden administration has unleashed a torrent of words and goals untethered to specific policies and timetables,” the Post wrote. “Officials have effectively reversed and rolled back some of the Trump administration’s most pernicious policies, but without a clear road map to address the immediate crisis — a decades-high surge in illegal border-crossing — or the long-term challenge driving migration: dysfunction, disorder and decay in Central America.”

And this from the liberal/progressive Washington Post.

I believe that America is a unique and exceptional place, and that you–you and I–have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in it. Yes, you have heard that from me before, and you will hear it again. That’s part of what drives this podcast.

Your role, our role, includes knowing what is happening in our immigration system, how to fix it, and what our role is in fixing it. Yes, we all have a role to play here.

Our government, both sides of the aisle, is failing us. The comprehensive immigration solution is simple to understand, and very implementable. Personal and party gain are what is keeping our elected representatives from doing even the basics of their job with immigration. They feel, with some cause, that attacking and insulting will get them what they want; to be elected and to keep being reelected. If we want more from our elected representatives, we, we the people, we the voters, need to lead.

To get to what our role is here, we need to ask one–one– simple question, hoping for a simple, truthful answer: “Do we want open borders?” We have open borders between states. Travel is unrestricted; one can become a citizen of a different state by merely showing up and staying. We are one nation, with free movement among the states, and free access to the benefits, including a variety of taxpayer-supported services, the various states offer. And voting; more states, like my home state of Colorado, offer same-day voter registration. Is that what we want for our country? Do we want to offer the same type of free, instant access to taxpayer-funded benefits and voting–in other words instant, full citizenship privileges and benefits–to residents of other countries that we allow residents of other states?

View Details

Introduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Hannity (Sean Hannity), stalwart in his opposition to taxpayers paying off student loans, voices a full-throated commercial in support of people who owe money to the IRS using his recommended solution to be relieved of some or all of that obligation.

When someone does not pay his student loans, the taxpayers get stuck. When someone does not pay what they owe to the IRS, the taxpayers get stuck again. When a credit card holder defaults on his bill, his fellow card holders pay up. And when an insured takes advantage of an insurance company, his fellow insured are harmed.

We are all in this waterbed of life together. When someone defaults or cheats, millions of others get stuck. And not just with student loans.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Key Point: We are all in this water bed of life together. It is impossible to lie down or even push ever so gently anywhere without affecting others.

Ducking out on our financial obligations regardless of type, student loans, taxes owed, paying our credit card bills, being honest with insurance companies, etc., is always wrong. Not just with student loans, the only one of these 4 potentially ignored obligations in the news and in our conversations.

Many people are quite correctly against forcing taxpayers to take on obligations that others signed for in exchange for continuing their education. To me it is simple and clear. An hour on Google, at best, will tell the prospective student how much a specific college costs, and how much graduates in that field from that institution make per year. And how many of those grads get jobs and how long it takes to become employed. A 30 second calculation will reveal the attractiveness or unattractiveness of this path forward. For example, it does not take a math wizard to see that a potential $60K in https://revolution2-0.org/funding-higher-education-caution-ep-292/ (student loan debt) will be difficult to pay back with a degree in sociology from State U, where grads in the field make $35K, and have a 30% chance of being employed in their field. The rest are waiting tables, driving for Uber and Lyft, and complaining that they were misled. Many politicians, much of the media and some of the folks at home are in support of having taxpayers pick up all or some of these student loan obligations. Not surprisingly, I am not. (Funding Higher Education: Caution! EP. 292)

All of that is clear and real, but what about other obligations that people are invited to have others pay on their behalf?

Let’s look at the impassioned offers inviting us to reduce or simply not pay our credit card bills. And like the diet pill pushers, they stress that it is not our fault; those mean credit card companies have their nerve asking us to pay for products and services that we bought and have enjoyed. Just call this number, they say, and their team of Robin Hoods and Their Merry Men will make things right, invoking images of robbing the unworthy rich to pay the worthy poor. But that is not what is happening; the unworthy rich here are our fellow card holders. Overall, Americans owe $820B across over 500M card accounts, with over $30B written off every year–more in tough times. That $30B is paid for by the 500M accounts; that’s $60 per account. The key here is that the credit card companies adjust their rates to cover these losses and still make the profit needed to remain a viable business. If you and your partner have 7 cards between you, that’s $420 per year that you pay to cover those who do not pay up. In other words, the defaulter’s fellow credit card holders are the ones who get the bill when someone does not pay.

The same is true for those who don’t pay what they owe to the Internal Revenue Service. We hear the same impassioned voices, broadly hinting at the unfairness of the IRS when it has the nerve to collect unpaid taxes. The individual...

View Details

Introduction

Having a tough week, or even a tough year, does not constitute a mental health issue. This includes the exhausted, over stressed stay-at-home parents, performers of all types, and, well, you and me.

The overwrought claims of mental health issues, both by the person involved and certain politicians and media, are, like so much of what is going on today, agenda driven, not fact and circumstance driven.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Fonda (Henry Fonda), a WWII vet and one of the greatest stage and screen actors of his time, would vomit every time before he walked onto the stage. Fonda, the winner of 2 Academy Awards an Emmy, a Tony and numerous other honors, would throw up each and every time. Did that mean that he was suffering from mental illness? No, not at all. He simply had something going on in his head and he was dealing with it. Successfully.

A hitter in baseball in a two-month slump does not indicate the need for consultation with a mental health pro, drug therapy, government intervention, or political and media hand wringing about the shortage of or crisis in mental health care. The same goes for the exhausted, overstressed Mom, the soldier who well and truly does not want to go on yet another night patrol into enemy territory, or performers who are “stressed out” by being in the limelight. And Mom continues to care for her family, the soldier goes on patrol, and the performers perform.

All it means is that we humans have stuff that we need to deal with. “DWI”, deal with it, as my wife would say.

The vast majority of the time that certain politicians and the media are putting a spotlight on someone who is said to be dealing with mental health issues, what is happening, if indeed anything is happening at all, is that this someone is dealing with mental stresses, which, when dealt with, make us stronger. Just as dealing with physical stress, often called work or exercise, when done correctly, makes us stronger.

The brain works like a muscle; when we exercise it, and sometimes exercise it hard, it gets stronger.

Not nearly everything strange or unwanted that goes on in our heads indicates a mental health issue that needs to be addressed by drugs and doctors. Quite often the mental issue we are dealing with is solved by exercising mental discipline. Champion gymnast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Biles (Simone Biles), 24, is a current and perfect example. She came into the Tokyo 2020 Olympics as not only the favorite in several events in women’s gymnastics, but as a sentimental and overall favorite; people love and admire Ms. Biles. After some preliminary event performances where she did well by other standards but not well by hers, she self-diagnosed herself as having the “twisties.” She became temporarily unable to know where her body was in space; awkward for most of us, and potentially dangerous for a world class gymnast performing strenuous and complicated aerial routines. Contrary to what you have read over and over in the media, this was not a mental health issue; she needed to let the twisties pass before she could safely and competently compete again. Showing both patience and toughness, she decided to compete in the last women’s gymnastics event of this Olympics, taking a Bronze Medal on the balance beam. She showed courage, loyalty to her teammates, patience and excellence throughout.

Go back with me to the late 80s and early 90s when baseball slugger Matt Williams, AKA “Matt the Bat” and “The Big Marine,” played under Dusty Baker, the Manager for the San Francisco Giants. One year Williams was in a terrible batting slump. Try as he might, he could not get out of the slump that had extended for weeks. Slumps like this are not at all unusual, but they hurt the team, and are terribly frustrating for the player. One day Dusty came up to his struggling star and said, “Try...

View Details

Introduction

Get the jab to protect yourself and others.

People who assert the My Body, My Choice argument in defending actions like getting abortions and not getting vaccines beg the question of whether it is indeed their body or only their body. In other words, if government simply allows certain actions, or mandates others, is the government doing the right thing by protecting others from our actions, or doing the wrong thing by protecting us from ourselves?

Oh, and if you care about your life, and the friends and loved ones who need you and want you here, get the jab. Stop pretending that you know how clinical trials should be conducted, or that you are waiting for more data to examine, as if you know how to gather and examine volumes of data in the first place.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

We have all accepted the argument that smoking around others affects their bodies; no rational person makes the My Body, My Choice argument with smoking. Now, what about seatbelts; is this another issue where the My Body, My Choice argument wins? No. The most obvious reason for this answer is that an unbelted person in a car can become a projectile, injuring others in the same car in a crash. For example, a University of Washington study shows that the risk of death for a rear occupant was increased about 22 percent if someone in front was unrestrained, compared with having someone in front who was restrained. Additionally, belted drivers have the chance to be in control of the vehicle for an important split second longer than unbelted drivers, perhaps mitigating the severity of the accident. Even if alone, this could help those in other cars involved in the accident.

Let’s tackle the question of the My Body argument with the COVID vaccine. I’ll start with declaring that I am not concerned with protecting those who are eligible for the vaccine and have chosen not to get it. Life is full of choices; they are on their own. But what if I am with age defined and other groups that are not eligible; do I have any obligation there? Do I need to get the jab to help protect them? My answer is a clear yes. By dramatically reducing my risk of contracting COVID, I am helping those who cannot help themselves if I am near them, especially indoors. How? 1. Specifically, I am reducing the risk of infecting them, and 2. In general I am helping to reduce the possibility of the introduction of ever more dangerous variants.

COVID in the US started out as a pandemic where no one was protected; now it is a pandemic among the unvaccinated. It is no exaggeration to declare that the creation and availability of three highly effective vaccines within 10 months was nothing short of a medical miracle. There were 3 independently run, successfully completed, full sets of clinical trials. Moreover, Bloomberg reports that as of 31 July 2021, thttps://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/covid-vaccine-tracker-global-distribution/ (he biggest vaccination campaign) in history is underway. More than 4.1 billion doses have been administered across 180 countries. The latest rate was roughly 40.6 million doses a day worldwide. In the U.S. alone, 346 million doses have been given. In the last week, an average of 657,213 doses per day were administered right here in the US of A. In addition to the 3 successful clinical trials, we now have worldwide “for real” trials on an unprecedented scale. What more do you want?

Employers, both public and private, have every right to mandate vaccines. And not just with the obvious: healthcare workers. Individuals have the right not to work in a vaccine mandated environment. Unions have the right to fight these mandates, even if they are wrong in this fight. As an example, teachers’ unions have the right to fight against https://revolution2-0.org/charter-schools-make-public-schools-better/ (charter schools and private school vouchers), (Charter Schools Make Public School Better. EP. 01) even...

View Details

Introduction

Universal Service speaks to what we feel that we owe to our fellow countrymen and the nation itself. Universal Income speaks to what we feel those very same people and nation owes to us.

Universal Service speaks to what we feel that we owe to our fellow countrymen and the nation itself. Universal Income speaks to what we feel those very same people and nation owes to us. Are we asking what our countrymen can do for us, or what we can do for our countrymen?

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Universal Service is also known as Universal Mandatory Service, or Universal Compulsory Service. I don’t like either term, because words like mandatory and compulsory make the service provided sound more like a hated task than something we all ought to know that we owe our neighbors and our country–and want to provide.

I am not suggesting Universal Military Service; I am suggesting Universal National Service. The duration of the service could vary with the type. For example, military service might be 18 months, teaching or assistant teaching in a disadvantaged school or a paid https://americorps.gov/ (AmeriCorps) like service might be 2 years. AmeriCorps is a voluntary program that engages adults in public service work with a goal of helping others and meeting critical needs in the community. Members commit to full-time or part-time positions offered by a network of nonprofit community organizations and public agencies, to fulfill assignments in the fields of education, public safety, health care, and environmental protection. Think of AmeriCorps as a domestic Peace Corps.

From Medium.com. “This past summer, France, Morocco, and Colombia made news when it came to mandatory service.

France announced that beginning in 2019, it will require all men and women at age 16 to commit a month to learning service skills, such as first aid, and applying these skills in real-word settings. After completing their month of service, they will be encouraged to volunteer for three to twelve months. Volunteer service could include tutoring, helping the environment, or supporting national defense and security via army, police, or civil security.

Morocco announced that it will reinstate compulsory military service. All men and women between the age of 19 and 25 years old will be required to serve in the Moroccan military for twelve months.

Colombia currently has a mandatory military service requirement for all its male citizens. This summer, Colombia reduced the term length for service from twenty-four months to eighteen months.

In total, about seventy-five countries have some form of mandatory service. Nigeria, Germany, and Denmark have mandatory national service. Countries like Russia, China, Brazil, Sweden, Israel, and South Korea have military conscription — though their military personnel systems vary greatly in policy, objectives, and structure. Some of the key differences in conscription models include gender, age groups, service time periods, the number of conscripts required, the goals of mandatory service, the existence of an alternative service option, and public opinion surrounding the draft.” Reminder; I am not talking about volunteer service; I am talking about paid service.

In the US, jury duty is all that is required, and that is extremely rare given how easy it is to get out of serving.

The opposite of Universal Service is Universal Income, which is being pushed in many quarters. I believe that I am a lone voice in advocating for Universal Service. Q. Why do you suppose that is? A. If you want things like attention, approval and to be elected to office, which is easier to sell: Giving or taking? Serving or being served? Being told that you have personal responsibility or that you are a victim deserving of money and other types of support?

Various candidates and current office holders push a Universal Basic Income (UBI). Don’t be fooled by the word “basic”, that is...

View Details

Introduction

“The Emperor’s New Clothes” is an instructive and prophetic folktale written by Danish author https://www.britannica.com/biography/Hans-Christian-Andersen-Danish-author (Hans Christian Andersen), about a vain emperor who is easily swindled and then exposed before his subjects.

Today’s version of the swindlers who deceived the vain emperor are the leaders, media and others who, for personal and political gain, substitute race for Karl Marx’s dangerous and failed views of class, i.e., wealth-based discrimination and oppression.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

At first blush, doesn’t this sound like a little child’s fantasy? I mean, here is an emperor walking round stark naked in front of crowds of his people, believing that he is wearing the most magnificent of regal robes. Instead of seeing himself as the vain fool that he is, even after a child cried out, “But he hasn’t got anything on,” and the people saw that the child was right, he carried on. The Emperor did shiver, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all. That is exactly what is going on right now, right here in our country. The false, dangerous and self-serving replacement of race for class in https://revolution2-0.org/marx-had-it-almost-right-warren-and-sanders-dont-ep-175/ (Marx’s) (Marx Had It Almost Right. EP. 175) always-failed communist philosophy of who is oppressing whom is the entirely missing set of regal robes. The very imaginary robes that our administration says it is wearing. All while being intellectually naked. Believe me, this supposed fairy tale is all too real. And unlike Andersen’s story, this one is not at all funny; it is downright dangerous.

Today’s Key Point. Critical Race Theory and related angry and damaging philosophies substitute race for class in their push to create a new view of who is oppressed and who is the oppressor because the vast majority of those claiming oppression are very well off, thank you, and have no rational claim to be oppressed on the basis of class. So they jump to race. They can’t incite a class struggle as a way of coming out on top, so they are working overtime to incite a race struggle, with the same objective. They want to come out on top personally and politically, and don’t care how they get there. More specifically, the wealthy minorities, everyone from the Obamas to LeBron James, can now claim to be oppressed by an out-of-work coal miner.

Let’s expand on Andersen’s prophetic story line. Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool. Finally, the weavers report that the emperor’s suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.

The Playbill:

Emperor: Joe Biden and other political leaders willingly taken in by this re-creation and reversal of historical racism.

The completely missing, but allegedly magnificent royal regalia. The terribly dangerous scam that race defines who are the oppressed and who are the oppressors. And the supporting claim that life should be

View Details

Introduction

God is First.

When I am getting it right, I am working so that I and my 7.5B fellow human beings all finish in a pack as a strong second to Him.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

People of faith will sometimes say, “I am second,” an appropriate recognition of their place in the universe as not being God. I once heard a speaker say, “There are 3 things I know about God: 1. There is one. 2. I am not God and 3. Neither are you.” As we often do here at Revolution 2.0™, we are taking a truth and adding another, related and important truth, in this case adding our responsibility to help everyone, here, there and everywhere, to be in a worldwide tie for that precious and valuable second place. You know, like in court, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

We will need to define how we decide who is ahead, behind or tied in that event we call life. In a footrace, we look for who crossed the finish line first; if it is a team game, the score settles that. Here it is a question of being lifelong learners who are growing in discipline, faith, love and contribution. All of us had different starts; what matters is what we did with the start that we were given.

Who’s in charge here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_Is_My_Co-Pilot_(film) (God is My Co-Pilot) is a 1945 American black-and-white biographical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_film (war film) from Warner Bros. Pictures. For a lot of us, that is the desired pairing; we set the goal, the desired landing place in this case, do the flying and navigating, and He is our co-pilot. That’s getting things backwards. God is the pilot, and with luck, if I am getting it right, I am His co-pilot. He is not my helper, or my prayer-driven celestial vending machine. I am not no. 1; He is.

Leaving God in the no. 1 position also includes the idea of playing to an Audience of One. That means when we think, speak and act, that we and those around us recognize that we are not no. 1. The focus is to please Him. Now wait, Will, what about our spouses, family, work, friends and all the other people? Don’t they count? What is wrong with making them a priority and serving God that way? Reasonable, even a great question. The problem is that there are too many temptations, too many ways to go wrong. They may be wanting the wrong things, and we may want to do things for them that are not right, but do them anyway to get them to like us and want to be with us. If we know that we are doing what is right in God’s eyes, despite how it may be perceived by others, there is no way that we can go wrong. And know that His approval validates everything.

Even if you struggle with the concept of a God to whom we are all subservient, the concept of needing a moral compass must ring true. Having a moral compass is a recurring theme for those of us at Revolution 2.0™. I refer to its importance frequently in my semi-weekly episodes.

What are some examples of an effective moral compass? And how do you know if you have one? Two things: 1. Your compass, your true north, has to be something that is originated and fueled outside of you–with externally inspired values, goals and checkpoints. The danger is that internally generated principles may lull us into a false sense of commitment. There must be an outside entity to learn from, and to act as a touchstone–a place to check in and see how we are handling ourselves. This does not mean that you don’t need to internalize the external teachings and examples; all is certainly lost if you don’t. But it is equally certain that it cannot be just you. 2. That outside entity...

View Details

Introduction

No voter suppression exists or is planned for anywhere, including the “headline” states of Texas and Georgia.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

In Texas, early voting starts 17 days before the election, and ends 4 days prior. Mail-in ballots can be requested by mail, fax or email. You may vote by absentee ballot in Texas if you are 65 years or older, disabled, or otherwise unable to vote in person. Polls are open 7 AM to 7 PM on election day.

In Georgia, early voting starts the fourth Monday prior to the election, ending the Friday before. The State of Georgia allows absentee voting by mail and in-person; no excuse is required to vote by mail. Absentee ballots may be requested up to 78 days prior to the election. Ballots may be returned by mail, fax or as an email attachment. Polls are open from 7AM to 7 PM on election day.

What voter who cared at all about exercising his voting franchise, who was willing to expend even minimal effort for his voice to be heard, could not find ample opportunity to vote in either state? A. There is no voter suppression at all. Any voter who cared even a little could find multiple opportunities to vote.

Flyaway Texas Democrat State legislature members are citing the proposed removal of pandemic voting add-ons like 24 hour voting and drive thru voting for their boycott. They left Texas to stay in motels in DC to deny the Texas House a quorum, hoping to defeat the new voting law they claim suppresses minority voters. Some supporters of the Democrats see them as defending democracy itself, while their critics see their DC jaunt as an exclusive summertime sightseeing tour of Washington, all while being paid for their services as representatives in absentia. Here’s a quote from one of the flyaway legislators, “I left because I am tired of sitting as a hostage while Republicans strip away the rights of my constituents to vote.” Really? Strip away the right to vote? Only people who do not know even the basic facts about voting laws in Texas would believe a word of this. And those crying “voter suppression” know it.

The perspective of the Democrat politicians and media claiming voter suppression is clear: Anything that takes the act of voting from requiring almost no effort and saddles the voter with slightly more, but still minimal, effort constitutes voter suppression. Considerations like vote security, logistics, including the availability of paid and volunteer polling and counting staff (at a time when it is difficult to attract workers), and cost are dismissed as racist. The perspective is clear, now let’s ask why they have that perspective. The answer is equally clear: They want to do anything at all to make certain that no Republican is ever again elected to national office, and that fewer and fewer are elected to state office. Here’s how.

Less interested voters, those who will vote only if virtually no effort is involved, will vote Democrat. That’s well known.

Eliminate the Electoral College. Registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans; the Electoral College is what levels the playing field, so it needs to go away.

Related to the above is the push to have the Senate apportioned by population as is the House. Voters have selected U.S. senators in the privacy of the voting booth only since 1913. This system of “direct election” was not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind when they met at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Article I, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, as written by the framers, provided for election of senators by state legislatures. This created a Senate that could be composed of well qualified, thoughtful people who were not at the direct whim of the electorate. This balanced the directly elected House and Presidency. No, this was in no way elitist; it was another of the well thought out checks and balances in our Constitution. The very best counter to this now missing check

View Details

Introduction

Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s loyalty to his home state of Virginia and not the United (key word here) States was the reason that the Civil War lasted for four years, created more casualties than all of our other wars put together, tore our country apart, and reduced the South to ashes.

President Lincoln first offered command of the Union Army to Lee, who turned it down saying that his loyalty was to Virginia, not the Union. Days after he refused Lincoln’s offer, he resigned his commission in the US Army, accepted a commission as a Major General in the Confederate Army, and fought brilliantly against the US under the Confederate flag, winning victory after victory despite being outmanned and outgunned. How is that any different from people and groups today who turn their backs on the flag? And none of them are leading an army determined to defeat the US in combat.

Had Lee accepted Lincoln’s offer, seeing himself as an American first, and a Virginan second, we would have had 90% fewer deaths on both sides, likely 75K and not 750K, and the war which started in April of 1861 would have ended in late 1861 or early 1862, not a full four years later in April of 1865. The physical, economic and emotional damage to our country would have been dramatically less.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

The Union had almost everything going for it; money, manpower, a massive war materiel industry–everything. The war should have been over in six months with a fraction of the casualties and destruction. What it lacked was leadership. President Lincoln initially offered the command of the Army of the Potomac, the Union Army, to Lee, who turned it down because Lee saw his senior loyalty being to the State of Virginia, not the United States.

The original and popular image of Lee was that of a brilliant General, beloved by his troops, who out thought and out fought superior Union forces in battle after battle. All in pursuit of the laudable goals of state’s rights and economic freedom. After all, isn’t the principle of state’s rights at the philosophical heart of our Republic? And don’t we all deserve economic freedom? Then we tumbled upon the truth that the only state’s right that really mattered to the South was the “right” to own other human beings. And the economic freedom they sought was the ability to exploit those owned humans, blacks, to work for free under punishing conditions.

The image, the view, of Lee that I am sharing here is indeed that of a brilliant General, beloved by his troops, who turned his back on his country and its flag, and fought with everything he had to defeat the United States. His primary motivation was not the everlasting shame of preserving slavery, but to fight for the state of Virginia and defeat her enemy–the United States. The same United States that had put him through West Point, and honored him with a senior command in the Mexican-American War.

Nazi General Erwin Rommel, The Desert Fox, and General Robert E. Lee had much in common. Both were brilliant, winning against all odds, both were beloved by their troops, and both knew they were fighting for evil causes, but overlooked the evil because of misplaced loyalty. Rommel was loyal to Germany and his command, despite the horror of what Hitler was doing, and Lee was loyal to Virginia and his command, despite the evil of slavery. Rommel’s death came when he was found guilty of plotting Hitler’s asssination; he chose suicide over execution because it allowed his pension and other benefits to pass to his family. Lee died in bed of a heart attack.

Let’s hear about Lee from no less an authority than the Library of Congress. “After resigning from the U.S. Army, Lee assumed command of Virginia’s forces in April of 1861. Lee’s genius as a military tactician came to the fore after he was given command of the Army of Northern Virginia in June, 1862. Despite being...

View Details

Introduction

“Peace with honor,” was the phrase President Richard Nixon used on January 23, 1973 to describe the Paris Peace Accords that ended the Vietnam War. What really happened was a disorderly evacuation, appropriately ending as a CIA officer helped the last, desperate evacuees to get onto the last Air America helicopter to leave the rooftop of the American Embassy in Saigon on April 29th, 1975.

We disgraced ourselves in Vietnam. After promising to lead South Vietnam to freedom and democratization, tens of thousands of real and suspected American sympathizers were tortured and killed by the North Vietnamese after we fled.

We are doing it again in Afghanistan, where we once again promised to lead a country to freedom and democratization. With President Joe Biden saying that he “trusts” the Afghan Army because it is “well trained and well equipped”, once again, thousands of real and suspected American sympathizers will be tortured and killed by the Taliban after we run away.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

The US goes into various countries, including Vietnam and Afghanistan, promising freedom and democracy. The government calls it nation building: I call it bait and switch. We know full well that we cannot impose democracy on another country; either they want it and are willing to demand it and achieve it on their own, or nothing happens. Yet knowing that, our politicians and military leaders recklessly promised the Afghans democracy, all while wanting to invade for personal and political reasons.

Pop Quiz: Q. Name the one country that had never been a democracy that became one after we invaded. A. Japan. After almost completely destroying Japan in WWII by bombing, including the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, utterly destroying the country economically, getting the Emperor to admit that he was not a god, instituting a complete military occupation and writing a new constitution for the country, it worked. Second Q. Where else are we willing to do all that? Second answer. No where. Not even close.

Going back to the days of Alexander the Great, four powerful armies tried invading Afghanistan before us; all of them failed: the Greeks, Romans, British and the Russians, all at the height of their military powers. We knew that it would take a victory-over-Japan-like-effort to succeed. We knew that going in, yet we are pretending to be surprised that we failed. Now we are leaving, making excuses and happy statements while we run. “Retreat and declare victory,” is hollow and deceitful.

The Taliban will be free to exert cruel, dictatorial control over Afghanistan in exactly the same way that North Vietnam did when we reneged on our promises to South Vietnam. In both countries, the carnage and human suffering will be dramatically worse than if we had never set foot there.

Some lucky ones escaped the communist dictatorship’s terrible retribution in Vietnam. The Vietnamese boat people were the refugees who fled Vietnam by boat and ship following the end of the war in 1975. This migration and humanitarian crisis was at its highest in 1978 and 1979, but continued through the early 1990s. Escaping landlocked Afghanistan will be a touch harder. And none of the surrounding countries, e.g., Pakistan, China and Iran, are all that attractive anyway.

We were right in intervening in South Korea when North Korea attacked, but not in South Vietnam. Q. But Will, weren’t we defending against the spread of communism in both cases? A. No; these are very different examples. Both Germany and Korea were partitioned post WWII; North Korea was administered by the Soviet Union, and South Korea by the US. In 1950, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist (Communist)-aligned Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), North Korea, suddenly attacked the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#Modern_political_definition (West)-aligned First Republic of Korea, South...

View Details

Introduction

Yes, Affirmative Action is reverse racism, supposedly intended to right historical wrongs. Any racism, reverse or not, is wrong. Today’s episode is not an argument against reverse racism. Today’s episode is an appeal to common sense and a clear knowledge of what works–and what does not work. People, individuals or groups, succeed when they are motivated, work hard over time, and know what to do when they do the hard work. They grow strong, succeed, and know how to lead others in the same direction. Handouts, regardless of the motivation, produce the opposite effect.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

This issue goes to the heart of how differently we think, or at least how we think we think differently. Despite the political and media swirl, we all know, don’t we, that growth comes when a person digs in, despite what the odds are, works hard over time and moves forward. And helps others to do the same. That’s why the best parenting includes lessons in earning money to get the toy or video game the child wants. Or getting good grades before being granted a privilege. Only when anyone, adult or child, has skin in the game will they take the game seriously.

How many times have we heard someone, perhaps a parent, say, “Life is not fair,” perhaps in response to someone saying, “But that’s not fair!” Outside of the law, where everything must be fair, life is indeed not fair. Yet here we are. And it is our job to deal successfully with life the way it is, not the way we wish it to be.

Followers of Revolution 2.0™ know that we believe that life is indeed hard, as it should be, as it must be. Dealing successfully with the hard parts of life is the only way we learn and grow, and in turn become able to help others learn and grow. Many believe, and they are hard at work selling this belief, that life is supposed to be easy, and if it is not easy, that is prima facie proof that oppressors have made life hard for the oppressed, AKA victims, and that the victims are entitled to compensation, ideally from the oppressors.

You know that I generally resist labels, but sometimes they are necessary, as with distinguishing one type of vegetable from another. Who writes round soft red things and long yellow things with thick skin on their grocery lists? We write tomatoes and bananas. Labels can be useful. In the main, it is the Democrats pushing the view that life ought to be easy, and that if it is not, the government must jump in and make things right–with taxpayer money. They have not come right out and used the word easy, but they have danced all around it by supporting multiple and growing government programs all while signaling future growth in this area by repeating slogans like, “Healthcare (and add what you want here) is a human right.” And selling notions like college ought to be free and that any entry level job should pay enough to support a family at above the poverty line.

Republicans are not pushing the life is hard lesson; they are deathly afraid to spit out this truth. Q. After all, who wants to try to attract voters by selling hard versus easy? A. Everyone should, because that is what works. And if we care about people, as we all should, then must we push, teach, and encourage, what works. And resist and discourage what does not work. Anyone selling the needed life is hard lesson will make themselves a target for insults ranging from you hate the poor to being a Nazi or white supremacist. But doing the right thing is, well, hard. And the inherent unfairness of life is one of the many reasons that life is indeed hard.

Today’s Key Point: It is not our job to work to make life inherently fair, or to make it overall easy. We have two jobs: 1. Love, help, and encourage others to see that life is hard just as it needs to be, and to help them do what needs to be done to succeed in life the way life truly is and 2. Look for and support others, e.g., teachers,...

View Details

Introduction

Gwen Berry came in 3rd in the recent US Olympic trials for women’s hammer throwing, becoming qualified to represent her country in Japan this August. Feeling “pissd off”, she turned her back on the flag while the National Anthem was playing. Instantly achieving the intended notoriety, Ms. Berry has been alternately praised and pounced upon; I doubt she cares which, as long as she gets the desired lucrative attention. Attention that has eluded both of the women who stood facing the flag, hands over their hearts, and came in 1st and 2nd.

Our society rewards being pisssed off more than performance, protest over production, and notoriety over being noteworthy.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

In case you didn’t hear, Deanna Price won 1st place and Brooke Anderson earned 2nd place in these trials for women’s hammer throwing. They have been completely overshadowed by Berry’s contrived protest. This episode celebrates Ms. Price and Ms. Anderson, and oh-so-many other Americans who keep their heads down, honor their country in obvious situations as when the Anthem is being played, and in their everyday lives by being respectful, hard wording and getting their jobs done. Quietly.

Ms. Barry has proudly posed with the flag in the past, holding it up and behind her, framing herself in the middle of a large version of Old Glory. Smiling all the while. And absent both the recent gaudy makeup and “Activist Athlete” t-shirt. Gwen Berry is sadly correct in discovering that posing as a protesting athlete, an “Activist Athlete,” would be rewarded with dramatically more notoriety, including loud applause in many places, than simply working harder and winning her event. Let’s hear directly from Ms. Berry herself. After turning her back on the flag, Berry said that she felt like the National Anthem playing while she happened to be on a podium was a “set up.” The music had been played once per evening at the trials. On the day in question, it started while Berry was standing on the podium after receiving a bronze medal in the hammer throw. Disgruntled, Berry placed her left hand on her hip and fidgeted before turning to face the stands instead of the US flag. As the song came to a close, Berry pulled up her black T-shirt with the words “Activist Athlete” emblazoned on the front to cover her head. “I feel like it was a setup, and they did it on purpose,” Berry said of the timing of the anthem. I call BS. How unusual is it that the Anthem is played when the winning athletes are on the podium? It played right into her hands, allowing her to go into her act. Berry has no chance to medal in Japan. She now has every chance to continue to get the desired attention and make money–her real goals. Intentionally taking advantage of the race-baiting environment created by so many to play her blackness against the winners’ whiteness. How far have we sunk that race is an issue in any kind of performance measurement or evaluation?

Let’s step back from the women’s hammer throw trials and look around the US.

In professional basketball, viewership has been falling like a rock, with the NBA down 25% from 2019. People are getting tired of being pummelled with slogans on jerseys and during the games, and the perpetuated, “Hands up, don’t shoot,” myth. Where are the stories about the parents who, tired as they may be, shoot baskets with their aspiring athlete children for an hour after dinner? And the woefully underpaid coaches who are a vital part of raising our nation’s youth? They labor year after year, with their greatest reward being the occasional athlete who contacts them years later to say, “Thanks, coach. You made a difference.”

The same is true of professional football, with a falloff of 20% in the NFL since 2015, where you would naturally have expected an increase. And it is not just the kneeling that people find off putting; it is the...

View Details

Introduction

Citizen accountability, training and funding must match police accountability, training and funding.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Life is a series of two way streets. Two way accountability. Marriage, business relationships, any relationship in fact. Doctor/patient. Law enforcement and citizen. Life. And I don’t mean just 50%/50%. For things to work the way they should, accountability, effort, needs to be 75%/75%. Ideally, everyone takes 100% responsibility for making things work.

“If he had not resisted arrest and simply cooperated, he’d be fine today.” Likely true. “The officer should have de-escalated the situation, not physically attacked the suspect.” De-escalation is always the better choice when it is a safe option. The point here is to stop trying to put all the responsibility on the “other side.” The one side we should all be on is fixing the problem, not fixing the blame. And the way to do that is to acknowledge and practice mutual accountability.

Okay, Will, how do we get to mutual accountability? A. By wanting to get there. The rest is straightforward. If your goal is to fix blame, then you must give up on finding a solution. If you want to fix the problem, then give up on fixing the blame.

Not everyone will want mutual accountability. Many of the most vocal do not want that at all. Much of the media, politicians and our conversations are fixed on fixing the police, not on mutual accountability practiced by both police and citizens. Defund, Reform and even Abolish. ACAB, “All Cops Are Bastards” is expressed vocally, on signs and spray painted here and there. “Say their names!” is often and loudly repeated when it comes to officer involved killings of blacks, justified or not. The overwhelming majority of blacks are killed by other blacks and no one asks for their names to be said out loud. No one knows their names. They die unmourned and unavenged. None of the killings are justified, and because no one cares, the slaughter will continue. No more than 20 unarmed blacks are killed by law enforcement each year. Thousands of blacks are shot or murdered every year by other blacks in our cities. As a statement of principle, not as support for the organization, Black Lives Matter is clearly and obviously true. My question is, “Do All Black Lives Matter?”

For every responsibility that cops have, we citizens have an equal responsibility. And our job is so much easier. Law enforcement officers must perform proactive tasks every day, and from time-to-time put themselves in physical danger. Routine traffic stops can result in gunfire from the person being pulled over. Domestic violence calls can result in danger or worse for the responding officers. All that we citizens need to do every day is avoid being involved in any illegal activity be it running a stop sign, or armed robbery. And if we do find ourselves being stopped or questioned by a cop, be polite and cooperate. If you believe that the stop or the questioning is unfair or illegal, cooperate then complain or even sue somebody. You will have established your credibility as a good citizen, will not have risked being hassled or injured, and if you’re in the right you will have exposed the offender, and likely have gotten some real cash for your troubles. You won’t wind up in the media as a social justice warrior, so if that is your goal, then protest and resist, tell the officer that he is racist or deliver other insults, refuse to identify yourself and follow that path. My favorite inappropriate response is, “I pay your salary; you work for me.

Mutual accountability training. Officers receive months of training, then serve for a period as probationary officers. Often the training lasts six months, and the probationary period is a year. And more training, especially in dangerous situations, is needed. What kind of training do we citizens receive? Anything in school? What about at home, across the...

View Details

Introduction

“Let’s Pretend” used to be an innocent child’s game. It was fun, expanded imaginations and was harmless. And forgotten by dinner time. Now “pretend” means that men can be women, that certain bad behavior never happened, that achievement is racist, and so much more.

It is no longer just a child’s game; it is a dangerously distorted view of the world that is driving everything from personal interactions to the politics that run our lives. No longer forgotten by dinner time, “Let’s Pretend” is working to infuse itself into our society and government.

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s go through some important examples of Let’s Pretend in the news and in our lives.

First, let’s pretend that men can become women. Much in the conversation today is the question of can men become women. No, of course they can’t. They can identify as women, and have every right to expect to be treated courteously and with some measure of dignity as they present themselves as women. But they are not women. For example, a biological man cannot give birth or nurse babies. Many, mostly on the left, are making the case that simply because a man identifies as a woman that he is indeed fully a woman. And that anyone denying that transformation is anti-trans, transphobic, or worse. No, no miraculous biological transformation took place. This man may very well yearn to take his place in society presenting himself as a woman, and I am happy to go along with that. Don’t we all know people who present themselves as different than who we know them to be? The retired Uncle who embellishes his career, or the friends who greatly exaggerate their prowess as drinkers or lovers? They want to be seen as different than they are, and in the main we go along with them. The underlying reality about their careers, drinking and life as lovers is fact-based, and unchanged by either how they present themselves or how we, in politeness and love, treat them. The danger comes when the person, or those supposedly supporting them, insist that, yes, the facts on the ground, e.g., sex, career path, and drinking and lovemaking abilities, have indeed changed because of a simple declaration. Nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that. The Let’s Pretenders insist that we go beyond being caring and loving, that we go well beyond responding to this man as the woman he identifies as being. They irrationally pound on the table, insisting that he is fully and completely a woman, no different than if he had been born female, making a mockery of the third grade science that teaches about the birds and the bees. Like a bird can become a bee by, what, pretending to buzz around looking for pollen?

Now, let’s pretend that bad behavior does not exist. When bad behavior is observed as occurring disproportionately in minorities, especially blacks, the Let’s Pretend response is to claim that the bad behavior did not exist in the first place. The Dallas Morning News reports about the Obama administration’s “Dear Colleague Letter” on school discipline. “The letter, issued in 2014, advised school superintendents nationwide that racial disparities in suspension rates would be grounds for finding school districts in violation of federal anti-discrimination law, and therefore at risk of losing federal funding. The directive, cast as a ‘guidance,’ in fact formalized a fundamental shift in the Department of Education’s approach to civil rights enforcement.

“Prior to the Dear Colleague Letter, the standard held that civil rights are violated if students are treated differently because of race; for instance, if a black student and a white student both curse at a teacher, it’s wrong to suspend the black student and give the white student a warning. The Dear Colleague Letter expanded the standard from disparate treatment to disparate impact; now, if two black students and one white student curse at a teacher, it

View Details

Introduction

Come with me on a decades-long journey, with the selected mileposts for this topic being observations and encounters involving race. Looking back, I see a parallel between my personal experiences, and the path that our nation is on.

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing

I grew up for my first 15 years in a lily white neighborhood in suburban Philadelphia before the civil rights movement in the 60s. This was the Jim Crow era, but not a Jim Crow area, not the Jim Crow geography. My only contact with blacks, and it was not at all in depth, was with our weekly maid, Elsie Kiyah. She was hard working, kept to herself, and was known to be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roller (Holy Roller), a Protestant movement, pun intended, known for dancing, shaking or other boisterous movements by church attendees who perceive themselves as being under the influence of the Holy Spirit. I also remember getting autographs from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain (Wilt Chamberlain) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadowlark_Lemon (Meadowlark Lemon), the one year that Chamberlain played for the https://www.harlemglobetrotters.com/ (Harlem Globetrotters). I remember them as being huge, polite, and fantastically talented. I did see that they were black, but that was not a distinguishing characteristic. I would be taught to see that later in my life.

In the Philly area at the time, I remember the, “Take a negro to lunch,” campaign on the radio. It sounded like a nice idea to this teen, but I was wondering why anyone was pushing the idea. At the same time, a conversation in the media and around town was, “Would you sell your home to a negro?” I thought that was a dumb question; why on earth not? I got around to asking my Dad that question, looking for reassurance that he was the person I thought him to be. I still remember exactly where the two of us were and what we were doing when he replied, “No. It would reduce the value of the other homes in the neighborhood.” That was the response from a well-educated, kind man. And not at all atypical for the times. But I wanted him to be different. And in many ways, my friends and I were no better. Racial stereotypes were often joked about. My casual, even dismissive, attitude toward minorities was, in retrospect, wrong and born of ignorance.

Years later, after I had moved to Colorado, my Mom, Stepfather, Chuck Warner, and I were in a restaurant in Denver where they had the 1959 Ingemar Johansson/Floyd Patterson heavyweight championship fight on the radio for all in the restaurant to hear. I had allowed myself to be charmed by the romantic image Johansson had built around himself; a handsome Swede, surrounded by fine things and beautiful women. And he did not seem to train all that hard, and certainly not in the usual sweaty gyms. To this 17-year-old, that was heady stuff. I started getting excited when it became clear that Johansson was going to win. My Stepdad told me to quiet down and cool it. Mom supported him, pointing out that the black wait staff would not react well to my enthusiasm. And right there was another lesson in race relations; the first one taught to me by my Dad, the second by my Stepdad. BTW, both of them had served in the segregated Army in WWII.

When I moved to Colorado in the middle of my Junior year in high school, I found myself in a much less well off community, and no blacks here either. When we would get a group of the lads crowded in a car and drive to Denver, sometimes the subject of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Points,_Denver (Five Points) area would come up, with hushed speculations about how dangerous this black neighborhood was.

After flunking out of the University of Colorado, I went into the Army, where I had a rich variety of racial experiences. The first came early on when I listened to a group of 4 black soldiers singing. They had pulled a foot locker in between two bunk beds, with 2...

View Details

Introduction

Is this newly minted Federal Holiday designed to commemorate the necessarily long and tortured road from the depravity of slavery to where we are today? A nation celebrating equality under the law, and sufficient and growing opportunities for everyone?

Or is it designed as a platform to perpetuate the dangerous lie that America was built on slave labor, that the Revolution was fought to preserve slavery, and that America is still systemically racist, i.e., racist to its core?

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing

Adding Juneteenth takes us to 12 Federal holidays in 2021. Most years there are “only” 11 Federal paid days off; on presidential election years the Feds add Inauguration Day as the 12th day off. That’s right, Inauguration Day is an excuse to have a paid day off. Of the usual 11 Federal Holidays, 4 of them, over one-third of our holidays, celebrate the necessarily difficult and bloody rise from slavery to freedom, listed in order of their annual celebration: 1. Martin Luther King Day 2. Memorial Day 3. Juneteenth 4. Independence Day

MLK Day is an obvious part of this list. No explanation is needed.

Memorial Day, the day that we remember America’s war dead. In the Civil War, the war fought to preserve the Union and free the slaves, 110,100 Union soldiers died in battle: 67,088 KIA, and 43,012 mortally wounded. 224,580 died of disease. 2,226 were wounded. 1 Army commander, 3 corps commanders, 14 division commanders, and 67 brigade commanders, including 32 generals, were killed in the Union Army. The Emancipation Proclamation, the 13th Amendment freeing the slaves, and obviously, Juneteenth could not have happened without their sacrifices.

Juneteenth is another obvious one for inclusion in this list. And it will be helpful to discuss what this day means, what it stands for, and what led up to it. On September 22, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that as of January 1, 1863, all enslaved people in the states currently engaged in rebellion against the Union “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” But his signing the Proclamation did not free anyone. Not a single slave in the separate nation, the Confederate States, was freed by the Union’s Proclamation. Had the Allies in WWII make a similar proclamation, say in January of 1943, that all of those held in Nazi concntration camps were, “…“thenceforward, and forever free,” nothing would have happened until the Allies defeated Germany and entered the camps as liberators. Same thing with the Civil War. Freedom for the slaves became memorialized in the Constitution when the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865; it was ratified December 6, 1865. Let’s look at the wording of this Amendment. “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” The Confederate States were not a part of the United States, and until the surrender were not subject to Union jurisdiction; they had seceded and formed a separate country. Only when the South surrendered on April 6th, 1865, when Lee surrendered to Grant, did the edicts, proclamations and laws of the Union have full force and effect on the seceded states. Only then were we once again one nation. The United States was once again united–not two separate countries with two separate governments and two warring armies. The original Juneteenth occurred on June 19th, 1865 in Galveston, TX, when Major General Gordon Granger read General Order No. 3, announcing to the last town in the US to receive the news, Texas was now again part of the Union, that all the slaves had been freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. A Proclamation that would have had no force or effect had the Union lost the war, had Grant been the one to have...

View Details

Introduction

“Give me your entitled, your spoiled, your huddled classes yearning to live for free, the wretched refuse of your indoctrination schools. Send these, the factless, cliche-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the student loan door!

But I paraphrase.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s review the famous poem on the Statue of Liberty. “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” The words of Emma Lazarus’ famous 1883 sonnet “The New Colossus” are, at least in some part, known by many people in America–and others worldwide. They are not an official statement of American immigration policy, or even a statement of non-binding belief that was voted on by citizens or politicians. Yet I am struck by the yearning to breathe free language. Yearning. Not a demand. No one marching with signs or trying to take advantage of a rich, generous neighbor. Yearning. Starting with 15-year-old Annie Moore from Ireland, 12M immigrants were processed at nearby Ellis Island between its opening in 1892 and when it shut its doors in 1954.

Today’s episode looks at a paraphrase of Ms. Lazarus’ poem, imagining what the words might be if they correctly reflected what is happening at our nation’s institutions of higher learning.

The implied immigration strategy used at Ellis Island, NY, was crude, but it clearly worked: ticket money. Everyone arriving came by ship; first and second class passengers were given a cursory once over, then disembarked to go through customs. Third class passengers, steerage, were transported to nearby Ellis Island where they underwent medical and legal inspections to ensure they didn’t have a contagious disease or some condition that would make them a burden to the government. Only two percent were barred entry. The country grew and prospered, and immigrants assimilated and found their places in American society. Together, along with those already here, they created the “New Colossus”, America. BTW, if you think it was unfair to separate immigrants by their ability to afford tickets, tell me about how that was worse than what we have now–chaos absent easy-to-do, sensible and workable https://revolution2-0.org/immigration-redux-the-clear-solution-no-one-wants-ep-301/ (immigration reform) (EP. 301).

Immigrants were not coming to America to be supported. The social safety net was non-existent, then only in its infancy starting in 1933; the US offered an opportunity to work hard and succeed, little more. What are colleges and universities offering, and why are students going? These institutions have become businesses, and woke ones at that. Their intended product, outside of the STEM fields, is a woke, politically correct graduate who has no specific skills to offer an employer. And given that education is tilting more to teaching what to think over how to think, even having a thoughtful approach to problem solving is not a skill acquired in college. And good grammar and the simple ability to spell? Or even showing up on time? Where is that being taught?

Today’s Key Points: 1. It is much easier to pontificate than to teach. 2. It is far easier to parrot back politically correct cliches than to do a thoughtful essay on why you think Pip in Great Expectations was a good guy or not. Said differently, giving and receiving a good education is hard, necessarily hard. As is life. Do you remember how delighted we were in school when the teacher got himself off subject? And the things that we as students would do to make that happen? Class was so much easier when the teacher got off track. No subject matter learning took place, but it was fun and easy, and we loved it. Now the teachers are getting themselves off track, and staying there. Hey, it is easier for them as well. And the subject matter learning...

View Details

Introduction

Speaking of history, as we often do here at Revolution 2.0™, what do you know about the Cultural Revolution in China? This 10 year long socio-political purge under Chairman Mao, 1966-1976, The Cultural Revolution damaged China’s economy and traditional culture, along with incurring a death toll estimated to have been in the millions.

We are deep into the dangerous beginnings of our own cultural revolution, a culture war, with its intention of establishing one party rule.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Mao Zedong, Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party from its founding in 1949 until his death in 1976, was well practiced in mass killing in pursuit of his goals. His ill conceived Great Leap Forward, a five-year plan of forced agricultural collectivization and rural industrialization, 1958-1962, resulted in the deaths of up to 40M people, making Mao the greatest mass murderer of all time–even greater than Joseph Stalin, the Russian dictator from 1927 until his demise in 1953. Hitler and Naxi Germany take a distant third place when it comes to mass murder. Mao and Stalin claimed to have been Marxist-Leninists, and Hitler labeled his party Socialist. What they were all really up to was seizing and holding power in their one-party states. Their announced political philosophies were for convenience only; their real tools were rhetoric, centering around passionate misinformation, and ruthless intimidation, including mass incarceration, murder and torture on a stunning scale.

Today in America, the Gang of Four, the pollsters, the Left, the Mainstream Media and Big Tech, are pushing to have one party rule here in the US. Their tools are rhetoric, centering around passionate misinformation, and ruthless intimidation though cancelling and shaming. The https://revolution2-0.org/was-the-2020-election-fair-ep-289/ (Goal of the Gang of Four), is to manipulate elections in a way that no Republican is ever again elected to national office–and very few to state office.

The most subtle, yet the most powerful, way for the Gang to succeed in its mission is to support and encourage the less concerned, less involved, unmotivated and generally unknowledgeable voters to take a few minutes every four years to cast a ballot. These are the voters who know little or nothing about either our unique purpose or history as a nation. Few of them could answer basic civics questions, or even identify key political leaders. Most importantly these voters grab onto appealing cliches and sound bites instead of doing any checks-ins with opposing opinions and policy recommendations. The Gang works to create the false impression that if anything in life is hard, is not what is wanted or is merely inconvenient, then it is unfair and needs to be remedied by government. And the Democrats, they claim correctly, will provide those remedies for you through the government, while Republicans won’t.

At its core, America was built on a culture of hard work over time, faith in a higher power, respect for authority and a high regard for education. Today, hard work is slowly beginning to be replaced with taxpayer dependency, the higher power is the government, authority is disrespected simply because it represents authority, and education and knowledge are being replaced with indoctrination and certificates. I remember being taught in school that the family is the basis of the state. That made immediate sense when I first heard it in Junior High. Stronger families make for stronger societies, and logically stronger societies make for a stronger state. Today, it is inverted; the family needs the approval of and support from the state for almost everything from financial assistance to the remaining freedoms that individuals and families are free to exercise.

The American economy, guided and fortified by free markets, hard work over time and ingenuity and creativity, is by far the strongest the world...

View Details

Introduction

Doesn’t everyone want peace? I certainly do, but not at any price, and not by any means. Peace through strength. Peace that builds up those around us is what I want. Do you?

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Dona Nobis Pacem is the title of a beautiful song done as a round. Only three words in the entire piece; yet it is beautiful, moving and inspiring. How do we get to pacem? I am not a pacifist. Peace does not mean surrender nor does it mean accepting cash and in kind payments from the authorities in return for staying quiet and safe.

Today’s Key Point: Peace, true peace, is achieved through working hard and consistently to make real contributions to yourself and to others.

The point is not to seek peace for the sake of peace itself; that determined focus can all too easily lead to unacceptable compromises. Work to raise up yourself and those around you, and find peace there. It is the same way with happiness. Don’t seek happiness for the sake of being happy, seek to do the right thing and find happiness that way. You can be at peace while being oppressed or an oppressor, and be happy while on drugs. Seek to do the right thing with yourself and others, and find peace and happiness that way. Frequent fliers with Revolution 2.0™ may remember that I am an admirer of the late Chalres Krauthammer, MD, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist syndicated in 400 publications worldwide, a cable news personality and author. After battling all of his adult life with the effects of a spinal cord injury that left him paralyzed from the waist down, Krauthammer died prematurely of cancer at age 68. Yet this is how he summed up his life. “I leave this life with no regrets. It was a wonderful life–full and complete with the great loves and great endeavors that make it worth living. I am sad to leave, but I leave with the knowledge that I lived the life that I intended.”

The opposite of peace is strife. We must all deal with the strife and stress that comes accidentally, perhaps through injury or illness. The volunteer strife comes when certain people, groups and politicians prosthelytize doctrines like Critical Race Theory, white supremacy and the overall belief that America always was and is systemically racist. All while selling the notion that if they do not get to run everything, including what can be said, what cannot be said, and what must be said, that America will always be racist. The opposite of peacemakers, these charlatans intentionally create strife and conflict for personal and political gain. I drill down on these beliefs and motivations in other episodes. My short form episode format does not allow for that repetition here. I invite you to look for and enjoy those episodes.

Throughout recorded history, we see different groups, classes and dogmas, both political and religious, oppress, rule over and dominate others. The motivation to rule over and belittle other groups is as old as mankind, only which groups are on top and which are on the bottom changes. The groups can be determined by inherent characteristics, e.g., race and gender, or artificial differences, e.g., income, social class or beliefs. During, WWII, President Franklin Roosevelt interned 120,000 Japanese Americans in camps after forcibly removing them from their homes. And the Supreme Court approved this mass internment. BTW, the 442nd Infantry Regiment, best known for its history as a fighting unit composed almost entirely of second-generation American soldiers of Japanese ancestry (Nisei) who fought in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II (World War II), was the most decorated unit for its size in military history. The unit’s motto was “Go for Broke”.

These days, at least in the US, strife promoters have invented a new class of undesirables: those who do not actively, sufficiently and repeatedly say and do what is demanded of them. In other words, simply minding your own business...

View Details

Introduction

“After me, the flood,’” is a French expression attributed to King Louis XV of France, the last King before Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were beheaded during the French Revolution in 1793. Louis knew that continuing excesses by the French leadership, royalty and the church, would lead to disaster, in his words, a flood. The flood came in the form of a bloody and extended revolution in 1789. Continuing excesses by our leadership, politicians and progressive true believers, will also lead to a disaster. The difference is that in France the French leaders suffered; in the US, the people will suffer.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

The biblical version is, “Because they sow the wind, they will reap the wind storm. The plant has no stalk and its bud yields no grain. Even if there’s a harvest, foreigners will gobble it up.” Tragically, those who are sowing the wind today are not going to reap the whirlwind. The consequences will fall on others, while the perpetrators prosper, deny any blame, and accuse others. I say tragically because if the perps could see even the possibility of negative consequences accruing to them, their cohorts or their political party, perhaps they would act differently.

What are the winds that are being sown? What is being done to create the flood? Three main things:

Massive and burdensome debt left to our children and grandchildren.

A deliberate denigration and destruction of personal responsibility, replaced by taxpayer dependency and

A nation intentionally ripped apart by class, race and gender.

All done for personal and political gain by the perpetrators, with absolutely no concern about the terrible and lasting damage.

Before we can address these three areas and the depths of the damage that will be done to our nation, let’s take a look at what we need to do, to have, to be, in order to see what is happening, and to be a part of altering the dangerous path that we are on together. Ready?

Knowledge of history. It is indeed true that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Correctly attributed to both Edmund Burke, an Irish statesman and economist, 1729-1797, and George Santayana, originally Jorge Augustín Nicolás Ruiz De Santayana, a Spanish-American philosopher, poet, and humanist, 1863-1952. A simple example will prove this point. If you don’t remember that hot stoves burn, you will get burned on a regular basis. That’s an easy to grasp application of the need to understand history. Yes, experience is the best teacher, and we need to learn primarily from other people’s experiences. That’s why God invented books. And podcasts. Aside from the date, what do you know about the Magna Carta? Does the date 1066 ring a bell? What do you know about the origins of and lessons from the Civil War (the ultimate oxymoron), WWI, The Great Depression, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, The Soviet Union, the Civil Rights Movement in the ‘60s, and the agendas and policies of the two major political parties today? With apologies to Ezra Pound and his 1934 classic, The ABC of Reading, this is the A-B (not even to C yet) of history.

Knowledge of simple logic, and I emphasize simple. We’ll start with understanding the concept that correlation is not causation. For example, about 300K Americans die in their sleep every year. Would any rational person connect those two and say that sleeping is dangerous? Of course not; the two are connected in time, but there is no causal connection. But we have tens of millions of people, including the media and many politicians, who observe that some minorities are arrested out of proportion to their share of the population, and immediately declare this to be proof of racism. They decided that not only was there a causal connection, but that it was a racist connection on the part of law enforcement. Their solution is to decriminalize the actions that lead to the disproportionate arrests. This is...

View Details

Introduction

Hard work and sacrifice over time is omnipotent; it builds and strengthens individuals, families and societies. Entitlement is a cancer.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

“But that’s not fair!” “Life isn’t fair.” The child shrieks that something or other is not fair. He came in 3 hours after curfew and his phone was taken for a day. Her supposed best friend did not invite her to a birthday party. Perhaps eons ago, a cave child complained about not getting a desired cut of the saber tooth tiger at dinner. In every case, the parent responded in the same way by accurately observing that life is indeed not fair. And once we get that, life suddenly becomes much easier.

We are entitled to, ”Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” And none of that is guaranteed; it was bought with blood and treasure, and must be defended or we will lose all of it.

Many of us want to be a part of trying to make life fair, as we should. And at the same time we need to be very careful about our motives. Are we trying to right wrongs with our own time, energy and money? Or are we trying to make life fair with other people’s time, energy and money? A growing number of people, groups and politicians are seeking personal and political advantage by inventing and then applying new categories of so-called fairness. Here are some examples:

Voting. The initial shriek here was that requiring a photo ID to vote was somehow unfair to minorities and others who were incapable of acquiring the type of identification needed to live openly day to day in our country. When those taking that position discovered how insulting it was to any person or group that they could not handily get a photo ID, they shifted the claim of what was not fair. This time the claim is that having weeks of pre-voting, with polls open evenings and weekends along with weeks of mail-in balloting is not enough. Unless you added drive-thru and 24 hour voting, it was racist. Their point is that people are entitled to the utmost ease, absent any and every inconvenience, in order to vote. No. Nonsense. Everyone is entitled to liberal and equal access to the polls. Government is required to give that equal and liberal access while preserving the integrity of the voting process. And separate from what we feel entitled to when it comes to voting, we must all work hard to research the various politicians and policies before voting. Research. Not simply checking in with the sources we know will support our biases. Research, including truth seeking research on opposition party leaders and policies. Have you heard that the Biden Administration is floating the idea of requiring a paid day off to vote? If that gains traction, I can hear the woke voices now complaining that this is racist. Why? Because fewer minorities are employed than whites and would not qualify for this freebie; this would be just as racist as not having 24-hour or drive through voting.

Work rewards, i.e., pay and benefits. The entitled approach is to pay people what they need simply because they are entitled to what they need. The rational approach is to pay people in line with what they contribute, not in line what they need or want. We are entitled to what we earn. And to keep our money over and above what is needed for government to do only what it does uniquely well, and efficiently. Right job, done well.

Academic rewards, i.e., getting into schools, succeeding and graduating with or without honors. The entitled approach wants people to attend where they choose. And maybe even graduate more based on need and desire rather than performance. The rational approach requires that both admittance and gradation be dependent upon merit only.

Money for life’s expenses, e.g., housing, clothing, food, healthcare, relaxation, Universal Basic Income (UBI, AKA Free Money For Life), etc. The point worth driving home here is that none of these are human rights; no human is...

View Details

Introduction

Being polite and thankful is more than just good manners; it forms the bedrock of a well functioning society.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

At Revolution 2.0™, we have spoken about https://revolution2-0.org/gratitude-ep-180/ (gratitude), EP 180, 12 Nov 19, being fundamental to living a happy and contributing life. Politeness, good manners, “Please” and “Thank You” are just some of the outward manifestations of gratitude.

Let’s start with an easy example. Many of us have either had someone help us move furniture or we have received that help–perhaps even involving a complete household move. Help like that is rewarded by profound thanks, plenty of food and beverages, and the unspoken but sure knowledge that the person receiving this favor would be just as happy to come through for the other person at any time.

Now let’s look at a somehow less clear example. I say somehow, because it was not always less clear. Gift receiving. The saying that it is better to give than receive is absolutely correct, but it is not complete. When one receives a gift, the receiver must then become the giver, a giver of thanks. I was taught that when I received a gift that I needed to sit down and take the time to hand write a thank you note. And that note needed to include why and how the gift was appreciated and used along with a sincere expression of thanks. For example, if I received a new battery operated toy car, I would include information about where I would use it and how my friends would get to enjoy it with me. If the gift was cash, I was taught to tell the giver what I was going to do with the money, and why that was important to me.

And have you ever heard the phrase “bread and butter” note? If you were invited to someone’s home for dinner, in addition to bringing something to share you would write a note of thanks afterwards: the bread and butter note. Thank yous like these were not to be done grudgingly; they were done with the same level of care and generosity as the original gift, whether the gift was a tie (remember those?), cash or a home cooked meal.

What happened? Today, even a hastily done voice to text thank you email or text message seems to be too much for most people. Is it because the gift was deemed insufficient? Because the gift was seen as their due? Because the receiver saw himself as entitled to the gift? Ha. I think we are onto something here. Entitlement. If someone sees themselves as entitled, a thank you might be seen as unnecessary. Hold that thought for a moment.

For now, we’ll go back to the gift giver. Back in the day, before online research and Internet shopping, a giver would need to hoof it from store to store to find just the “right thing.” Then find a card, wrap the gift, and often stand in line at the Post Office to mail it, making sure that it was sent in time to arrive for an event. Today, many people, and I am one of them, enjoy the ease of Amazon’s one-click shopping, stored send-to addresses and credit card numbers. Does that mean that the gift is less appreciated? That gratitude can be moderated, if any gratitude is present at all, downwards in line with the ease of shopping? Or has taking the time to express gratitude in a meaningful and memorable way become as obsolete as manual transmission cars and 3-channel TVs; you know, the ones without remote controls? Absolutely not. Moreover, that is destructive thinking.

It all starts with gratitude. Gratitude is the bedrock, the touchstone–cornerstone–for any effective philosophy, religious dogma, or simply a way to get through life or the day successfully. Ingratitude makes for a grim and unproductive outlook on life, love and politics. Without gratitude, there is an inescapable emptiness; not a yearning, but a feeling of being ungrounded. This makes for a fertile ground for resentful thoughts of unfairness or “Why me?” Or worse, comparing ourselves to others....

View Details

Introduction

On September 11th 2001, 9/11, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists seized 4 commercial airliners with the demonic intent of savaging America by crashing 2 airliners into the Twin Towers, 1 into the Pentagon and 1 into the Capitol area, perhaps even the White House itself. Citizen passengers and crew heroically prevented the latter.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode

Continuing

On Flight 93 that fateful, evil-filled day, there was no debate about personal responsibility and who was supposed to do what. There was no nutso group making the case that terrorism centered in the Middle East was somehow created by American foreign policy. Passengers on Flight 93 discovered that the Saudi terrorists who had hijacked their flight were part of a larger group that had already attacked key US targets. It became clear that the flight they were on was to be yet another fuel bomb, intended to crash into a major target, complete with the 33 passengers and 7 crew. The 4 terrorists did not care about their lives, the lives of the others on the flight, or the lives of those at their target. Somehow, somehow, their version of Islam not only allowed but rewarded suicide bombing on a major scale. Their brothers and sisters who strapped explosives to their bodies and detonated them on Israeli school busses were playing in the minor leagues.

In 1775, Two hundred and twenty-six years before 9/11, 70 armed citizen soldiers, Minutemen, so named because they could be ready in a minute, faced off against the vaunted British Army Regulars in a skirmish that started the Revolutionary War. “The shot heard around the world,” was fired by an unknown combatant. A shot that has reverberated through history. These citizen soldiers, much scorned by the British as mere militia, were almost completely untrained in the art of soldiering. They were armed with the same muskets they used to feed their families and ward off threats from marauding animals and criminal humans. They got together in a loose formation to prevent the Regulars from seizing the weapons and ammunition stored at Concord, MA. Remember, in 1775, both the armed citizens and the Regulars were British. The British citizens were using guns to protect their access to firearms from British authority. Is that a heads up, a warning, about events that will confront us again in the future? The main point here is that untrained citizens, the original well-regulated militia, rallied to do the right thing for their country, a country under attack.

The country was also under attack on 9/11. The courageous women and men on board Flight 93 stopped terrorists from reaching their final destination. Nearly 3,000 people were killed when the hijacked planes were flown into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon near Washington, D.C., and when United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside outside of Shanksville. Flight 93 did not arrive at the hijackers’ intended target–the U.S. Capitol–because of the selfless and courageous actions of the passengers and crew.

Our country is under attack again today from people and groups with weapons far more dangerous than fuel-filled commercial airliners or British Regulars with muskets, bayonets and cannons.

Lies.

The core lie is that America is not only systemically racist, but that our country was formed in 1776, at great risk to the lives and personal freedoms of the Founders, in order to preserve slavery. The lie continues by claiming that slavery was the vital underpinning to the nation’s economy, and that is why we were willing to go to war to preserve it. The 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory are mainstays of this terrible lie. The lie that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery is far more evil than terrorists flying 4 or 400 commercial airliners into populated targets. A nation can recover from major disasters, like, well, the Civil War and COVID. It cannot recover...

View Details

Introduction

The recent decision to allow vaccinated people to be in many public areas without masks has given rise to the question, “How will we know if that maskless person has been vaccinated.” Asked differently, do we trust each other?

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing

Beyond masks, we see increasing evidence of cheating in online schools. A headline in the Wall Street Journal warns, “Cheating At School Grows Rampant.” The Internet is filled with offers to help students cheat, and with tests being online, cheating is easy. Only the honor system can stop it.

The Honor Code at the United States Military Academy, West Point, states, “A Cadet will not lie, cheat, steal or tolerate those who do.” How is that holding up? Here is a quote from a recent West Point Press release. “The U.S. Military Academy has completed its final adjudication of honor code violations that occurred during a freshman calculus exam in May 2020, while in remote learning away from the academy. Of the 73 cases investigated by the cadet honor committee, six cadets resigned during the investigation, an additional four cadets were acquitted by a board of their peers, and two cases were dropped due to insufficient evidence. Of the resulting 61 cases that were fully adjudicated, eight were separated, 51 were turned back one full year, and two were turned back six months.

In October 2020, the academy also began a comprehensive honor system review and found that the willful admission process, in place since 2015, had not met its intended purpose.” Yes, there is widespread cheating anywhere there is online schooling.

Overall, we do not trust each other, and do not have faith in anything called an Honor System. We believe more in, “Every man for himself,” than in an Honor System which assumes that we will act responsibly to take care of each other.

Pause for a nit. Yes, I get it that many people believe that we do not need an honor system with vaccines and mask wearing; they believe that anyone who is vaccinated is impervious to COVID whether others wear masks or not, indoors or outdoors, on airplanes or in church. I am not there, but the issue of whether we Americans trust each other is real, important and needs to be addressed.

We have a highly diverse society, which makes it more difficult to establish mutual trust, social trust, than in homogeneous places like Japan and the Sandinavian countries. The problem is greatly exaggerated by those pushing intersectional politics, pitting groups against each other for personal and political gain.

In order to move forward with anyone or any group, trust is required. As the issues become more important, more trust is needed. For example, at the low end of the trust spectrum, simply riding as a passenger being driven across town requires trust in the driver’s skills for 30 minutes or so. Towards the other end, marrying the driver requires overall, lifelong trust.

If we are to be comfortable with paying our taxes, we need to trust that the tax structure is fair, and the government is spending our money 1. in the right areas, and 2. spending it efficiently. Money in the right places, spent responsibly.

Getting comfortable with spending money on welfare requires that we believe: 1. The people receiving it are doing their best, yet are incapable of meeting their responsibilities. 2. The various agencies dispensing our taxes are working to help the recipients achieve self-supporting status, earning the joy, freedom, and dignity that should come with that accomplishment. Sadly, I needed to use the word “should” in the previous sentence. The joy and dignity that comes only from doing one’s best is slowly being replaced by the ease and sense of entitlement that comes with having others be taxed to partially or fully support those on taxpayer welfare.

How do we develop that trust in the recipients? Do we need to know the specifics of a large, random sampling of welfare recipients?

View Details

Introduction

A discussion that’s in the news recently centers around the question of whether current government largesse is eroding the American Work Ethic. My question is whether the flood of government money is exposing the lack of a work ethic, and not eroding one that supposedly exists.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s topic was triggered by the question of whether the “American work ethic” is being eroded by stimulus spending, including enhanced unemployment, personal stimulus checks and general government largesse. My conviction is that the so-called American work ethic is not nearly as pervasive as we might like to think. Much of the push to become and stay employed has come from not having a whole lot of options. The choice used to be that if you want to live at all well, you had to work. Then something called the social safety net came into being. Government unemployment benefits first appeared in 1932, followed by Social Security with its very modest start in 1935. The Federal Food Stamp program was added in 1936. These programs provided bandaids for the poor; one still needed to work. No choice. Together these programs were not a safety net; they would barely break a fall. Today, the myriad local, state and federal government assistance programs provide a true safety net.

But a safety net in the circus, or wherever an act is performed, does not allow the act to go on; it simply saves the performer from injury–or worse. If the performance is to continue, the performer must leave the security of the net, regroup, and continue on. Today’s social safety nets are not designed to allow people who can perform their work to take more than a required respite. Safety nets are exactly that–devices that provide a needed rescue. They are not the performance itself. No one would go to see performers fall into their nets and just stay there. And no society can long endure with people seeing safety nets as the reason that they do not need to perform.

Today, these safety nets are expanding, with many additions that have nothing to do with rescue or relief. Offering free college is not a safety net. Paying people as much or more not to work is not a rescue. And now there is growing talk about giving people money or a regular basis for simply existing. It is called a Universal Basic Income (UBI); a fancy name for free taxpayer money on a regular and guaranteed basis.

We will not know if there is an American work ethic on anything like a widespread basis until there are sufficient taxpayer funded alternatives to work to make the love of working and contributing, or at least a strong sense of personal responsibility, the core reason for being productive. If someone does not have options to working for money, then more base motives, e.g., hunger and fear of being disgraced, can be enough to keep a person working. That is not a work ethic. That is simply a reaction.

How many times have we heard of people who worked for, say, 40 years, hating their jobs while waiting to retire. Only to get sick, go broke, or die within 5 years of retirement? Did someone like that have a strong work ethic, or were they merely putting in their time and paying the bills until they could quit? This question can only be answered by knowing the intent of the worker. Why is he working? Is he putting in his time, grumbling and living for his time off? Or is he productive, looking for ways to get better, and setting a good example for his family and others?

Absent being able to read minds, we can get the answer only if work is no longer needed to provide for a decently comfortable life. Then those who continue to dig in and be productive will have demonstrated a real work ethic. Those who do not, will not have been “robbed” of their work ethic by an overly generous government; they never had a work ethic in the first place. They were just grinding and grumbling.

Today, we have an abundance of...

View Details

Introduction

If the Arabs laid down their weapons there would be no more war. If the Israelis laid down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s start with a quick look at the history of the Middle East starting in 1948, when the UN created Israel by partitioning Palestine. Prior to that, many Jews had emigrated to Palestine, the ancestral home of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Following the announcement of an independent Israel, five Arab nations—Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon—immediately invaded the region in what became known as the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. The five attacking countries announced their intention to, “Drive Israel into the sea.” Heavily outmanned and outgunned, Israel stunned the world by not only surviving but capturing 1,900 sq. miles of Arab land, including East Jerusalem; the Israelis had been granted West Jerusalem in the partition. The attacking countries had promised the Palestinians that they would win, drive the Israelis out, and that at the very least the Palestinians would be able to keep their homes. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians became homeless as a result of the defeat. Shockingly, no Arab country volunteered to take them in–despite their failed promises. Jordan would have been the logical choice given the geography and the Jordanian ancestry of many Palestinians.

During the Six Day war in 1967, Israel defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Syria and Jordan, which had massed along its borders, capturing the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula. For Israel, it was a stunning triumph; for the Arabs, a humiliating defeat.

On October 6, 1973, hoping to win back territory and dignity lost in 1967, Egyptian and Syrian forces launched a coordinated attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Once again, Israel survived.

In 1981, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty, with Israel giving up the Sinai Peninsula in return for peace.

In 2005, Israel unilaterally gave up the Gaza Strip, hoping to trade land for peace again.

The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the ruling party in the West Bank, last held elections in 2005. The PLO, notably under the late Yassar Arafat, has repeatedly rejected peace agreements, including the one that President Bill Clinton thought he had successfully brokered in July of 2000.

Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, was elected to rule Gaza in 2006. No elections since.

Today’s Key Point: If the goal is to have lasting peace in the Middle East, with as much economic success and freedom as possible for both Israelis and Palestinians, a one-state solution is the best way to achieve those goals.

Modern history in the Middle East began with the final collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. They had sided with the Kaiser, and the Ottomans suffered fatally when Germany lost. Post WWI, Jews began to immigrate, in small numbers, from various countries to Palestine, then a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine (British Mandate) country. After almost thirty years in control with some serious waffling about the right of Jews to immigrate to Palestine, the British Mandate in Palestine ended in 1948 with the UN partition which created the new state of Israel.

View Details

Introduction

What does “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” mean? Is it:

A call for equal results, with nothing less being acceptable?

A cry for equality under the law, reasonably equal opportunities, and visibility for everyone? Or,

Empty virtue signalling, seeking attention and advantages for the signallers?

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s look at some definitions so that we can develop a shared vocabulary. I will start with the definitions used by those who are pushing this triad as the path to fairness.

Diversity is the presence of differences within a given setting referring to a diversity of identities, like race and gender, and, in some cases ethnicity, religion, nationality, or sexual orientation.

Inclusion is about people with different identities feeling they are being valued, leveraged, and welcomed within a given setting (e.g., your team, workplace, or industry).

Equity. An approach that ensures everyone access to the same opportunities. Equity recognizes that advantages and barriers exist, and, as a result, we don’t all start from the same place. Equity is a process that begins by acknowledging unequal starting places and makes a commitment to correct and address the imbalance.

The assumption among those who keep repeating and emphasizing this triad is that these three are not only good things, but absolutely necessary to establish fairness. That we need to do whatever is necessary to establish all three–in full force everywhere–as soon as possible.

I disagree.

Diversity must mean more than a mix, representative of the surrounding population or not, of inherent characteristics like race and gender. We should be focused on creating diversity of talent and thought. And why do we want diversity of any kind in the first place? Is it to improve the quality of the products or services produced by the entity in question? Or is it to provide a pathway to being employed where someone would otherwise not be even considered? If the answer is anything other than improving the product or services offered, tell me where it is okay not to do that? Where it is okay to accept less than the best. In education? In government? With the plumber who comes to unclog your pipes? Or maybe the builder who constructed your home, of the company that built your car.

Inclusion. I admit to having a hard time with understanding why this needs to be, well, included. I am aware that some say, “Diversity is being asked to the party. Inclusion is being asked to dance.” But I still don’t get it. If following the diversity principle triggered a hire that would otherwise not have been made, what does inclusion mean in addition to diversity? Does it mean that you do not ignore the contributions of that diversity hire? That you do not simply hire that person and put them on a shelf and ignore them? If that is what happened that would not be diversity in the first place. In education, if you hire teachers under the diversity principle, does inclusion mean that you actually let them teach classes as opposed to leaving them on some sort of academic probation? Still in education, does inclusion mean that if you admitted certain students under the diversity principle, that you would not ignore them when they had their hands up to ask a question? I posit that inclusion was included because three word phrases are punchier and more memorable than two word phrases. For example, many have heard the principle that you can have quality, speed and low cost; pick two. Inclusion was added to make for a punchier slogan. A better bumper sticker. And a more impressive title, e.g., Vice President, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. And most of the time, what really gets included is more staff, more costs and more red tape.

Equity. This one is the easiest to understand, and to debate:

We are all equal under the law. Period.

We will never all have the same opportunities. Not all...

View Details

Introduction

We are in the midst of continuing arguments about the Constitutional limits of the enumerated powers of our intended-to-be limited government. The additional, perhaps more necessary, discussion needs to center around what governments are capable of doing, and what they absolutely cannot do. And the vital tasks that only we, you and I–and Father Damien–can accomplish.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Father Damien, AKA Saint Damien of Molokai, 1840-1889, was a Roman Catholic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(Catholic_Church) (priest). He was recognized for his ministry to a colony of lepers, which he led from 1873 until his death in 1889. His mission was on the island of Molokai, where he had volunteered to meet the spiritual and other needs of those doomed to die of leprosy (Hansen’s disease), unloved and unmourned. Until his arrival. Father Damien cared for his patients and established leaders within the community, helping to build houses, schools, roads, hospitals, and churches. He dressed residents’ leprosy ulcers, built a reservoir, made coffins, dug graves, shared pipes, and ate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poi_(food) (poi) by hand with them, providing medical, emotional and spiritual support.

After eleven years caring for the needs of those in the leper colony, Father Damien contracted the dread disease. He continued with his work despite the infection but finally succumbed in 1889. The way he announced to his afflicted flock that he had contracted the disease after 11 years of ministering to them was by beginning a sermon with, “We lepers.” He was declared a saint by the Catholic Church in 2008.

None of us are lepers, and very few of us are saints. But we are all in this together. Father Damien was a profound example of the power of one-on-one love, encouragement and support. Governments can supply stuff. Only we, you and I, can provide the examples, love, encouragement and support that is needed over and above the taxpayer supplied products and services. We don’t need to be Father Damiens–we simply need to be us. And to be focused on contributing. Flawed as we are, it is up to us.

Just as no government could have done the tiniest part of what Father Damien personally did for his flock of lepers, governments today still have the same severe limits on what they can accomplish, no matter how many laws and regulations are passed, and no matter how many trillions of dollars are spent. Yet governments, taxpayers and voters keep forgetting this vital lesson.

Here are two examples of things governments can and cannot do:

Governments can provide services like education and law enforcement, but they cannot motivate students to excel, or even care. They are equally inept at inspiring people to respect the law and law enforcement, as opposed to simply fearing negative consequences.

Governments can supply needed cash and in-kind services if and when needed, but they are helpless when it comes to providing the motivation for a person or group to lift themselves up so they no longer need taxpayer assistance. More recently, the government has been providing disincentives in the form of enhanced unemployment checks, and simply here-you-are checks.

Desire and motivation are everything. Governments cannot create, demand or inspire either. Most of us have heard the piece of wisdom pointing out that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach that man to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime. Well, not so fast. In order for someone to want to fish for themselves, buying and maintaining the tackle, sometimes going out in the cold and rain, and occasionally spending most of the day and coming back with nothing, they must be motivated. Without motivation, they will still want the free fish.

Now, let’s add one more level to using fishing as a metaphor for feeding humanity. Teach a man to teach others to fish, and...

View Details

Introduction

Does being an American mean that we hold to principles like “America First” and “Me First”?

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

I am going to draw a comparison between the America Firsters in the ‘40s who would have had us far less prepared for WWII, and today’s Me Firsters who are in the process of having us far less prepared to defeat COVID.

In 1940, the America First movement threw its weight behind Wendell Willkie, the Repubican candidate for President running against Franklin Roosevelt in his effort to be elected for an unprecedented third term. The core issue was opposition to Roosevelt’s giving aid to Britain when that country was the lone holdout against Nazi Germany. Wilkie, the Republicans and others including Charles Lindberg, the American superhero who was the first man to fly across the Atlantic, were dead set against entering the war in Europe which had started in September of ‘39. As well the one in Asia which Japan had started in ‘31 with its invasion of Manchuria–10 years before Pearl Harbor.

Most of us are familiar with Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister who believed Hitler’s lies about the limits of Nazi aggression. His naivete had tragic consequences in allowing Hitler to grab more people and more land, and most importantly, more time to strengthen his armed forces. Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement in September of ’38, abandoning Czechoslovakia to Hitler. WWII had a brief start in September of ‘39, with the real war beginning in May of ‘40 with the invasion of Belgium and the fall of France and most of Europe. Had Chamberlain confronted an unprepared Hitler in ‘38, Hitler would either have backed down, or would have been defeated. The extra time was critical to Hitler and his military ambitions. Had Wilkie and the America Firsters won, they would have done far more damage to the Allied effort in WWII than even Chamberlain did. FDR had been busy not only aiding Britain in its struggle against Nazism, but had been pushing hard to strengthen America’s own ability to fight a war, in terms of manpower, training and equipment, a war the President saw as inevitable. And the America Firsters saw as completely avoidable, and certainly not worth the time and expense of preparing for.

Here’s how it works with defending yourself, your country, against a rapidly strengthening opponent that poses a real, significant and devastating threat. You engage and defeat it before it can strengthen to the point where it can defeat your defenses. You completely eliminate the threat, as we did with both Germany and Japan in WWII when we announced that we would accept only unconditional surrender. In effect, we achieved global herd immunity, making it impossible for either Hiller’s Germany or Imperial Japan to rise up yet again–as both had done in the past.

Here’s how it works with defending yourself, your country, against a global, rapidly mutating and strengthening disease like COVID. When nearly everyone gets the vaccine, it’s extremely hard for the virus to spread, so the effectiveness jumps to almost 100%. That’s called herd immunity. That’s the goal. That’s always been the goal. Demanding, and achieving, unconditional surrender from COVID as we did with polio–and Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

But is that everyone’s goal? Are many people, about a third of America’s adult population, far more interested in their opinions, their so-called rights, than they are in helping and protecting others? Let’s examine some of the excuses:

“We do not know the long term effects.” Well, we damn well know the long term effects of having no vaccines. Both India and Brazil have done marginal jobs with the vaccines they have, leading to widespread COVID devastation; imagine the horror if there were no vaccines to begin with. That’s in addition to the trials that led to granting emergency approval for the vaccines, and the billion...

View Details

Introduction

That was the answer to a Catch-22 trick question posed to Christ by the Pharisees in an effort to embarrass him in front of his followers and others.

In this context Christ’s answer supported the idea of paying taxes.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

This is a useful example of authorities trying to trick a leader of the people. Here is some context to bring this example to life. “Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘We know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay tax to Caesar or not?’ If Christ has said “Yes”, the Pharisees would have used that to turn the people against him. If he had answered “No” that would have been treason.

“But Jesus, knowing their intent, said, ‘You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.’ They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, ‘Whose image is this? And whose inscription?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied.

“Then he said to them, ‘So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.’ When they heard this, they were stumped. So they left him and went away.” The Pharisees were the politically correct, self-righteous hypocrites of their day.

The message was to pay your taxes, and to give everything else to God. And that’s a good message for today. We, our children, our ambitions, freedoms, successes and failures, belong to God. Not the government.

The spenders in our government have not only gone from Tax and Spend to Spend first and then Tax, they want far more from us. They want to:

Steal our children by indoctrinating them using the very schools paid for with our taxes.

Destroy our ambitions by creating a nation of victims.

Eliminate individual responsibility by declaring that:

Any negative group statistics, e.g., arrests for armed robbery, are proof of systemic racism–with no individual responsibility at all.

Any positive groups statistics, e.g., academic achievement, are also proof of systemic racism–with individual accolades being suppressed.

Defy the clear and consistent laws of finance by borrowing sums of money that we will never be able to repay.

Exert increasing amounts of control over our lives using fear, e.g., fear of COVID, fear of Climate Change, and the greatest fear of all, the fear of each other. BTW, fears can have real foundations, like COVID; controversial and questionable foundations, e.g., Climate Change, and false and destructive foundations, like getting us to live in fear of each other.

Why do authoritarian leaders and rulers seek to replace God with government? A. They don’t like the competition.

Today’s Key Point: We should give to Caesar what Caesar needs in taxes to provide the goods and services that he, Caesar, the government, provides uniquely well. And no more.

When we start the discussion of the proper size of government with, “How big should government be?” it is inevitable that we will wind up in a verbal brawl with some people pitching for a small government, and others arguing for a big government. And we’ll get nowhere. With apologies to Shakespeare, “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in the answer, it lies in the question.”

An acquaintance of mine, a motivational speaker and author, is fond of saying, “If you want better answers, ask better questions.” When I first heard him say that, it made absolutely no sense. But I had enough respect for him that I experimented and, over time found that he is absolutely right. Let’s experiment a bit together and see if his recommendation works here.

New, better questions:

What are the tasks that need–need–to be done, accomplished, in our community, state or country? And what are the priorities?

View Details

Introduction

Both sides of the police accountability discussion are using their agendas to sift, sort, and alter the facts.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Derek Chauvin, 45, was convicted on all counts in the George Floyd case, including two counts of murder, and is likely to spend the rest of his life in prison. Cries of “He did not get a fair trial,” and, “Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s back, not his neck,’ still echo.

Sixteen year old Ma’Khia Bryant, had just attempted to attack a woman with a large knife, when she was lunging toward a second woman with the same knife, attempting to plunge it into her intended victim when she was fatally shot by white Officer Nicholas Reardon. All three women are black. Loud criticisms of “Hey it was just a knife fight,” and, “He could have shot her in the leg,” are rife in the media.

All of these contrived positions are designed to forward different agendas, with no regard for either the facts or the consequences.

“Believe your eyes,” was loudly and often encouraged when referring to the George Floyd murder video. The video of the attempted murder rescue by Officer Reardon was just as clear, albeit brief. Any kind of fairness standard, any belief in consistency in logic and reasoning demands that if you accept one video because it supports your position, then you must accept the other–even if it does not.

I have been a committed, professional blogger and podcaster for over three years, with the goal of growing in my ability to communicate and persuade. I want to grow as a podcaster with better and better content, and explode my audience. Even with this growing commitment, it is very hard for me to see self-centered agendas, supported by willful ignorance, drive out truth, fairness and logical consistency.

Just as bad money drives out good money, bad thinking drives out good thinking. In economics, Gresham’s law states that “bad money drives out good”. For example, if there are two forms of money in circulation, the more valuable commodity will gradually disappear. People will hold onto the form of money which is inherently more valuable, and spend the other money with the same face value. Forgetting the language of economists, I remember when Canadian money was not uncommon here in the US. If anyone had gotten stuck with a Canadian quarter, worth less than a US quarter, but still advertised as a quarter of a dollar, they would try to pass it as quickly as they could. Keeping any US quarters in their pockets.

Bad thinking drives out good thinking, but in a different way. Bad ideas, bad thinking, is easy. Just grab a hold of an idea, a cliche or political sound byte, and go with it. And if challenged, just repeat it. If the challenger has the nerve to present you with facts and logic that counter your adopted position, no worries–you can handle this. Start with doing what some people do when a person does not speak their language and they still want to be understood; they speak more slowly and louder. When that does not work, because it can’t, they start throwing their arms around, treating the other person like an idiot. Again, the same tactics apply here. If slow and loud does not work, then just accuse them of being a racist, or a libtard; a transphobe or a commie. Throw in a few fictitious studies, claim your rights, and announce that “This is America” as if that should end the discussion. And like a drunk who will fight until he passes out, no matter how badly he is being beaten by a skilled, sober fighter, the people with the fact free thinking will simply keep at it, ignoring all presented facts and logic, and will never quit until the other person just up and stops trying to be heard. Example: take a look at a few well articulated posts on controversial topics on Twitter. Then look at the countering responses. Very often you will see a parade of “drunk” comments, most often posted anonymously....

View Details

Introduction

If we all started with the same facts, even if we applied different reasoning and logic, we would be far more unified and together on issues than we are today. And we could make substantial progress together. The catch is that we are being lied to on a regular basis. Most of the media and many politicians and influence leaders either intentionally give us a carefully edited version of the story, or they outright lie to us. We believe the misinformation, and take our positions in line with how we are being (mis)led.

Whose fault is that? Ours. As always. We must dig for the truth. It is there for us to find. Revolution 2.0™ is here to help you find it.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Key Point. It is our responsibility to read, listen to and watch multiple sources of information–even the ones that make us upset–daily or at least weekly. There are no consistently reliable sources of the truth; we must distill that for ourselves.

Q. Why do political leaders and influence leaders lie? A. To achieve results and fulfill agendas that the truth would not support. Here are a couple examples. President Johnson created a false narrative about the US being attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin to have an excuse to bring America into the civil war in Vietnam. The CEOs of the big tobacco companies lied for years, and in front of Congress, about nicotine not being addictive. All while artificially increasing the amount of nicotine to hook more people at great peril to their health and very lives. Johnson expected glory from winning a popular war; the CEOs wanted money.

Q. Why is racism at the heart of or near the center of most of today’s lies? A. Because it works. And unlike a hard statistic, like murders in our inner cities and incidents of armed robbery, it is easy to claim–and denial, even with proof–is somehow seen as evidence that supports the initial accusation.

Let’s look at a current, sweeping, overall lie. The President, Joe Biden, has compared the revised Georgia voting laws with the Jim Crow laws. Here are a few examples of the hundreds of hateful Jim Crow laws.

“It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards.”

“No person or corporation shall require any white female nurse to nurse in wards or rooms or hospitals, either public or private, where negro men are placed.”

“Any instructor who shall teach in any school, college or institution where members of the white and colored races are received and enrolled as pupils for instruction shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined.” The list goes on almost endlessly.

The term “Jim Crow Laws” is often used, but less often understood. Jim Crow was the name of a https://www.yourdictionary.com/minstrel-show (minstrel) character created in 1828 by Thomas Rice. Rice’s comedy routines and the popular song “Jump, Jim Crow” established the common name for laws that enforced racial prejudice. These laws held sway mainly in the South from the end of the Civil War until the 50s and 60s, with the Supreme Court upholding them in 1896 with the Plessy v Ferguson separate but equal decision. Thanks in large part to the work of NAACP lawyer and future Supreme Court Justice https://biography.yourdictionary.com/thurgood-marshall (Thurgood Marshall), in 1954 the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional–effectively reversing Plessy. President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965, officially abolishing all Jim Crow laws.

Now let’s look at the results of the Georgia voting law in light of what Jim Crow really was, testing Biden’s comparison. Ready?

Voters can start requesting no-excuse ballots 78 days in advance. Photo ID is required for both...

View Details

Introduction

You are a cop, running as hard as you can, chasing an armed, young male suspect. Your weapon is drawn, and your heart is pounding from more than just the running. You have been alerted to the sound of gunfire in the area. You see a gun in the fleeing suspect’s right hand; you are shouting for him to stop and show you his hands. In one fluid motion the suspect turns to face you.

What do you do?

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Before continuing, tell yourself what you would have done.

Okay, now continue.

In this case, the officer, Eric Stillman, white, a 6-year police veteran, fatally shot 13-year-old black Adam Toledo with a single bullet. Before becoming a police officer, Stillman joined the U.S. Marines; his service included a deployment to Afghanistan. He remains in the Marine Reserves as a Staff Sergeant. Frame-by-frame video shows that Toledo ditched the gun as he was turning to face Stillman. Stillman, you, had less than a second to decide what to do. Was Toledo’s body obscuring what happened to the gun? Were you, Stillman, remembering your training that said to shoot when faced with an armed suspect who was resisting arrest, and turning to face you?

I’ll never know, but I would likely have shot Toledo. In split second, life or death situations, the only thing you can rely upon is your training. And it was not just my, our, personal safety at stake. Had Toledo succeeded in running away again while armed, whether or not he hit me, us, with a shot, he would have been a clear danger to the suburban Chicago neighborhood we are duty bound to protect.

The key question here is what kind of a police force do we want? We asked the question about what kind of a https://revolution2-0.org/social-justice-is-weakening-the-us-military-does-that-matter-ep-321/ (military) we want in a recent episode. Today, we ask the same question about law enforcement.

Many are already condemning the officer’s action. Adeena J. Weiss-Ortiz, the family’s lawyer, said, “Adam, during his last second of life, did not have a gun in his hand.” True, but is she telling the whole truth? No, but as the family lawyer it is her duty to put Adam in the best possible light. Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, observing that Toledo had not fired first, said, “Simply put, we failed Adam.” The Mayor was silent about the 769 civilian-on-civilian murders in her city in 2020, up from 495 the year before. The hands up, don’t shoot image portrayed here is intended to play to the emotions of the many who believe the “Hands up, don’t’ shoot,” lie in the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, MO.

The mainstream media are picking up on the theme that Toledo was shot while unarmed with his hands in the air. That’s true, and intentionally misleading, working to fuel the anti-cop hatred in general, and to reinforce the false claim that cops are murdering unarmed blacks on a regular basis. At most, 25 unarmed blacks are killed by cops each year, with many of those killings being justified. Intentionally fueling hatred, especially with false information, is a hate crime in and of itself. And spawns more hate crimes for which the entity spreading the false information is culpable. In cases like https://revolution2-0.org/the-infrastructure-we-desperately-need-ep-323/ (Daunte Wright), where the killing appears not to have been justified, the officer in question has been arrested and charged with manslaughter.

In general it is likely that police might need to have more thorough and repeated live fire training. Along with increased training about how to defuse situations before either side begins shooting. Law enforcement may also need to look at its hiring and retention practices, seeking to avoid hiring those who might not react well in life and death situations, and weed out those who slipped by during the hiring process. Specifically, it has been widely publicized that Officer Stillman has had three...

View Details

Introduction

“Never take on vast projects with half-vast ideas,” is a fun way of reminding us not to take on big challenges with little ideas. And yet somehow still expect results. The biggest issues facing us as a nation, including inequality and poverty, gun deaths, and our widening divisions, all have simple, but terribly difficult to implement, solutions. None of them–not a one of them–can be successfully overcome with legislation and money. No matter if the legislation is bipartisan or along party lines, and no matter how many trillions we spend.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Deep seated, long term term problems require long term solutions, and these long term solutions require hard work, and lots of one-on-one hard work over time. Here are a couple of familiar examples. People who have gained a significant amount of weight over the years may seek an easy solution, e.g., diet pills or a quick, crash diet. But as we all know, those do not work long term. And may not work at all. Only a lifestyle change can work–a simple, effective, hard to implement solution. Addiction is another example; alcohol, weed, nicotine or other drugs, are hard to kick. And like losing weight, require a lifestyle change.

America needs a lifestyle change. Legislation, no matter how well intentioned, and spending, no matter how massive, does nor even come close to supplying the needed lifestyle change. Let’s examine some of the greater challenges.

Poverty and inequality. We’ll start here with a claim on my part: If you divided up all the wealth in the country equally, simply took the total amount of private wealth and shared it all equally in one stroke, in 5 years, maybe 10 years, we’d be right back where we are now, with the same people being wealthy, and the same ones being poor. The basics of making, holding onto and growing money are simple. And difficult to do, requiring discipline and hard work over time. Kinda like weight management. Or anything else worthwhile. We would need to magically redistribute work ethic and the basic financial rules–and the motivation needed to apply these rules over time. All at the same time that we redistributed the money, or everything would return to the pre-redistribution status sooner rather than later. Perhaps more importantly, if we could distribute the rules and the motivation, we would not need to redistribute the money in the first place. Money flows to people who know how to make it, keep it and grow it, and are motivated to exercise those disciplines over time.

Today’s key point: We must (re)distribute a work ethic and the basic, and simple and hard to implement rules for success in life. More difficult, but at least as important, is the need for us, you and me, to help others find the motivation to implement those simple-to-understand, difficult-to-implement rules. Here is an example of a few simple, powerful rules for financial success:

Make more than you spend.

Spend less than you make. (Those are usefully different.)

Pay yourself first, i.e., take 5% or 10% of your income and put it tinto savings or investment before you do anything else each month.

There are a few more rules, but if these three are implemented it would make a world of difference for any individual, family or group. These rules are oh-so-simple to understand, and very, very difficult to implement. And a dodge that a lot of us use is pretending that something is impossible because 1. “You don’t understand, do you? I’m disadvantaged!” Or 2. “I shouldn’t have to do this. Hey, other people get free money.” We accept these and other excuses as reasons not to take action.

Pause for a truth. Governments can legislate and provide money from taxpayers. They are not good at teaching and utter failures at motivating. Only we, you and I, can do that.

Reducing gun deaths is much the same. If anyone is serious about saving lives here, that someone would go to where the

View Details

Introduction

Entitlement culture will rule, and ruin, America unless we, you and I, act.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s start with having fun with what some famous quotes would have looked like in today’s entitlement culture thinking:

“Ask not what your country can do for you; don’t just ask, you must demand that your country deliver all of your entitlements.” Here’s the original. “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your county.” Democratic President John F. Kennedy set this standard in his 1961 inauguration speech. Poor Jack was mired in the age of patriotism and personal responsibility. Didn’t he know that all of that is passé, and that we are now entitled to harvest what was planted for us by those who practiced those outdated principles?

“Give me entitlements, or give me death.” Patrick Henry in saying, “Give me liberty or give me death,” apparently did not know how to either demand something for nothing, or call down punishment on those unwilling to meet that demand. Silly Pat took personal responsibility, taking it all on himself.

“I regret that I have but one entitlement to demand.” American patriot Nathan Hale’s last words before being hanged by the British for treason during the Revolution were, “I regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” This clearly shows that ol’ Nate missed the opportunity to declare himself a victim, compelling his executioners to feel shame and guilt sufficient to apologize and give him what he wanted.

“There is no way that socialism or other forms of massive government spending can ever run out of money for entitlement programs. Just print the money!” British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Did Maggie forget about the government printing presses? And even if the conservative hand wringers are proved to be right, and massive spending and mounting debt are indeed deeply counterproductive and damaging, those supporting the spending and debt can easily just blame the “other side” for the damage. And the politicians and others supporting the spending will likely be dead or out of office when the bills come due–and will have lived quite well until then. The proof of the generational theft will be left to their, and our, children and grandchildren.

“Give all minorities, and all those deemed to be underprivileged, and all those who do not have the guaranteed results they deserve, a fish every day forever, establishing equity in perpetuity.” The original, “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime,” is too much work, and is unfair to the man. First of all, you can’t teach fishing in person unless you, the man and the fish have all been vaccinated. Second, what if the man identifies as a non-fisherman? And any comments about long term giveaway programs leading to generational poverty mindsets are obviously racist.

Now let’s look at some specific examples of today’s entitlement thinking.

Immigration. People are entitled to come here if they wish. Save for the occasional criminal, they should all be allowed in, and eventually given amnesty, including the vote. Doesn’t that represent true equity far more than a secure border, even one with an open and welcoming but controlled gate? Illegals, those already here and those streaming in, are entitled to be Americans just like you and me.

Voting. People are entitled to exercise their right to vote with no inconvenience at all. Any obstacle, no matter how trivial, is blatant voter suppression. States like Georgia, and others, that allow weeks to vote, offer no-excuse absentee ballots, and make IDs available for free, are, well, obviously racist because minorities clearly cannot comply without experiencing some type of inconvenience. And just as clearly, references to voter responsibility and...

View Details

Social Justice is Weakening the US Military: Does That Matter? (EP. 321)

Introduction

The United States has the most powerful military the world has ever seen–no other country comes close. At least for now.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s start by looking at what we want from our military. At one end of the spectrum we can have a military that is like a huge corporation, but with ranks and uniforms. At the other end, our military can be all Navy SEALS with the ability to handle paperwork in their spare time. Those are two very different visions of what our military should be.

A wit once said that the job of the military is to kill people and break things. That’s not all they do, but if our military cannot do that, and do that better than any opposing military, it does not matter what else they may do well. Let’s look at the missions for the different branches:

Air Force. “Fly, fight, win.”

Army, “To deploy, fight, and win our nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt, and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the Joint Force.”

Navy, “The Department of the Navy will recruit, train, equip, and organize to deliver combat ready Naval forces to win conflicts and wars while maintaining security and deterrence through sustained forward presence.”

Marines. “To fight through anything—with everything.”

Coast Guard. “Ensure our Nation’s maritime safety, security and stewardship.”

When I was in the Army, the mission was to, “Take ground and keep it.” A mission the Army forgot in Vietnam, with dreadful consequences.

The phrase “Every Marine is a rifleman,” was coined by Gen. Alfred Gray, the 29th Marine commandant, during his post-Vietnam transformation of the Marine Corps. He saw the force take on its expeditionary mission as America’s ready-to-deploy force, able to head to combat on a moment’s notice. His point was that when push comes to shove, that his Marines need to be able to put down their pencils, stethoscopes and electronics, and be able to act, instantly, as effective rifle-carrying infantry. And be at least as effective as the threatening trained enemy infantry.

Two examples of this need come immediately to mind. Chronologically, the first was during the Battle of the bulge near the end of WWII. Most of the world, including the US military, believed that in December of 1944,

Germany was near total collapse, with some thinking that the war would be over by Christmas. When elite German infantry and Panzer forces suddenly attacked, Army cooks and other rear echelon troops suddenly needed to pick up rifles and face the enemy. Quite fortunately, Lieutenant General George Patton was cut from the same cloth as Marine General Gray and had been preparing his 3rd Army for just such an attack. The surprised Army held off the onslaught just long enough for Patton’s prepared troops to meet and defeat the last German push in the war. But not before the US suffered its greatest losses of the entire conflict with 75,000 casualties. In the movie, The Battle of the Bulge, Charles Bronson, playing Major Wolenski, an Army officer, is telling a group of cooks to grab their rifles and rush to the nearby front to meet the attack. “But we are cooks,” one of them said. Wolenski replied, “Lunch is over.”

Another example came when North Korea attacked South Korea to start the Korean War. This surprise attack in massive numbers forced Army office personnel to take up arms and face the well trained attackers. As with the Battle of the Bulge, these troops were forced to retreat, but held off the enemy long enough for trained infantry, artillery and other units to come up and reverse the course of the war. History is replete with such examples, with our military and others, but you get the idea.

It is unproductive and intellectually dishonest to have conversations about women in combat units, pregnancy

View Details

Introduction

“One For All, And All For One,” the famous motto of the Musketeers, in Alexandre Dumas’ Three Musketeers. Dumas, son of a French nobleman and an African slave, was a prolific and still popular French writer in the mid 1800s, having penned Musketeers and The Count of Monte Cristo among many others. I wanted to use the Latin, “Unus Pro Omnibus, Omnes Pro Uno” for this important phrase in the episode title because to most people the concept is as dead as the language. And I wanted to make at least some use of my mandatory two years of Latin in my first two years of high school. And yes, a public school–back when.

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ. -Galatians 3:28

Dumas meets the Apostle Paul, with a vital lesson for all of us today. That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Key Point: We have dramatically more in common than whatever it is that we use as wedge issues to divide us. It is much easier to complain, accuse and attack than it is to make helpful contributions. And not only easier, our society rewards complainers and accusers far more than it rewards the grateful and the contributors. When are we going to grow up and agree with Dumas and Paul that the only way to live is, “One for all, and all for one?” This way, the right way, is harder, and in today’s society will earn little praise, and much scorn. But how many times in life is the right way the easy way?

If Dumas, a Frenchman, the son of an African slave mother, born at a time when slavery was legal in France, can see that we are all in this together, and that we need each other, and that the others need us, what is our problem?

If Paul, a Jewish Roman citizen, could passionately call for both Jews and Gentiles, avowed antagonists at the time, to come together, what are we missing? Paul, his Jewish name was Saul, called for us to come together in Christ. If we do not share that faith, we must recognize what we do share as reasons to come together. The earth, our humanity, citizenship, or at least residence, in America, the most free and wealthiest nation in the history of history.

What moral compass, what North Star, what ideology, political or religious, teaches us to tear each other down, and to tear ourselves apart? A. The ideology of “I’m right, you’re wrong, therefore anything goes.” I indulged myself by commenting in a recent Facebook thread about private businesses requiring a vaccination for either employment or to be an in-person customer or client. This was prompted by Governor DeSantis’ move to make that requirement illegal for businesses in Florida. In a thread that was 99% against allowing business to require proof of vaccination, I jumped in saying that whether or not you agree with their stance, businesses have that right. An extension of, “No shirt, no shoes, no service.” This group of commenters, no doubt seeing themselves on the right politically, thought that it was about time that businesses be restricted in this way. Some BLM advocates and others, who clearly see themselves on the left politically, want to limit business freedoms in another way. They want to make certain things mandatory for private businesses, including professing and showing support for the BLM movement and its goals. They see this as it’s about time for businesses to act in a way as to be judged sufficiently anti-racist. Both see themselves as right, and the opposition as wrong. Both want to make their views mandatory. Why? Well, because they are in the right, and anything goes. And both are contributing to pulling us apart. Wouldn’t it be fun to be a fly on the wall when these two groups realize how similar they really are?

Many individuals and groups are delighting in turning America into the world’s largest taffy pull, with the intention of pulling our nation apart for their benefit. One of the most prevalent...

View Details

Introduction

The AR-15 is a small caliber, high velocity, semi-automatic rifle. No military in the world would be caught dead using ARs against a force using real assault weapons. In fact, they would be caught quite dead if they engaged an opposing force using real assault weapons.

“The overwhelming majority of all these deaths — suicides, accidents and homicides — are perpetrated with handguns. Mass shootings, while they may grab headlines for days or weeks at a time, make up a small fraction of gun deaths every year.” –Washington Post

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Key Point: If you believe that semi-automatic rifles, with the possible exception of the .22 used to kill rats and other rodents on farms and to train young people, then make that argument. Do not either intentionally mislabel the AR to make your case, or simply believe those who are misleading you without doing 30 minutes of independent research to find the truth. (Enjoy this podcast, and I can save you 20 of those 30 minutes.)

It is axiomatic in mathematics that if you allow for one false claim, then you can easily prove a false conclusion. The most egregious example of this with the false labeling of the AR came from a recent video on MSNBC. The video opened up with the fully automatic M-16 pictured in a combat situation, with the host making the claim that the more familiar AR-15 was “just as deadly.” He was interviewing a guest, whose qualification as an “expert” was that he had a part in developing the AR. The expert was asked if the AR was, “Just as lethal as the M-16 in semi-automatic mode.” The answer was, “Yes, in semi-automatic mode.” That was enough for the host, who immediately labeled the AR as a “Weapon of war”. The rest of the video slammed Republican leaders who “touted” weapons of war, and said that like grenades, the Second Amendment did not protect ARs. An interesting conclusion, given that the 2A clearly protected the musket of the day, then the front line weapon of war rifle.

Any rifle more powerful than the .22 is going to be just as lethal as the M-16 in semi-automatic mode. The false claim, the lie, is that similar lethality in semi-auto mode makes the AR into an M-16, which is truly a weapon of war. Since early in our active involvement in Vietnam, all US military rifle “weapons of war” must be capable of fully automatic fire, a vital and often used feature, as well as semi-automatic fire. Has anyone seen movies or video games depicting combat using rifles where fully automatic fire was not the dominant mode? The highly successful Israeli Defense Force uses the Tavor 21, capable of fully auto fire. As it must be. The venerable AR-47, used by just about every other military, is fully automatic, and has been around since 1947.

Let’s step back from looking at semi-auto rifles, and examine what the overall goal is with gun control. Is the goal to reduce as fast as possible, using the resources at hand, all gun homicides? Or is the goal to get rid of as many ARs as fast as possible? What is the goal, and why is it not to eliminate as many gun homicides as fast as possible? As usual at Revolution 2.0™, we look at data before answering questions and coming to conclusions.

Let’s hear from the Washington Post, hardly a conservative icon. “Unfortunately, gun-control advocates have used the appearance of semiautomatic rifles, which some people find menacing, to exaggerate the dangers the general public faces from their existence. Far more important than the cosmetic similarities and technical differences among firearms are which weapons actually are used in the majority of gun deaths and victimizations.

About two-thirds of gun deaths every year in the United States are suicides, making up about half of all U.S. suicides. A relatively small number of people are killed in accidents, but the bulk of the remaining homicides stem from urban street-level shootings and domestic...

View Details

Introduction

If your emphasis is on voting rights, to the virtual exclusion of any attendant responsibilities, then you would likely agree that the new Georgia voting law represents an unfair restriction of those rights. I am not in that camp.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Much of today’s conversation, in the media, on social media and in person, is taken up with rights, e.g., the right to healthcare, the right to housing, etc. Voting rights belong in this growing list. The only rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are, “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Those unalienable rights, by definition, have no corresponding responsibilities, save, perhaps, for staying out of jail to maintain one’s liberty.

Today’s Key Point: When there are any responsibilities, hurdles to clear, prior to voting, no matter how obvious and needed they may be, you can be guaranteed that there will be cries of “Voter suppression” from the predictable voices and groups. It is equally predictable that the more a person must undertake prior to voting, the less likely that voter will be liberal or progressive. Both parties know this. The key, as is often the case, comes down to intent: Is the intent in writing or enforcing a voting law to fairly balance both ensuring the integrity of the vote while still allowing responsible citizens to vote? Are the Democrats loosening up the voting laws past any kind of reasonable security in their effort to get more votes? While stressing that anyone opposed is suppressing the vote, especially black votes? On the other hand, are the Republicans hiding behind securing the integrity of the vote to in fact suppress votes?

Let’s start our analysis with the most often quoted criticism from President Biden on the new Georgia voting bill. “If you want any indication that it has nothing to do with fairness, nothing to do with decency, they pass a law saying you can’t provide water for people standing in line while they’re waiting to vote…You don’t need anything else to know that this is nothing but punitive, designed to keep people from voting. You can’t provide water for people about to vote. Give me a break.”

Biden is not the only critic to slam the Georgia provision that prevents third parties from giving gifts, including “food and drink” to those standing in line at the polls. But the point is to prevent activists from showing up in union shirts—or MAGA hats, passing out drinks and snacks, along with a wink-wink and the mention of a candidate or two.

Fact check. People can bring their own food and drink, or order it for delivery in line. As for the suddenly thirsty, the new law specifically allows poll workers to provide “self-service water from an unattended receptacle.” Also, the legislation recognizes that it’s a failure if voters stand in line long enough to get parched. That’s why it says wait times at large precincts must be measured three times throughout Election Day. If the line hits an hour, changes are required before the next election.

Fact check: Biden was terribly wrong on an issue that he stressed. Why do you suppose he did that?

The President also said at his news conference that the voting bills percolating in GOP state Legislatures are “un-American,” “sick,” “pernicious,” and worse: “This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. ”

More fact checking: The new law leaves in place Sunday voting, noting that black churches have a “souls to polls” tradition after services. It expanded early voting to three weeks. It also leaves in place no-excuses absentee voting. Every eligible Georgia voter will continue to be allowed to request a mail ballot for the sake of simple convenience—or for no reason at all. It substitutes a state ID number match for handwriting...

View Details

Introduction

If all we do is fight over masks, social distancing and school openings, we have lost before we even start. And worse, much of the fighting is a struggle for political supremacy and the “fight to be right.”

Cancel culture? Both sides, all sides, are trying to cancel the others. Cancel cancel culture by remembering that we have more in common than what appears, yes appears, to separate us. Far more. Concentrate there.

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Key Point: Yes, we are going right to the Key Point today. We must concentrate, focus on, commit to, the vast array of things that we have in common, and stop exaggerating and weaponizing our differences. We were built in a way that what we have in common, physically and mentally, is the main course, with our many and useful differences being the spices that take the meal from being plain and boring, to being delicious and delightful. Worse, we actually manage to fight over the meal to the point where no one gets to eat. We’ll start with a live, recent example of “faith fighting”, then go to race, the Constitution, gender and relationships.

My son, Sean, 32, observing a loud argument between two small groups of Christians on a public street in Sacramento, CA, said, “Dad, these guys are fighting, using the same Bible to get mad at each other.” And they were ignoring the core of their shared faith that means everything while they got wrapped up in being right–and angry–about far less meaningful points. He continued, “Our Father in heaven has given us His Word as a sword and instead of using it to fight the enemy some of us use it to fight each other. Jesus said where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name I am in the mist. So when this Christian group goes against that Christian group Jesus is standing in between asking why are my people fighting each other.” The arguing had gathered a crowd. Do you think any of the non-Christians were inspired to further examine what Christianity had to offer? Were any Christians there strengthened in their faith?

Critical Race Theory, voluntary segregation and microaggressions are beliefs and practices that tear us apart rather than bring us together. Let’s start with the vast and obvious similarities, the things we have in common. Physically we are all built in the same way. We all have the same parts, in the same places and they work in exactly the same way. That would be obvious if we saw each other in the shower, or on the operating table. We should not have to wait to see each other in caskets before we realize the physical sameness. And to varying degrees, we all have hopes and dreams, and need personal courage and encouragement from each other to realize them. We need each other. And there are just enough differences between the sexes and among the races to provide different perspectives and skills so that when we help each other, we act as a team, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Now let’s add gender. The differences amongst the races and between the genders represent strengths that are designed to cover for, shore up, weaknesses in the races and genders. We are designed to be our best, to be all that we are designed to be, when we need and help each other. We are not the same, we are usefully different. Only by honoring those differences can we flourish. And here we are, using those very real and some imaginary differences to attack each other, reducing the value and potential not only of the groups attacked, but deflating and degrading all of us. Imagine with me if we all just stopped that dangerous nonsense and started, now, honoring and engaging with our amazing differences.

When a football team is on the field, the commonalities are obvious; there are 11, strong, skilled men on the field, with each one focused on two things: 1. doing his job, and 2. winning as a team. But the 11 have different types of strength, and different skills. No team...

View Details

Introduction

As we navigate what we think is right in politics, finance, with COVID, and the many complex issues we face, let’s remember the place, the power, that intuition, our “gut feelings” have. We all have heads and hearts, and we are at our best when we allow our thoughts and actions to be determined by a careful blend of the two. At home, at work, in politics–in life.

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing

In my life, I have been wrong every time–every time–that I allowed my intellect to override my gut instinct. Scientists and police detectives often say they were successful in achieving a breakthrough or catching a dangerous criminal because they, “Had a hunch.” Both scientists and detectives pour through a lot of data, but that is often not enough; they frequently rely on their instincts.

Christian theology believes in a triune God, which includes the Holy Spirit. Many religions make reference to the spirit or spirits which teach and guide us differently from their texts and verbal traditions. Both are necessary. The texts and sermons teach and guide through our heads, and the spirit teaches and guides through our hearts, our guts. That’s partly because overall we learn in both ways, and in part because there is no way that any of us could grasp any part of God solely through our intellects.

Okay, Will, how does this fit into Revolution 2.0™? A. Glad you asked. Our thinking about everything, save possibly what time to feed the dog, needs to come from a blending of head and heart. Even then, your heart needs to care about Fido before your head can work out the logistics of when and how much to feed, commiting to not running out, and selecting just the right food for your completely dependent pet.

Today’s Key Point: My heart, my gut, connected in my case to the Holy Spirit, drives what I write and speak about here at Revolution 2.0. For example, when it is clear that I am trying to force the words out, I have learned that is my clue to stop and to completely start over. I do my best work when I am simply taking dictation, banging away at the keyboard with my inefficient typing style. My intellect drives my continuous data collection process, and is in control of research, verification, use of multiple technologies, word selection and spell checking–but the Spirit is in charge of the topics and direction.

I have angels who remind me of the presence and power of the Spirit. I know that you do, too. One angel appeared to me years ago in a foreign train station, dressed as a businessman in a light blue suit, making a critical and completely impossible connection work step by impossible step. Another appeared recently in a phone conversation with a new friend. When we were sharing parenting issues and solutions with each other, something happened, giving power, clarity and a sense of the eternal to his words. It was as if the conversation stopped being between the two of us, and another entity, an angel, stepped in, using his voice to teach and guide both of us.

Then there is a recent dream. The meaningful part of my dream starts with me sitting on the ground outside of a church resting against a pillar. I wasn’t thinking about much of anything when a pleasant looking man, about 35 or so, walks up and asks, “Do you mind if I sit with you?” “No” I replied, moving around on the pillar a bit to make room. As we start talking about this and that, the opening chit chat that starts many conversations with friendly strangers, I notice that he was more than pleasant. Even though he was looking away as we spoke, there was something like a glow that seemed to fill his personal space and the space around him. We must have gotten to the part where we started talking about our professions. I remember telling him that I was a podcaster, and that I was involved in selecting new software and trying to work harder and smarter to understand the political and...

View Details

Introduction

“Revolution 2.0–A revolution of the heart.” That’s how I start all the episodes. Does my implied honoring of Revolution 1.0 in 1776 make this a conservative podcast? Was the 1776 Revolution conservative? Am I a conservative?

That is the subject of today’s 12 minute episode.

Continuing

To my surprise, I am encountering an increasing number of people who immediately label, dismiss in many cases, my podcast, Revolution 2.0™, as conservative because of the name. Really? Do these people see revolutions as inherently conservative? How about the French, Russian, and Cuban revolutions; were they conservative movements? Or does this view hold that the American Revolution was the rare conservative revolt?

I work to avoid the use of labels like conservative, liberal and progressive, but sometimes there is no way around them. Now for the question: Am I conservative? My youngest, a few years ago when he was in high school, in an attempt to understand my political thinking, said, “So, Dad, you are a Republican who supports gay marriage.” An interesting summary, showing some real insights. But we can get a better insight by not answering this exact question. As is often the case, we can get a better answer by asking a better question. In this case, I turn the question around saying, “Ask me my position on key issues, then you tell me if I am conservative or liberal.” At some point in this process, I will point out, if it does not become obvious without comment from me, that labels are completely unnecessary once an honest, fact-based discussion of the issues is on the table. Labels are a lazy and clumsy way of guessing at how people think without the hard work of actually engaging with them, listening, thinking, responding, and doing even more listening to discover how they actually do think.

Let’s get into some specifics. There is a lot of talk these days about equity, whatever that means. Until recently, the word that everyone used was equality, but equality of outcome was difficult to defend, so the word was changed to equity–with no explanation of why, or any definition of the new term. People assume that equity means fairness or justice. Equality is easy to define, and difficult to misinterpret. Equity is much fuzzier, so it can be presented as equality when that suits the agenda at hand, and it can be used to mean justice, whatever that means to the speaker or the listener in various contexts. George Orwell anticipated this in his book “1984” with the government concept of Doublethink, which means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Let’s stick with equality, a clear word, with no double meanings.

Equality:

Under the law. We have that now. If you disagree, please be specific about where that is not true.

Equality of opportunity. It’s not there, and never will be. For example, some parents can afford to send their children to private schools Kindergarten through various levels of graduate school. But there is plenty of opportunity, more than sufficient for everyone to take advantage of to make good lives for themselves, with each generation in a family building on the previous ones.

Equality of results. Don’t have it, don’t want it. We cannot have equal results and personal freedoms at the same time. “A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of government force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.” ―Thomas Sowell, American economist, social theorist, and senior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellow (fellow) at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

The most effective and loving things we can do for people are to:

Make sure that they understand that life is hard, and...

View Details

Introduction

Some Republicans are fond of labeling their fellow party members who are not sufficiently pure in thought and deed as being Republicans In Name Only, RINOs. As a Registered Unaffiliated, I can’t be a RINO, because I am not an R. I see myself as RIPO, Republican In Policy Only.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Thinking in black and white, the, “You are with me on all things or you are against me in everything.” thinking is inherently lazy. It also smacks of a certain arrogance, but the point that I am focusing on today is the lazy part.

Of the 17 candidates for the Republican nomination in 2016,

Trump was my 18th choice. I was a Trump voter, not a Trump supporter, when he ran against Clinton. I became a bit more of a supporter as well as a voter in the 2020 election. I even published two pre-election podcasts promoting Trump’s policies as superior to Biden’s–making the usual apologies for Trump the man.

I believe that Trump shamed himself and his party post election. He lost my support, and he was instrumental in losing the two Georgia Senate runoffs, and consequently the Senate itself. $1.9T later, this seems to matter. When I published an episode thanking Trump for his successes in his four years as our President, asking him to stay away from politics in the future and sincerely wishing him a happy life with family and friends, I got more Unsubscribe notices than in the previous 6 months. All from people with whom I have far more in common when it comes to politics and “rules for life” than not. Why? Because to them, you are either All Trump, or you are Never Trump. Pause for some obvious irony: All of these folks rail against the Cancel Culture, which they see as a nefarious tactic of the Left.

Ronald Reagan, Republican President from 1981-1989, once said, “If you get 75% of what you want, take it.” He was famous for effectively working with Tip O’Neill, the powerful Democratic Speaker of the House. They would go round and round arguing politics, often having dinner together afterwards. Note to Joe Biden: that’s an actual example of unity. Note to the All Trumpers; this is how you get things done.

Has anyone heard of Democrats dismissing fellow Dems as DINOs? The Democrats have people ranging from Joe Manchin to Ilhan Omar; they differ greatly in key areas, but they are not out to get each other. Yes, Rep Ocasio-Cortez is working to unseat Democratic Representatives she believes are not sufficiently pure, sufficiently Progressive; the Democratic leadership is not. On the other hand, the leader of the Republicans, former President Trump, has published a list of 17 Republicans against whom he is seeking revenge; Republicans he does not want to see reelected. Would Trump rather be the leader of a losing Repubican party that is completely loyal to him, or be a contributing voice in a Repubican party incorporating his thinking and followers in a winning coalition? BTW, I can hear the critics now: “Trump did not lose. The election was stolen. In a fair election, Trump could demand complete loyalty, and win in a landslide. Trump 2024!”

I laid out in some detail the kind of person I want to see as President in a recent https://revolution2-0.org/who-is-my-president-who-is-yours-ep-309/ (episode). Let’s lay out the differences I see in the policies.

If you believe that the Republic form of government laid out in the Constitution is the right choice, vote Republican.If you believe that we should abandon the Electoral College, a fundamental part of the Republic format, then vote Democrat. In other words, if you want a national popular vote to replace the College, vote Democrat.

If you believe the New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning work on the 1619 project was correct in saying the year 1619 represents the real founding and legacy of America, vote Democrat.If you believe the view that the real founding occurred in 1776, with documents that Jefferson...

View Details

Introduction

Broke is a financial condition. Being poor is a mindset. A choice. And the poor mindset is being taught, even encouraged.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Broke simply means that you don’t have any money. Thinking of yourself as poor means that you have accepted not being able to make or hold onto money. Broke is temporary; poor is a lifestyle choice. And that choice is being taught as inevitable, as one’s fate, as being part of victimization, in more and more places, including schools, the media and by an increasing number of politicians. More accurately–and diabolically–the poor way of thinking is being presented as a fait accompli, Calvanistic, with victimhood and the related “I’m poor.” determination being set in stone by uncontrollable circumstances.

People can consciously take vows of poverty; some religious orders require it. When an individual takes the vow of poverty, he or she chooses to renounce personal worldly possessions and instead engages in communal sharing of resources. In certain cases, the vow of poverty rebukes the acceptance of any personal material profit, such as profits from labor. Others believe this fate, poverty, is involuntary, being thrust upon them by unfair people, groups and circumstances beyond their control.

That is not only complete nonsense, it is dangerous and destructive. Let’s hear from the Brookings Institution: “Let politicians, schoolteachers and administrators, community leaders, ministers and parents drill into children the message that in a free society, they enter adulthood with three major responsibilities: 1. At least finish high school, 2. Get a full-time job and 3. wait until age 21 to get married and have children. Our research shows that of American adults who followed these three simple rules, only about 2 percent are in poverty and nearly 75 percent have joined the middle class.” Critics complain that this is hard. Citing the cost of contraception, they say it is not always possible to plan parenthood. And they point out that sometimes people get laid off. Nothing worthwhile in life is easy. This set of rules does not seem especially difficult to follow. But it does require commitment and consistency. And it works.

After the Army, I returned to the University of Colorado to pick up where I had left off. I went to school weekday mornings, and worked in a piecework sweatshop in the afternoons. When I wanted to go somewhere, school, work, the laundromat, grocery store, etc., I walked. And when I had to carry any kind of bulk, I used my old Army duffle bag. A typical Saturday found me walking from my room to the laundromat, where I put things into the washers, and would head to the grocery store. My usual budget was $5, so I needed to be careful. A pound of hamburger, any bread that was on sale, margarine (the kind that was yellow only on the outside), and other items as my needs required and budget allowed. Then back to change my laundry to the dryer, then home with clean laundry and some food. Ah, home. One room with a closet and bathroom. A mattress, a one-burner electric hot plate, an electric hot dog cooker and a few cooking and eating items from the 88 cent store, and I was in business. I cleaned myself in the shower, and my dishes and cookware in the sink. I had to hide the hot plate when the landlord came by each month to collect the rent in person.

And I was comfortable. It was warm and cozy, there was enough space to have friends over (floor seating), and I kept it clean and picked up. I had the huge advantage of never once thinking that anything was unfair, or that I deserved better. My work paid for tuition and the essentials I need to live. I knew that if I kept going that things would improve as I earned the improvements. I never, even once, thought that there were other options, options that others would pay for, or that there was even the tiniest thing wrong or unfair in my life

I want...

View Details

Introduction

A Baltimore high school student failed all but three classes at Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts over four years and almost graduated this June near the top half of his class with a 0.13 GPA, 62nd out of 120 students.

The single Mom blamed the school. “The school failed at their job. They failed. They failed, that’s the problem here. They failed. They failed. He didn’t deserve that,” she said after learning that her son was being sent back to 9th grade to give high school another try.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s jump right in and list, in order, the entities responsible for this student having to repeat all four years of high school:

Mom. No other choice for the top spot. Parents have the primary–not sole–but primary responsibility for raising their kids. This includes education, food, clothing and housing, medical care and instilling a firm grasp of right and wrong, a work ethic, etc. It is more than a bit frightening that the Mom here not only does not agree with that, but that she is outraged at what she sees as solely and exclusively the school’s failure.

Local and state politicians and educators (I use the term loosely) in the area. In January 2006, due to standardized test results, Augusta Fells Savage was identified as one of seven low-performing city schools that would require a “turnaround specialist” to assist the administration with increasing student achievement. In January 2007, the school board recommended relocating the school to the campus of Harlem Park Middle School, a site it would share with several other schools. The school was moved, but the results appear to be the same. How do these people sleep at night knowing what they are doing to the youth in their community and the community itself?

The school itself. If any of the teachers, administrators or academic staff draw a salary, they should be ashamed of themselves. With only 434 students and 25 teachers, the ratio at all Black Augusta Fells Savage is 1:17. In return for their salaries and pensions, here is what the teachers delivered: a student body where less than 5% are proficient in math, and the same less than 5% are proficient in English. In 2019, two (2) students tested proficient in both English and Math. Yet they graduate 48% of the Seniors. How many of them can even read their diplomas? When these “graduates” try to get jobs and get turned down, accusations of racism are likely to be bandied about. And I agree. The cruel racism of low expectations. The School’s motto is “Pride Inside.” Pride in what?

And, get this, 29%, go on to college. In round numbers, half of these students are lied to when they are handed a high school diploma, and one third of them are lied to when they are admitted to college. All of them know that they did little or nothing to earn those honors, and will no doubt expect that continuing their low- to non-existent level of attendance and effort in life will allow them to continue to “succeed” in life with work, finances, and overall in life. And, inevitably when they fail, they will be told that they are victims, and that they deserve to have things taken care of for them. And they are victims, They were not victimized by white privilege; they were victimized by a system that feeds off of them. A school system that gets paid for under serving and lying to them. Politicians who keep getting reelected, demanding more money for public schools while mightily resisting charter schools, and raising welfare amounts and lowering voting qualifications. Mouthing platitudes about poverty while lying to the poor about why there are where they are. And promising that more government money will fix everything. Just vote for me. I hope God has a special place in hell for all of them.

Today’s Key Point: Parents have the primary responsibility for raising their kids. Not the state. This...

View Details

Introduction

President Biden is calling for national unity. Former President Trump is calling for GOP unity. As different as the two men are, both of them define unity as get in line with what they want, or you can go suck a rock.

I want a national unity of purpose, a unity of common goals and rational and honest ways of achieving them–together. That’s unity.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Biden, Trump and others, whether or not they are calling for anything resembling unity, to include actions like “reaching across the aisle”, and “reasoning together” are simply choosing up sides. What they are clearly communicating is, “You are either on my side, or theirs.” and, “You are with me or you are against me.”

Here is yet another instance where we the citizens and voters must lead. As always, if we want to have better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters. Not just more voters as in get out the vote campaigns, but better voters, as in become better informed and more focused specifically on common goals and generally on what works. The bottom line is that creating unity is up to us.

The talk about unity takes on an ironic twist when we see actions like:

Intersectional Politics. For those who have lived under a rock with no Internet for the past few years, intersectional politics breaks us up into groups based on things like gender and gender preference, race, income, etc.–then declares certain groups and coalitions to be the enemy of other groups and coalitions.

Cancel Culture. Nothing like continuing to target individuals and groups for cancellation to promote unity.

Always Trump v Never Trump. Many Democrats are Never Trump. I am talking about the split within the people who voted for him, most of them twice. To the Always Trumpers, the Trump voters who criticized the former President for his various actions post election have suddenly become Never Trumpers. Mr. Trump himself, in his closing speech at CPAC, put 17 Republican politicians on what is essentially an enemies list. No unity here, not even internal GOP unity.

Tony Robbins, American https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author (author), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaching (coach), speaker, and philanthropist, sometimes uses an exercise at conferences to show us how much we have in common with others. With the attendees in a large ballroom like space, he will have them divide up along certain lines, e.g., characteristics or traits. For example, he will have all of the men go to one side of the room, and the women the other. (Back in the day, it was acceptable to have only two groups.) Then he would reshuffle the room, creating groups along other immutable characteristics like height or age, and chosen factors like religion, geography and politics. Each time, after the groups settled in a bit, he would have them meet and greet, discussing their shared characteristic or trait. There was immediate bonding, because they knew that they had at least one thing in common, and in the excited conversations they discovered more. Imagine for a moment if Tony had used these different characteristics and traits to pit them against each other, instead of using those characteristics to bind them together. The former, using who we are to divide us, is exactly what is happening everywhere. Many of the same people who are mouthing unity are focused, successfully, on dividing us. To their advantage. Divide and conquer is a powerful tactic. And a despicable one.

Today’s Key Point: We all find what we are looking for. If we want to find that our differences are inherently destructive, we will find exactly that. If we want to find that our individual and group differences are our collective strength, we will find that. What are you looking for?

There is only one thing that separates us when it comes to political thinking, and that can be dealt with if we are honest about naming it, and deciding to work on this...

View Details

Introduction

The almost two trillion dollars to be allocated is being promoted as the third COVID Relief Package. How much is going to COVID relief, and how much is going to further other agendas?

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

“Our money?” You bet it is. We need to have politicians and bureaucrats who see and spend taxpayer money as if it is their money. And before we are likely to insist on having politicians and bureaucrats with that mindset, we need to think that way ourselves. We need to see and spend every single taxpayer dollar as if it is indeed our money–demanding accountability and worthwhile results for every bit of it.

Our belief at Revolution 2.0™ is that if we want better candidates and office holders, then we need to be better voters. To that end, we need to start with being well informed. Let’s do an analysis of the so-called Coronavirus Relief Package.

Any COVID relief package should focus on four areas:

Helping those unemployed by COVID and COVID restrictions.

Helping businesses harmed by COVID restrictions.

Getting kids back in school where they can resume their interrupted learning.

COVID itself.

Finding more ways to get vaccines into arms faster.

Better COVID treatments, therapeutics and testing.

How much of our $1.9T will be spent on those four areas?

The individual payments of $1,400 we are told will cost $600B. I am not sure how that arithmetic works; if we paid out $1,400 to all 330M of us, that total would be $462B. And that’s not the only less than transparent part of this spending plan. If you dig, and I did, it looks like the additional Child Tax Credits are tossed into this $600B number. Many of these individual payments go to those who were unaffected financially by COVID, e.g., workers who simply had to contribute remotely instead of going into the office, and those for whom there was no change in either compensation or workplace. Individual payments to those who were financially hurt by COVID and the COVID restrictions are a good idea; mailbox money for those not economically affected by COVID is a bad idea. If we’re generous and say that 150M people were hurt economically by COVID and the COVID restrictions, this COVID relief number should be $210B.

Vaccine delivery and testing. $50B. Good.

Reopening schools. $170B. This one looks good but does not pass the page two test. Only 5%, $8.5B, will be spent in 2021. The other $161.5B is simply added school funding in later years. Not necessarily a bad idea, but not at all related to COVID relief.

Rental assistance and emergency housing. $35B. Good idea, honest COVID relief.

Additional PPP, Payroll Protection Plan. $150B for payroll assistance for employees of affected businesses. Good idea, especially with tightened rules and regulations compared to the first PPP.

Let’s add up what we have so far: Individual payments, $210B; Vaccine delivery and testing, $50B; School reopening, $10B (rounded up); Rental assistance and emergency housing, $35B; PPP, $150B. That’s a grand total of $435B going to actual COVID relief. Q. Where is the other $1.465T headed? A. Places like $350B in relief for states, child tax credits and additional child care, transit, increased unemployment benefits and school funding beyond 2021, and increased subsidies in support of the Affordable Care Act. Those are classic Democratic talking points and agenda items, and they have nothing to do with COVID relief. They must be labeled differently, and be considered and debated separately.

Five specific considerations:

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $700B, more than a third of the proposed spending, will not be spent until 2022 or later, undermining the claim that these are urgently needed relief funds. Yet President Biden stresses that, “We have no time to waste.”

Sending out mailbox money will not increase consumer spending; opening up the economy, allowing people...

View Details

Introduction

If you are a resident of the United States of America, Joe Biden is your President–and mine. As was Donald Trump.

Now that we have handled that news flash, let’s talk about who I want to have as our President; not by name or party, but by qualifications and style.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Yes, character does count. C’mon, this person is the leader of the Free World; how could it not? I get it that when I need a plumber, I simply want someone who can get the job done, like unplugging a drain or replacing a disposal. But a key part of the job for any president is to model good morals, character and behavior. We want teachers, cops and others to model good character; its got to be even more important with our president.

And I want a president who comes across as honest, sincere and persuasive–persuasive to all types of people and groups. If you want unity, it starts with people wanting to rally around a convincing leader of good character. Note that I did not say articulate; simply being articulate can morph into being slick all too quickly. Having the right policies, the right stances on the issues, is obviously important. But people remember only 25% of what you say, and 75% of how you say it.

Now let’s get to policies and issues:I want a president who is not all red, not all blue, but still not at all purple. Purple implies a simple compromise, like you want to spend $40 on our dinner date, and I want to spend $20, so we compromise at $30. That’s a meet in the middle compromise. I want someone who seeks and fulfills common goals, not compromise for the sake of compromise. Don’t most of us share the same common, bedrock goals? I don’t mean desires that many share like wanting this bill or that policy to pass (or others to lose). I mean the core, meaningful, underlying goals that most of us share. Find the common ground (yes, it exists), add facts (use the courtroom standards for admissible evidence here), then apply non agenda-based reasoning. It works. And if the discussion falls off track, go back to the common goals–the touchstone–to get back on track. Back to bedrock.

Let’s look at a few examples together:

Education Goal: Having the best pre-K thru 12 education with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Note, this does not presuppose one and only one way to get there. None of these goals do. A good starting approach to achieve this goal might be to allow free access to fully funded traditional public schools, charter schools and private schools via vouchers. Allow parents to make the right decision for their children, and allow competition to deliver the best education product for the kids, parents and society.

Immigration Goal: The key to any comprehensive immigration plan is insisting on having secure borders; secure borders with a humane, and controlled, immigration policy. Including both those we want to admit, and those who truly need asylum. Anything less is nothing but a plan to have open borders. Open borders add the voters that some want, and the cheap labor desired by others. The logical end point to an open border policy is to cease being the United States as a sovereign nation, becoming the State of America in the United States of the World. With an unsecured border, every town is a border town and every state is a border state. And some people actually want that. I do not.

Poverty Goal: Getting people out of poverty and into comfort in a way they can sooner rather than later stay there on their own. And providing lifetime support for those who can’t provide for themselves.

Harmony and overall success Goal: Pause for the truth. Men and women are not the same. And races are different. And herein lies enormous power. We can lean on and benefit greatly from the various strengths of the races and genders, using those positives to shore up the accompanying weaknesses. Learn from each other. Depend on each other’s...

View Details

Introduction

“This shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America.” -Greg Abbott, Republican Governor of Texas.

“This proves the need for a Green New Deal.” -Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY.

Neither of these political claims is true; more importantly neither one leads to the vital lesson that we all need to take away from the disaster in Texas.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Here’s a head’s up about where we are headed today: It gets very expensive, very quickly when we choose to pay to eliminate all risk, and cover every possible circumstance.

The Texas free market approach to power generation was intended to supply plentiful electricity at low rates, and for decades it did exactly that. Looking at some example rates, we find that Texans pay 11.67 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity, Californians pay 18.31 cents, overall in the US users pay 13.19 cents. The desire to keep rates low in Texas drove decisions like maintaining a power grid separate from the rest of the US; the resulting fewer regulations kept the rates down. As did the decision not to protect the grid from the centennial weather event that brought the grid down so disastrously. For decades, Texans enjoyed low rates, then the wheels fell off the wagon in a once-in-a-hundred-years climate event. Had Texas made the decision to provide power to users in spite of any possible weather condition, the rates would have been much higher all those years, and the current disaster would likely have either been avoided entirely, or would have been greatly mitigated. BTW, looking at California, it is easy to see that higher rates themselves do not guarantee consistent power. Even with California’s famously mild climate and high energy costs, they have suffered from two years of widespread rolling blackouts in the summer months.

So, Will, how do you address the issue of balancing the need to keep prices down with the need to avoid disasters like the one in Texas? A. Set standards for performance, and determine what it will cost to deliver those results. Then establish consequences for failure. For example, a power delivery standard could be no more than 10 hours of downtime in a year with no more than three consecutive hours of downtime at any one point. Utility companies would have to upgrade their infrastructures to make such guarantees that would hold under any conditions, and would need to raise their rates. They would also be liable for damages if they failed to meet the standards even after raising their rates.

Tighter standards require more expensive infrastructure upgrades and result in higher rates, and lower standards result in lower rates. It is important to recognize that higher standards result in disproportionately higher costs. For example an 80% performance standard, a standard that is 80% of what is possible, might cost $X, a 90% standard might cost $2X and a 100% standard might cost $3X. This is an example of the law of diminishing returns; disproportionately more resources are needed as you push to get closer to 100% results.

All of us make decisions like this in our personal lives. For example, we have a $1K deductible on our health and homeowner insurance, and a $500 deductible on car insurance. If we wanted no deductibles, first dollar insurance, it would cost far more. And copays with health insurance keeps our premiums down. Others might choose higher or lower deductibles and copays, which would lower or raise their monthly fixed costs for coverage. In the same way, if we as power consumers are willing to put up with some downtime, power should cost us less than if we demand power 24/365 regardless of the external conditions, regardless of how rare those conditions may be. Including centennial events like the one that brought the Texas grid down.

These tradeoffs between wanting to eliminate all risk under any circumstance on one hand, and the desire to keep...

View Details

Introduction

Who would have thought that anything–anything–could put together certain right-of-center groups in with some Blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics? The Proud Boys holding hands with La Raza.

COVID vaccines did just that.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

An evolving quote from Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” observes that, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” The original quote was “Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows.” Today it is not misery that brings these groups together, it is distrust of their government.

Depending upon the source, it looks like about a third of Americans are either hesitant to take the COVID vaccine, or have simply said they will refuse. Consensus among scientists declares that it will take 80%-85% of the population–or more–to get vaccinated before we can achieve herd immunity and defeat COVID. Houston, we have a problem.

Polio was once one of the most feared diseases in the U.S., and not all that long ago. As the weather warmed up each year, panic over the polio virus intensified. Late summer was dubbed “polio season.” Public swimming pools were shut down. Movie theaters urged patrons not to sit too close together to avoid spreading the disease. (Does any of this sound familiar?) Insurance companies started selling polio insurance for newborns. The fear was well grounded. By the 1950s, polio had become one of the most serious communicable diseases among children in the United States.

The first major polio epidemic in the United States hit Vermont in 1894 with 132 cases. A larger outbreak struck New York City in 1916, with more than 27,000 cases and 6,000 deaths. As the number of polio cases grew, the paralytic disease changed the way Americans looked at public health and disability. (Again, any similarities?) In 1952 alone, nearly 60,000 children were infected with the virus; thousands were paralyzed, and more than 3,000 died. Hospitals set up special units with iron lung machines to keep polio victims alive. Rich kids as well as poor were left paralyzed. My last year at summer camp was extended because two of the young boys died of polio high up in the Pocono mountains in Pennsylvania. I was too young to understand death, but I do remember the services for those campers. The images of the candles that we lit and floated on blocks of wood down the Delaware river will always be with me.

More famously, President Franklin Roosevelt suffered from polio. Franklin D. Roosevelt contracted polio 12 years before he became president. Roosevelt concealed the extent to which he suffered from the virus, but he acknowledged having it. His presidency put polio front and center on the national stage. In 1938, Roosevelt founded the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis (polio) and spearheaded the March of Dimes for polio research. In 1946, President Harry Truman declared polio a threat to the United States and called on Americans to do everything possible to combat it. “The fight against infantile paralysis cannot be a local war,” Truman declared in a speech broadcast from the White House. “It must be nationwide. It must be total war in every city, town and village throughout the land. For only with a united front can we ever hope to win any war.”

“Polio was a fear of parents throughout this country,” says Dr. John L. Sever, recalling his childhood in Chicago. He later helped launch the Rotary International’s global drive against polio. Then in 1955, the U.S. began widespread vaccinations, virtually eliminating the virus.

Do we as a nation have the will to act in the same responsible way with COVID 19? The question does not center on ability: We developed an effective vaccine much faster this time, we have more money and far more capable distribution systems. The question is one of will: Do we have the will to act responsibly? In other words, can we get over...

View Details

Introduction

For centuries, anyone who had any noticeable black ancestry was considered to be black for purposes of hateful discrimination, including slavery. Today, anyone who has any noticeable black ancestry is considered to be some combination of a deserving victim, or simply a cut above.

Both are wrong.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Ugly terms like mulatto and half breed were once used to denigrate the offspring of whites mating with blacks, and whites mating with Native Americans. Both were generally shunned by society, including both sides of their ethnicity. More recently, Eurasian was used to describe the offspring of whites, typically US military males, and Asian females. Again, most of these children were shunned by society, especially Asian societies where almost all of them were born.

Today, the strong trend is to label the lightest skinned black as black, along with observing that the darkest skinned blacks are also black. In other words, you are black or white–no one is a mixture, a blend, and no one is some of this and some of that. For overtly political purposes, all associated with intersectional politics. For intersectionality to work you must first divide people up into sections based on race, gender, sexual preference, money, etc. Then you have to declare which sections are the good guys, and which sections are the bad guys. For example, many people and groups believe that blacks are oppressed and that whites are the oppressors, and that women are oppressed and that men are the oppressors. These people and groups strain to put as many into the oppressed sections as possible, while pointing out who and exactly how evil their oppressor sections are.

Just before the recent Super Bowl, The Kansas City Star ran a several page article featuring Patrick Mahomes, the Kansas City Chiefs’ star quarterback, proclaiming Mahomes to be the “Black man who is the face of the NFL.” Mr. Mahomes has a black father and a white mother. Unlike either Barack Obama or Tiger Woods, who have the same ethnic parentage, Mahomes is very light skinned. With a different haircut and without the goatee, you might very well need to be told that he is black. Not to worry: The media rarely miss an opportunity to emphasize that Mr. Mahomes is black. The very next day, after the underdog Tampa Bay Buccaneers soundly defeated the Chiefs, 31-9, Tom Brady, the 43-year-old white guy who had just won his record-breaking 7th Super Bowl became the face of the NFL.

Perhaps we need to look to characteristics other than race as we seek to praise and honor people and groups. Characteristics like hard work, discipline, focus and, well, being good human beings. And both Messrs. Brady and Mahomes have all of that and more. It is more than likely that the 25-year-old Patrick Mahomes will add to his already stunning on and off field accomplishments and clearly help to lead the way in the NFL. And Tom Brady might continue to burnish his already legendary reputation. And in both cases, their continued successes and recognition should have nothing to do with race.

Mixed marriages are increasing, with the majority of black men of either means or fame choosing lighter skinned women. Will the children of these marriages be designated as black? Mr. Mahomes himself is engaged to a white woman; will their children be seen as black? If this keeps going, and it seems to be accelerating, won’t we need some rules to determine who is black and who is white? For example, Nazi Germany determined that if you had at least one Jewish grandparent, you were Jewish. Seven Native American tribes, including the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, require only 6.25% (1/16) Native American Blood to be considered for inclusion in the tribe. Another 23 tribes, including the Seminoles, Cherokees and Shawnees, ask only that you can show that you are a descendant.

Hey, I am 7.3% black. Am I in?

In a society where more and more children

View Details

Introduction

Each of us chooses where to buy. Businesses offer value propositions, e.g., price, selection, convenience, hours, location, quality, customer service, return policies, etc. We consumers vote with our dollars; we choose which businesses thrive and which ones do not.

But Joe Biden is putting his thumb on the scale.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Every business person chooses the type of offering they believe is right for them, i.e., the combination of price, selection, customer service, convenience, etc. that will work best for them and their business. Customers choose which of the offerings is best for them. In the end, it is the consumer who chooses which businesses succeed, and which do not. I will give you an easy example. Not many years ago, I would go to ACE hardware when I needed anything of the type of products they sold. I would buy everything from a $1K barbecue to a 27 cent bolt. Regardless of the size of the purchase, I knew that I could count on great customer service. In recent years, that service has been slipping badly, becoming more like self service. As Amazon started to carry more and more products, I began to go to Amazon instead of ACE. Amazon is self service, but it has reviews that are often helpful. And going to other sites, e.g., YouTube, for pre- and post-sale advice, helped me become more confident with my online purchases. The selection at Amazon is far greater, returns are easy, and everything comes to my front door. Amazon did not steal me from ACE; I made the choice.

But a $15 per hour minimum wage may very well tilt the playing field. Amazon can well afford to pay that minimum, and has done so since 2018. Mom and Pop can’t. I still shop at a lot of local businesses that will be greatly disadvantaged by a $15 minimum wage. A local franchisee owns the nearby Dunkin’ Donuts shops, and I like going there, mixing my visits to Dunkin’ in with visits to Starbucks. Dunkin’ is the poor country cousin to the upscale Starbucks. Basic operations, not much of an in-store experience, good donuts and great coffee. And a business model that cannot survive having to pay $15 per hour.

I was travelling abroad a few years ago, and like a lot of Americans, I wanted a “taste of home.” I pulled into a McDonald’s ready for a familiar experience. The menu was familiar, but there was a wall of computer screens in place near the entrance for order entry. Huh. Okay, that was easy enough to navigate. And my order was brought to me at my table. That was a change of pace experience that should be a warning to people who want to force the payment of $15 per hour to fast food order entry workers. I did not go back to a McDonald’s on that trip. I loved it that any truck stop there offered truly good coffee and a selection of delightful pastries. And all of it came with engaging personal service. At twice the price of McDonald’s. Business models like that can afford $15 per hour; fast food can’t.

There is a coffee house in my neighborhood in Colorado Springs. They are near my home, have a good coffee drink selection, and a variety of foodstuffs, including different quiches–a favorite of mine. COVID regulations hit them hard, but that is not what stopped me from continuing to enjoy going there; they wanted too much money for counter service. They have one of those tablet based check out software programs, Square, likely, that forced me to make a tip selection–with the employee in question looking right at me. The minimum suggested was 15%, with the visuals steering me toward 20%. (There were lower tip options, including zero, but they made it awkward to get there.) Twenty percent is what I tip for good full service at a restaurant, where they come to my table to take my order, bring it to me, take it all away when I am finished, and check on me for things like refills along the way. And I am allowed to make my tip selection in private. I won’t tip like that...

View Details

Introduction

I am using the word “closed” to mean both not open to in person learning, and not open to school choice. And I am going to tie both to today’s accusations of racism.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s change things up a bit and start with today’s Key Points:

Remote Learning is an oxymoron.

School Choice means a better education for every child, and a better value for the taxpayers.

I’ll give you the beginnings of why I tie both of these to racism. Both remote learning and lack of school choice lead to the same dismal results, frequently suffered by minorities, that some people and political groups blame on racism. The irony here, or is it hypocrisy, is clear.

There is a unifying force behind both of these damaging practices: Money. “Follow the money” is a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catchphrase (catchphrase) popularized by the 1976 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docudrama (docudrama) film All the President’s Men. The idea, put forth by the anonymous “Deep Throat”, is that if you can see how the money flows, you will figure things out.

Following the money trail in the school choice issue is easy. Teachers unions, who represent only traditional public school teachers, want all of it. If they had their way, no taxpayer money would go to charters or private schools. When it comes to digging in their heels about refusing to open until everything seems ideal, it is a power play, with money being the reason to seize and hold onto power. Hey, if they can show they have the power to keep schools closed in the face of opposition from both the scientists and the politicians in their own party, they have the power to do anything. Including fighting merit pay raises, doing away with standardized testing–and demanding more money for just about anything they want.

Speaking of money, can you see the conflict of interest here? Teachers unions are heavy contributors to Democrat politicians. Their politicians vote to support the teachers unions demands, using taxpayer money. Rinse and repeat. There is no real bargaining here, as there is in private companies where the unions and management have separate views when it comes to pay and benefits, but both parties recognize the importance of maintaing the overall health of the business. Teachers unions pay cash to get their candidates and politicians elected, and the politicians do what they are paid to do. For example, Biden’s campaign received over $232K from teachers unions in the 2020 election cycle; the second highest was Bernie Sanders who got $51K. Apparently there is no kickback from the other side.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago, with the world’s 3rd largest public school system, is alternately pleading and demanding that the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) get back to work in person. She is supported in her effort by the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Mayor Lightfoot points to failing grades, depression and other negative consequences coming from keeping the schools closed.

Mayor London Breed in San Francisco is in a similar bind, with San Francisco having to sue the teachers union to return to work in the schools. Meanwhile, the San Francisco Board of Education has enough time and money to tackle the all-important task of renaming 44 schools, including ones named for Lincoln and Roosevelt. One Board member, when asked which Roosevelt was being targeted, responded with saying that he did not know. The beat goes on in San Francisco where the school board next week is expected to consider a resolution abolishing merit exams and high grade point averages for admission to Lowell High School. Named for 19th-century poet and abolitionist James Russell Lowell, the school is a nationally known beacon of excellence. Lowell is also among the 44 schools whose names the school board recently voted to change because Lowell’s references to African-Americans are regarded as insufficiently enlightened by...

View Details

Introduction

Manipulating stock markets, attempting to make money independent of any realistic valuation of the stock in question, is deeply wrong, and creates stunning amounts of damage. Most often to the little guy. That’s what’s happening with GameStop.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

What is behind GameStop is market manipulation, more specifically a pump and dump. More than a little reminiscent of a Ponzi scheme or a chain letter.

The mythical Robin Hood took money from the ruthless, undeserving rich, and gave it to the downtrodden and disposed. The Sheriff of Nottingham was the strongarm for Prince John, the embodiment of the evil, undeserving rich.

Today, Robin(hood), an online broker, offering a no-fee way to buy and sell stocks, and its band of Merry Day Traders, orchestrated a short squeeze, with the avowed intention of simply punishing hedge funds, today’s Sheriff. With today’s Prince John presumably being the “system” which is always unfair to the little guys.

Here’s the scene that many imagine when we think of GameStop. The hedge fund pro shows up at work, having been driven there by a car service. His grande latte is handed to him as he heads to the conference room, filled with massive computer screens and data analysts. His boss, a Goldfinger type, announces that they are going to make billions by shorting GameStop (GME). And off they go. The lonely day trader is sitting at his kitchen table, home from work because of COVID, using his Chromebook to look around for something he can afford to buy that might allow him to make a few dollars. And miracle of miracles, the day trader wins, makes tens of thousands of dollars while beating the hedge funds at their game. That’s a fun scenario, and it brings a smile to my face. We all love a successful underdog. And we’ll get back to this.

Let’s take a pause for some definitions:

Hedge Fund. Big, private money.

Short selling. A bet that a stock is overvalued and will go down. Short sellers, “shorts”, borrow shares, then sell them, contracting to give them back at a certain date–plus interest. If the stock goes down, the shorts make the difference between the price of the stock when sold and the lower price when they bought the contracted number of shares to return to the lender.

Going long. Betting that a stock will go up. This one is simple: buy the stock you feel is undervalued, then wait and see.

Short Squeeze. If a shorted stock starts to rise rapidly instead of falling, the shorts will scramble to buy enough stock to cover their positions. The shorts scrambling to buy drives up the price, and encourages others to jump in and buy as well. This can cost the shorts stunning amounts of money. Here is an example. If you buy 1M shares of stock at, say $4, the most you can lose is $4M. If you short the same $4 stock, and it rises to $104, the loss is $100M.

Honest stock buying and selling. Putting your money down, betting that you have correctly assessed a stock to be either overvalued, or undervalued.

Stock manipulation. Using the power of large amounts of money to push the price of stock either up or down, entirely independent of what you feel the real worth of the company’s stock to be in the market.

Pump and dump. Big money buying heavily into a stock with the intention of driving it up well past its real value–then dumping it for a huge profit. Ignoring and not caring for the people who lost as much as you made.

Short selling is an honest way to make money if you believe a stock is overvalued. Additionally, it sends a useful signal to anyone paying attention that the stock in question may be overvalued. Going long is also an honest way to make money if you think a stock is undervalued. And it, too, sends a useful signal to the market.

Now, let’s look at some facts about GameStop as published by the Wall Street Journal:

“The stock rose over 1,600% in January. People are...

View Details

Introduction

Impeachments throughout history have been entirely political proceedings, with voting almost entirely along party lines. Juries in criminal proceedings vote in accordance with the evidence as they see it. Congress votes along party lines.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Armed with the knowledge that voting follows party lines and not the evidence, then why do we have impeachments, and why do we bother following them? A. Political Theater is useful for politicians, and entertaining for us. And impeachments allow us further opportunities to vent. Impeachments have nothing to do with determining innocence or guilt; they are show trials with the outcome predetermined.

Let’s pause for the definition of a show trial: “A trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than ensuring justice.” (Oxford Languages). History is rife with samples of show trials, almost always in totalitarian countries. But Revolutionary France had more than its share of show trials, followed by public executions by guillotine. Much to the delight of the assembled mobs.

U.S. Sen. Rand Paul declared former President Trump’s second impeachment trial “dead on arrival” after 45 Senate Republicans voted against holding the proceeding, viewing it as unconstitutional. Given that it takes 67 Senators to convict, and that 55 at best will vote that way, this current impeachment is, by definition, a show trial.

Andrew Johnson, Democrat, and the 17th President, was impeached in 1868. The vote to impeach was generally along party lines, with 122 Republicans and 4 Democrats voting Yea, and 2 Republicans and 45 Democrats voting Nay. The heavily Republican Senate almost succeeded in removing Johnson, voting 35-19 in favor of conviction–one vote shy of the 36 needed for a ⅔ majority. Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 along party lines, and the vote in the Senate not to convict was also along party lines.

The third US President ever to be impeached was Donald Trump, whose first impeachment vote also adhered to party doctrine, even more strictly than either the Johnson or Clinton votes.

The only President who was ever removed due to an impeachment process was Richard Nixon, who escaped sure impeachment and conviction by resigning. He escaped forced removal by removing himself.

The obvious question is whether impeaching a President is an honest, fact-finding procedure to determine guilt or innocence, or whether it is simply a political tool. The evidence seems clear; it is a political tool, used as a blunt instrument by both parties. It is impossible for me to believe that any fact-finding process, regardless of the century, 19th, 20th or 21st, and with very different articles of impeachment, purporting to mete out justice, would always, with every vote, be decided along party lines. I trust it is impossible for you to believe it, either.

Imagine for a moment that Democratic and Republican jurors in court trials had, over the decades and centuries, consistently voted for guilt or innocence along party lines in all sorts of cases; robbery, fraud, treason, and so on. Consistently, in all different crimes and in all different decades. Unimaginable; it would be a sad, illegal and continuing series of triumphs of politics over justice in our courts. But that’s exactly what Congress does each and every time with the impeachment process.

1t was 130 years between the first two impeachments; it was only 21 years until the third. And about a year until the fourth. Show trials are becoming downright popular. I happen to think that the Constitution allows for the impeachment of a former President. In Mr. Trump’s case, he cannot be removed from office, but he can be barred from holding federal office in the future. That consequence remains, so I believe the process is Constitutional. And it is still all for show.

Here’s a fun thought. In sports, if the refs...

View Details

Introduction

Immigration is one of, if not the most, important issue facing our country today. And there is a clear, workable and comprehensive solution set that has been ignored for decades. Why? Because politicians don’t want a solution that works for America. Politicians on both sides want a solution that works for them at the expense of the country.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

The key to a comprehensive immigration plan is insisting on having secure borders. Anything less is nothing but a plan to have open borders. Open borders add the voters that some want, and the cheap labor desired by others. The logical end point to an open border policy is to cease being the United States as a sovereign nation, becoming the State of America in the United States of the World. With an unsecured border, every town is a border town and every state is a border state. And some people actually want that. I do not. (Do you?)

Donald Trump got it right in wanting secure borders, but he blew it with how he handled the issue. Talking only about building walls while promising that Mexico would pay for them made his otherwise sound secure borders policy appear silly. Then he added that the wall would stop the “rapists and murderers”, allowing the Democrats to pretend that they, too, wanted secure borders, just in a more practical and humane way.

The Dems responded with “Walls don’t work; build a 20’ wall, and the hungry immigrants will show up with a 21’ ladder.” Walls have worked everywhere, e.g., the Russians used one to keep freedom-loving people in, and Israel uses them to keep suicide bombers and other lethal threats out. But a wall running down the middle of the Rio Grande would be silly. High tech walls supported by human observers and enforcement along with high tech electronics could work well elsewhere along the border. There is no need to create a border security plan in this episode. Experts create plans for things like interstate highways, dams and bridges; they could do a fine job creating a plan for a secure border. But do we really want a secure border?

Ronald Reagan came close with his amnesty plan, but forgot to insist on having the secure borders part first. All he got was amnesty. Presidents from Bush on have tackled this issue, with no success. With a solution set this clear and effective, and we’ll get to that, why has it been ignored?

To get to the truth here, we need to ask one simple question, hoping for a simple, truthful answer: “Do we want open borders?” We have open borders between states. Travel is unrestricted; one can become a citizen of a different state by merely showing up and staying. We are one nation, with free movement among the states, and free access to the benefits, including a variety of government-supported services, that the various states offer. Is that what we want for our country? Do we want to offer the type of free, permanent access to residents of other countries that we allow residents of other states?

If the answer is yes, then we must have the courage to say it clearly and out loud. “The simple truth is, I want open borders. National boundaries should mean no more than state borders.” We could stop spinning our wheels in smokescreen arguments about the effectiveness of walls and who is and who isn’t inclusive. And we could stop wringing our hands about terminology like “undocumented” vs. “illegal”–everyone would be legal. Declaring the simple truth “I want open borders.” would take the debate to a very different–and honest–level.

I don’t want open borders. No nation can exist for any length of time like that. And I don’t want to be the State of America in the United States of the World. What I do want is a secure, prosperous, welcoming America; an America that can continue to be attractive to and lead the way for the rest of the world. Here’s how we do that:

First, secure our borders. Stop using the term...

View Details

Introduction

“99 44/100% pure. And it floats!” That was Ivory Soap’s tagline once upon a time. Being that pure does not float anymore. It is 100% or go fish.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

Beware the True Believers. QAnon and antifa are true believers, as are the many who believe that the 74+M who voted for Trump in 2020 are in league with the KKK and other white supremacists.

I am not talking about people who have a true belief in a higher power, a moral compass that guides their lives. We all need that in one powerful form or another. And we should all be True Believers in America, and in each other, but we’ll get to that. I am talking about those who hold the conviction that if you are not 100% with them on everything, that you fall short of the mark, that being 99.44% “right” does not qualify as acceptable.

Where did that 100% or nothing thinking come from? A. From being lazy. Okay, Will, how is that the correct answer to your question? Simple, seeing things in black and white is a lot easier than actually thinking things through, seeing if some parts of the other side makes enough sense to be credible. Said differently, it is far easier, lazier, to simply refuse to accept anything that is not 100% what you believe, and then reject the person making the argument if you cannot get them to think 100% the way that you do

My recent episode on https://revolution2-0.org/donald-trump-and-colorado-springs-beginning-to-end-ep-298/ (Donald Trump) is a prime example. I have upset subscribers who were clear that any criticism of Mr. Trump was completely unacceptable, and others who thought that any support for him whatsoever was equally unacceptable. In these cases, on the left and the right, it was 100% or nothing. That’s just lazy thinking–and downright dangerous thinking. And that kind of thinking is always doomed to failure. No two groups agree on everything, and no two people will either. If the l00% rule continues to be applied, then groups will splinter and splinter into smaller and smaller subgroups, logically ending up with “groups” of one. Here is a case in point. Antifa like protesters continue to protest and riot on the Northwest Coast, having moved the focus of their displeasure from the cops to the Democrats. The Democrats are not pure enough for them, so they continue with their tactics. But don’t blame the Dems; nothing will be pure enough for antifa, for they are True Believers.

One challenge with True Believers is that even if their initial demands are satisfied, they will change their demands, always asking for more. And then even more. In Menlo Park, CA, mere miles away from where I lived for 25 years in San Mateo, a woman’s livelihood and peace are being destroyed because she went to the Capitol Hill protest. She did not get anywhere near the Hill, but her presence in support at the protest was enough. Let’s hear from Suzi Tinsley, the owner of the now-closed Sugar Shack candy store in Menlo Park. “I do not have social media and did not post any images of myself at the rally. I was there for a peaceful march and shared photos via text with a few friends. I left the rally when the crowd became unruly and I was pushed to the ground. I returned to my hotel at that point, long before the agitators stormed the building. Just like every other American, I watched in horror as the chaos unfolded on television. I couldn’t believe my eyes and remain appalled at what I saw. I love my community, I love my country, and I hope those responsible for storming our Capitol Building are held fully accountable.”

The “leader” of the protest, which has closed the store and driven Ms. Tinsley virtually underground, says, “I don’t know whether she went into the Capitol or not. And I’m not saying that she did. And I’m not saying that she didn’t. But she partook in an anti-democracy protest,” says local youth activist, Henry...

View Details

Introduction

President Biden is calling for unity, and through unity, healing. All people of goodwill want unity, at the very least unity of purpose. Everything good, including unity, requires honesty; complete and unabridged.

Healing requires us to heal ourselves, not the “other person.”

That is the subject of today’s 15 minute episode.

Continuing

The issue at the very core of what divides us is the belief that we are right, and those who disagree with us are wrong. Add the conviction that: 1. Being right allows us to do, or at least excuse, just about anything done to pursue that supposed “right” and 2. That anything the others do in pursuit of their beliefs is deeply wrong simply because they are deeply wrong.

Certain principles are bedrock; here are two of mine:

http://resultswithreason.com/2018/12/07/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,

Be Your http://resultswithreason.com/2018/03/23/am-i-my-brothers-keeper-2/ (Brother’s Keeper). The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

These two are examples of overarching principles, and to me they are non-negotiable. But tactics, the methods which we use to live up to those principles, must be fully debated in the marketplace of ideas. Debated, not dictated. Debated, not fought over with cliches, insults and cancelling used as weapons. Debated and resolved, then implemented.

As with any good debate, we need to start by defining terms:

BLM. Black Lives Matter. It should go without saying that Black Lives Matter. But do all Black Lives Matter? If indeed they do, why is the focus almost exclusively on the less than 1% of blacks who die by being shot by cops? Where is the grief, the outrage and the attempt to find a fix for the other 99% who die by gun killings? And don’t get fussy with me by saying that my asking these questions means that I am somehow racist, or that I don’t care about people like George Floyd. I am more than willing to say his name, George Floyd, as well as others shot by the police. How many names from the other 99% can anyone even remember, much less say out loud? I want to say all 100% of the names out loud. Each and everyone of them has meaning for me; I want them to have meaning for you, too.

Antifa. Anonymous cowards who won’t tangle with anyone unless they have an overwhelming advantage in weapons and numbers. They are more of an annoyance than a threat, but they are also far more than just an idea. They are like the Lost Boys in Peter Pan. Pray they grow up.

QAnon. Scumbags, likely more dangerous than I had thought. They need to be denounced loudly and often by us, and confronted and defeated by law enforcement.

White Supremacists. See above.

The miraculous founding of the world’s longest standing democracy. The Declaration of Independence laid out the rights of man, independent of anything “granted” by the state. The revolutionary founders risked their, “Lives, fortunes and sacred honor.” for us.
The signing of the necessarily flawed Constitution that created the government which was put in place to guarantee and enforce the rights of man as laid out in the Declaration. Without the Constitution, there would have been no Union. Without the Union, the slaveholding South could have gone on its cruel way far longer. Martin Luther King called the founding documents “promissory notes.” Separately, I had been calling them statements of direction.

Defund the police. Idiotic. Any back of the envelope analysis says that police reform, and reform is needed, will cost more, not less. Let’s find the needed funds, and implement the needed reforms.

1619 Project and Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of The United States.” Scams. Their point is to tear down America with patent falsehoods in order to benefit from being one of the “rebuilders.” Join me in being...

View Details

Introduction

In 2016, my wife, son and I went to check out the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, at a rally here in Colorado Springs (COS). In 2021, he ignored everyone’s recommendations and moved the new Space Force from its home in “The Springs” to Huntsville, Alabama. In the meantime, he was the President of the United States, affecting, for better or worse, my town, the US, and the world.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

At the 2016 rally, Trump had the crowd of almost 2,000 fully engaged. I did not participate in the “Lock her up!” cheers, but led one of the “USA!” cheers. It bothered me that Trump threw the COS Fire Chief under the bus several times by saying, “He is refusing to allow more people in than the posted occupancy limit allows. I don’t think he likes me.” There was an overflow Trump crowd of the same size very nearby, listening on public address loudspeakers. I was briefly interviewed, near the 150 or so protesters, on the way out by a local TV reporter, complete with his cameraman recording the conversation. BTW, the reporter made his anti-Trump bias more than clear with his questions.

In that election, millions of Republicans threw in their lot behind a man who for almost all of his life had been a Democratic voter and donor, and millions of Democrats wanted as their nominee a senator who staunchly refused to join their party. On both sides, conventional politicians were being told they had lost the thread.

I had my first in person taste of “fake news” after the rally. We watched the local news that evening to see the coverage of the event, perhaps including my interview. No mention of the interview, but the coverage clearly implied that the number of protesters was roughly equal to the number of rally attendees. What? It was 20:1 at best.

Immediately after the election, the stock market boomed, discrediting Paul Krugman and his Nobel Prize in Economics, who had predicted a catastrophic crash if Trump won. After a long, tepid recovery from the crash in ‘08, both the market and the economy soared to unprecedented heights under Trump. Both Wall Street and Main Street benefitted.

He also did the right thing by appointing a strong school choice advocate as the Secretary of Education, then let her face the continuous and vicious attacks from the teachers unions and their anti-choice allies alone. Had he truly believed in school choice, he could have articulated and repeated a full throated defense of both the policy and his Secretary.

President Trump presided over the rebuilding of the military, while uniquely not starting a single new conflict anywhere. He rid the Middle East of most of the power of ISIS and the like, then turned his talents to establishing peace in the region. Major steps were made toward establishing a permanent peace in the area, a peace that previous administrations had declared to be well nigh impossible. Trump did that by ignoring the failed “land for peace” negotiations of the past. But once again he could not articulate his position in a way that Americans could understand and support it.

And he was dead right about stressing a secure border. A secure border is a fundamental and necessary part of any nation. And it is the basic building block for a humane and lasting immigration policy. But his comments about “rapists and murderers” gave the open border crowd all the ammunition they needed

I like the Supreme Court Justices that Trump nominated and got confirmed. I support having judges at all levels who do not legislate from the bench; their job is to interpret and apply the law, not make it. And regardless of your agreement or disagreement here, it is impossible to in any way defend the scurrilous attack on the character of then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Once again, Trump failed at communicating the correctness of his choices by making the nominations more about him and whether or not he was liked than judicial philosophy.

Along...

View Details

Introduction

Hailing the banning of unwelcome and disturbing (to you) thoughts and opinions, or joining a resurrected Parler or otherwise retreating to the warm embrace of sites and apps where you feel comfortable and unchallenged is the opposite of what we all need. The basic choice is between: 1. Further separating ourselves into silos or 2. Changing ourselves and our political and conversational environments to encourage and embrace an active marketplace of ideas. Choose the marketplace of ideas.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

The last thing that we need is to further bury ourselves into think-alike silos. Wrapping ourselves up in the warm embrace of everyone-thinks-like-I-do, or at least every person of goodwill with a room temperature I.Q. thinks like I do, is lazy, self-congratulatory and destructive. And this way is seductively easy.

We–all of us–must dig into the inconvenient, often unrewarding, and difficult task of sharing what we believe, especially with people who believe very differently. And “sharing what we believe” starts with caring deeply for the other person and their convictions, and listening. Yes, listening. Before we can expect to be heard, we must earn the right to be heard, and that comes from making it clear that you care about their opinions and best interests, and listening to them. Ask open ended questions like, how did you come to that belief, and what makes you think that will work. Then, and only then, can you begin to introduce your beliefs and well supported reasons, for why you believe that way. Gently lead them to understanding your beliefs and your reasoning. It may be tempting to answer a cliche with a cliche, and a broad claim with a broad claim, but that is simply a shortcut to an argument. An argument that will leave both of you more dug in than ever.

Listening, understanding, learning and leading is much harder than simply insisting on being right. And it is clearly what we all must do; it is what we are all called to do. Retreating into and reinforcing our silos must and will lead to a further disintegration and disorder. That’s the path to more Seattles and Capitol Hills. Let’s remember that first and foremost we are all Americans. Reject intersectional politics, learn from each other, and focus on the common goals that we all share. They do indeed exist.

Is it an accident that states like California and New York are predominantly progressive, and states like Texas and Oklahoma are not? Take a look at this electoral map; with few exceptions, all of the states in the contiguous 48 that voted one way or the other are in connected blocks.

Question: Did everyone of a like mind move to the same places, or is something else going on?

Answer: Something else. In the absence of differing opinions from a variety of sources, people will rely on the opinions of family and friends, co-workers and their selected news sources and social media. Outside of family, all the sources will be selected more for comfort and absence of frustration than political reasoning and diversity of thought. Not surprisingly, they will pretty much share the same opinions. Similar opinions from a variety of sources that reinforce each other and can easily be seen as not only a valid consensus, but the by golly truth. And with some notable exceptions (Uncles and Brothers-in Law?), families tend to lean one way or the other on significant issues, adding to the sameness.

Remember the story about the blind men learning about their first elephant by feeling different parts of the animal? Those feeling the trunk thought it was a snake. Others feeling a leg thought it was a tree. Each group based their opinions on a partial experience, and each one of them got it wrong. The same thing is happening when we rely on people and sources who are focused on the same parts of our political, social and economic “elephant” to the exclusion of the other parts....

View Details

Introduction

Our common enemy as the world’s oldest democracy is not Trump, antifa, Nancy Pelosi, AOC, QAnon, or Bernie. The enemy is rationalization, the destructive thinking that says that we and others like us are in the right, and those who do not think like us are just wrong. And that being right is license to do whatever it takes to rid the world of the other side.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let me make a few stark points to kick off today’s episode:

Whatever it takes is another way of saying that the ends justify the means. Not true. All means are ends in and of themselves.

There was no justification for the months-long antifa and BLM violence in the Spring and Summer, any more than there was justification for the recent violence at the Capitol. The egregious and deadly attack on our democracy lasted two hours, with Congress safely returning to its duties, including certifying the defeat of an out-of-control President.

Civil liberties are under massive attack. An attack on any one person or philosophy is an attack on us all.

It is time for us, We The People, to lead. If we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better citizens and voters.

Have I gotten your attention?

Let’s hear from different voices. “In The Friends of Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote the phrase: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ as an illustration of Voltaire’s beliefs. This quotation–which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself–is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.” Regardless of attribution, let’s all adopt the principle.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” is the desired principle. Today, it is more like, “I disapprove of what you say, and will make damn sure that you don’t get to say it again. And that the world sees you and everything you believe as being painted with the indelible brushes of racism, sexism, or whatever else I think of at the time.”

The hundreds of Black Lives Matter and antifa protests which resulted in the destruction of thousands of businesses, lost lives and still-dark city blocks, were often justified as social justice protests. Various politicians, media personalities and activists did a once over lightly on any violence, declaring them to have been “mostly peaceful.” By that exact measure, https://revolution2-0.org/wwii-was-mostly-peaceful-and-other-lies-ep-272/ (WWII was “mostly peaceful).” The mostly peaceful claim referring to the protests that included burning, rioting, seizing public and personal property, and injury and death, rests on the observation that most of the people, most of the time, were peaceful. And that is correct. In war, in this case WWII, only a minority of those in uniform were anywhere near the front lines, and only a fraction of those ever saw actual combat. The same misuse of logic that defends the mostly peaceful claim for the Spring and Summer violence would have to call WWII mostly peaceful as well.

From the beginning of the more recent social justice protests, prominent voices have defended the violence as being quintessentially American, reminding anyone who would listen that America was born in violence. Many of them cited the Boston Tea Party as an example. They clearly relied on widespread ignorance of history to make the case for any legitimate similarity. The Boston Tea Party destroyed government property, and that was it. No one was hurt, nothing was stolen for either sale or personal use. No protesters went to the homes and shops bordering the harbor to loot, burn, injure and kill. They tossed boxes of tea into salt water. BTW, when I tried to make this case on social media, I was assaulted as a racist. No other argument; I disagreed with the comparison, so I was racist. Ipso facto.

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan participated in...

View Details

Introduction

COVID has me hunkered down, mostly isolated from both family and friends, but I understand why, and now that I have my vaccination dates, I can see the light at the end of this tunnel. The continuing estrangements are not medical necessities, but personal choices. Presidential politics, masks, riots, burnings and assaults on the capitol, and variations on those themes have caused longer lasting personal “lockdowns” in my life than COVID and all of its variations.

Why?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Isn’t the answer to the why question our priorities? Which is more important, existing, long term relationships or cleansing our lives of “incorrect” people? And which is more important, new, wonderful friends, or limiting our lives to associating with only those with whom we agree politically? BTW, if you really and truly believe that your positions and policies are so important, so vital, then why would you put yourself in a position that you are always and only speaking to the choir, never being able to try and convert the unconverted?

Digging into separate camps is exactly what happened in the trenches in WWI. The troops on both sides were dug into fixed, deep, well-defended trenches for months that stretched into years. They slept, ate, defecated, and killed each other there. Millions died with little if any change in territory either gained or lost. Quoting Time.com, “The only break came on Christmas Eve 1914. Most accounts suggest the ‘truce’ began with carol singing from the trenches on Christmas Eve, ‘a beautiful moonlit night, frost on the ground, white almost everywhere’, as Pvt. Albert Moren of the Second Queen’s Regiment recalled, in a document later rounded up by the New York Times. Graham Williams of the Fifth London Rifle Brigade described it in even greater detail:

First the Germans would sing one of their carols and then we would sing one of ours, until when we started up ‘O Come, All Ye Faithful’ the Germans immediately joined in singing the same hymn to the Latin words Adeste Fideles. And I thought, well, this is really a most extraordinary thing – two nations both singing the same carol in the middle of a war.

The next morning, in some places, German soldiers emerged from their trenches, calling out ‘Merry Christmas’ in English. Allied soldiers came out warily to greet them. In others, Germans held up signs reading ‘You no shoot, we no shoot.’ Over the course of the day, troops exchanged gifts of cigarettes, food, buttons and hats. The Christmas truce also allowed both sides to finally bury their dead comrades, whose bodies had lain for weeks on ‘no man’s land,’ the ground between opposing trenches.”

Then the so-called leaders stepped in and abruptly ended the truce. The British punished their involved officers, and the Germans sent their officers to the Russian Front. None of this getting along nonsense, we have a war to fight. Nevermind that no one could give a cogent reason for why they were fighting, why the war even started in the first place. And the singers started killing each other again. The marketing slogan for the WWI Allies was “The war to end all wars.” That did not age well. Before that the slogan for the Spanish American war was “Remember the Maine! To hell with Spain!”, a lie about how the USS Maine blew up in the Havana harbor in 1898. President Johnson’s lie about the Gulf of Tonkin allowed him to have American troops fight in Vietnam, citing “Communist aggression.” Today’s misguided, damaging slogans include “Lock her up!” and “Dump Trump!” These slogans help our leaders to keep us apart and fighting each other, not singing to each other, flourishing by cooperating.

The attacks on our capitol are simply another–and ugly–example. “MAGA” and “Stop the steal!” are miserable excuses for trespassing and violence. As are “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t shoot”. Black lives do indeed matter; there can be...

View Details

Introduction

Joseph Heller’s famously popular 1961 novel, “Catch-22”, he wrote that to get out of the Army in WWII, you needed to declare that you were insane. But if you were sane enough to claim that you were crazy in order to get out, you have proved yourself to be sane and you are still in. If you claimed to be sane, you are still in the Army, and if you claimed to be insane, you are still in the Army. That’s the Catch-22 in Joseph Heller’s eponymous book. Far worse is happening today.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Catch-22 is just as idiotic, and just as circular–and far more pernicious and damaging. If you admit to having been, say, racist, sexist, transphobic, or anything of the kind, then you are–and always will be–one or all of those things. No amount of apology, grovelling, contributions to woke causes or taking blood oaths to change will result in any kind of absolution, or even forgiveness. That’s who you are forever. If you used the “N” word as a child, you will need to find a nursing home that accepts racists when you are a senior. Identity politics does not recognize forgiveness: The identity-based victims have never done anything wrong and don’t need forgiveness, and their oppressors, i.e., everyone else, don’t deserve it.

Today’s Catch-22 trap is complete when we see that those who claim not to have one or more of those traits are immediately told, “See? The only reason you are denying it is because that’s just exactly who you are.” Here’s a specific example. “Of course you used a black man as your best man at your wedding. That’s what racists do to cover up.” Never mind that you and your best man served in the military together and the two of you have a bond that no one else on earth can ever understand.

Today’s Key Point: Let’s forget about woke attacks on each other’s real and imagined weaknesses, and remember to become alive to our individual and collective strengths. Alive, not woke.

So, Will, who’s behind this new Catch-22, and what is their motive? A. Professional activists. And like all professionals, they not only want to keep their jobs, but to expand their influence and compensation. Compensation can be everything from a cush job as the VP of Inclusion and Diversity at State U, or an anonymous member of the Twitter mob getting his jollies by belittling people from behind a keyboard.

Professional activists do not want to solve the problem they appear to be addressing. Quite the opposite, they want to perpetuate, or even exacerbate, whatever the issue is. That’s how they can keep on keeping on with whatever they are being self righteous about. As a general example, isn’t that, by definition, what microaggressions are all about? If real aggressions, like slavery, then later its first cousin, Jim Crow, have ended, what now? Well, let’s invent microaggressions. That way the pro activists can call just about anything a microaggression, and stay in full accusation mode regardless of what is happening in the real world.

Here is a specific example of a politician learning a basic lesson about pro activists, with the losers being his constituents. “Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler is promising to ‘push back harder’ against anarchists and Antifa radicals after another riot rocked the city on New Year’s Eve, admitting that his months-long efforts to stem the violence have failed. ‘My good faith efforts at de-escalation have been met with ongoing violence and even scorn from radical Antifa and anarchists,’ Wheeler said during a Friday news conference, according to KOIN. ‘In response, it will be necessary to use additional tools and push the limits of the tools we already have to bring the criminal destruction and violence to an end.’”

No effort, good faith or not, will ever be enough for activists like antifa and the many others like them. Nothing will be good enough, nothing will be pure enough, nothing will...

View Details

Introduction

To change anything, we must start by changing ourselves. Changing others, our family, our community, our political or planetary environment and the world, all must start with changing ourselves.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s start by hearing a voice from almost a thousand years ago.

“When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world.

I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation.

When I found I couldn’t change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn’t change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family.

Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family.

My family and I could have made an impact on our town.

Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.” –Written by an unknown Monk around 1100 A.D.

This piece of timeless wisdom should guide all of us in what we do to today. The only person we can change is ourselves, and the only person others can change is themselves. And until we get that, life will be deeply frustrating, and filled with the cancer of blaming others.

Imagine for a moment that politicians followed the monk’s thousand year old wisdom. That would be worlds apart from the blamefest that is politics at all levels today. And the other side of the blamefest coin is refusing to accept accountability for anything that goes sideways. All while loudly claiming credit for everything that happened to turn out well.

Let’s take a look at the steps, the New Year’s Resolutions, if you will, that if we follow cannot help but to change ourselves in a way that will benefit everyone around us. Yes, even including politicians.

Start with a https://revolution2-0.org/we-all-need-a-moral-compass-ep-137/ (Moral Compass). Needing a moral compass is a recurring theme for those of us at Revolution 2.0™. If we don’t have a solid moral compass that we follow, then nothing else matters. Nothing. We will simply be corks on the oceans of life, following the changing paths of the tides, currents and waves. I know; I have been there. And I still have to fight to stay with and strengthen my adherence to my moral compass.

What are some examples of an effective moral compass? And how do you know? Two things: 1. Your north, your compass, has to be something born and fueled outside of us–with externally inspired values, goals and checkpoints. The danger is that our internally generated principles may lull us into a false sense of commitment. There must be an outside entity to learn from, and to act as a touchstone–a place to check in to see how we are handling ourselves. This does not mean that you don’t need to internalize the external teachings and examples; all is certainly lost if we don’t. But it is equally certain that it cannot be just us. 2. That outside entity must be powerful enough to keep us on track even when it is hard. If our north’s power and influence in our life is weak, so will be our adherence to it.

What are some examples where both criteria are met? God comes immediately to mind. My belief is that there is https://revolution2-0.org/are-there-multiple-paths-to-god-ep-228/ (more than one way to God); Christ is mine. As an example, my moral compass is Jesus Christ. Whatever your path, God meets both criteria; He is both external and powerful. Depending upon your path to God, the writings, religious leaders, ceremonies, legacies, etc. will be different, but each path has its external–and powerful–teachings, values and inspirations.

What is your moral compass, and what does it mean to you? Please respond in the comments; I am interested. As are others.

Being Your https://revolution2-0.org/am-i-my-brothers-keeper-2/ (Brother’s Keeper). Q. “Am I My Brother’s Keeper?” A. Yes. There is no...

View Details

Introduction

First, some questions: 1. What is higher education? and 2. How should we fund it? President-elect Biden wants to make community college free to the students. In essence, he wants to take the free and currently failing public school K-12 program and make it a failing public school K-14 program. And he wants to make a piece of it retroactive.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s start today’s conversation with the two main purposes of education: 1. Developing a broad base of knowledge in facts, history, economics and politics, arts and languages, philosophy, etc. And add in the training in logic and thinking skills needed to put that knowledge to use in productive and creative ways. This learning should be akin to a multiple course meal, with a wonderful variety of tastes and experiences. With occasional purely fun education “beverages” to wash it all down with to add to the enjoyment. One of the keys here is to train students how to think, not what to think. 2. Votech. Yes, let’s honor vocational schools, e.g. welding school, dental and medical school, and various MBA factories. My path included an undergraduate degree in philosophy from the University of Colorado in Boulder, and an MBA from Harvard–my choice for a vocational school. We all need both; a broad based education and a way of making money. Together, they are the warp and woof of education.

Too many people think of post high school education as only votech, as a stepping stone to making money, which is why they choose majors like business or marketing. They often wind up without the needed broader education, and without the required specific learning to be attractive to employers looking for real business skills.

Others do not think about either a broad based education or vocational skills, which is why they choose majors like sociology. And the sociology graduates waiting tables are among the loudest voices saying they were “ripped off” because they cannot pay their $40k in student loans, and want someone else to meet their obligations for them.

Enter President-elect Joe Biden. He wants “free” community college for all. Two quick points here: 1. Nothing is free; someone pays for everything and 2. This is just the camel’s nose under the tent. If this gets passed, the immediate next move will be to make all public colleges free. And so on. In essence, Mr. Biden wants to build on the public school model by adding two years to the existing free K-12 program. But that program is failing, needing to be propped up by denying as many new requests for charter schools as possible, and all but refusing access to vouchers. Instead of a failing K-12 system, we’d have a failing K-14 system.

Additionally, the President-elect is calling for student loan forgiveness, starting with a $10K freebie. And this is where the retroactive part starts; Mr Biden wants to make free college retroactive by forgiving debt, by asking others to pay the loans. And that is a second camel’s nose under the tent. The ultimate goals are clear–free college for all, and forgiveness of all student loans. All $1.5 trillion in student loans. Instead of shifting the loan burden from those who agreed to pay by signing the loans to others who had nothing to do with incurring that debt, let’s fix the problem by:

Reconnecting the provider of the service with the buyer. The colleges are not currently responsible if the student borrower defaults; the college gets to keep the money regardless. Putting the institution offering the learning on the hook if the borrower does not pay would make them dramatically more responsible with both offering loans and the income producing education they promise. It would also lower the cost of higher education dramatically by drying up a large portion of the guaranteed borrowed cash the colleges and universities rely on to add massive expenses, mostly in non-academic areas.

Asking students to take an...

A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the Twenty-First Century

View Details

Introduction

Congress has passed the $900 billion Covid relief and an Omnibus budget bill totaling $2.3 trillion. Joe Biden called it a mere “down payment” and Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it is “a first step.” And the President wants to more than triple the individual $600 payment.

Do you believe that what you might be getting is fair? Do you believe that the overall spending package is fair?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Pause for a definition. Do you know what a trillion is? Start by imagining a thousand of something. That’s pretty easy; think of a sports stadium that seats, say, 20 thousand people and picture 5% of that total. Now try and picture a million, a thousand thousand. Now a billion, a thousand million. Still with me? Now conjure up an image of a trillion, a thousand billion. I got lost at a million. The point here is that concepts like billions and trillions of dollars can easily lose their meaning, and get tossed around like rent money. Keep in mind that we are talking about staggering amounts of real money. Our money.

We see clear indications that many people believe the $600 individual payment is not only insufficient, but a slap in the face; “crumbs” as Speaker Pelosi called the Trump tax cut as it applied to the very same people who are eligible for this payment. But neither this payment nor the previous $1,200 individual cash payment has any necessary tie to COVID economic pain. Both look back to historical documents, e.g., one’s 2019 tax return. If your 2019 taxable income qualified you for 2020 payments, then you are in. For tens of millions of people, their income has not been affected by COVID, but they still get the money. A simplifying and reasonable assumption is that half of the cash recipients have income that is not affected by COVID; the other half do. Why are we shotgunning money, in any amnout, to those who need it as well as those who don’t? And is anyone of the half whose income was not affected looking to give away their windfall?

$286 billion of the $900 billion is going to the direct payments and to extending the federal portion of unemployment assistance at $300 per week. That is half of the $600 per week under the previous CARES ACT, but remember that over half of those recipients made more money unemployed than when they were working. Don’t we already have too many employment disincentives?

$325 billion is going to forgivable loans through the PPP, the Payroll Protection Plan, allowing small businesses to keep going, and to keep employees paid. There were some abuses in the earlier version, but overall the reasoning is sound.

There is more information about how our money is being spent, but, let’s ask a more fundamental question now: Is this $2.3 trillion in spending a well thought out plan to rescue those affected by COVID and to boost the overall economy, or is it a hastily and sloppily constructed bill designed to meet a few glaring needs, buy votes, make points vs the other party–and allow the politicians to get home by Christmas? As you think though your answer, remember:

The 535 members of the House and Senate had only a few hours to read the complex, 5,600 page, $2.3 trillion dollar bill.

Many separate subjects, everything from individual payments to eviction protection to transportation to national defense were all thrown into one bill: read fast, and decide as a package.

All of this was delayed until after the election. Why? Both Biden and Pelosi have told us all along that when we have a new administration in place, many more trillions will be flowing into millions of pockets, including individuals, state and local governments and businesses.

All of this stinks. There is no possible way that our $2.3 trillion can be spent at all rationally, spent in a way to give the correct relief to affected individuals, families and business, and to get the biggest boost to our overall economy for the money...

View Details

Introduction

The question is not who is judged to be legal, but who is qualified. Remember, just because it is legal, does not mean it is right. The reverse is also true; just because it is right, does not mean that it is legal.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

We’ll get to specifics in a moment, but here is what is needed in general to be qualified to vote:

Love and respect your country; whether you think it needs massive changes, some changes or no changes, you need to love America and want the best for her.

Understand the many responsibilities that come with the right to vote. All rights have equal or greater responsibilities. Let’s unpack which responsibilities underpin the right to vote, and what those responsibilities mean.

At the official founding of our nation, with the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, only propertied white males could vote. This was the opposite of inclusiveness and diversity, but it had temporary advantages. These were the very men who had just gone through a revolution, an impossible undertaking pitting a tiny country with an ill trained and poorly equipped military against the most powerful force the world had ever seen. Here’s a summary of how we won that miraculous victory: We lost and we lost and we lost–until we won. This country, our country, had risked everything and won. America and its fighters risked their lives, property and money–everything they had–to gain their–and our–freedom. They had, in the strictest meaning of the term, “skin in the game.” You can believe that they had enough of themselves invested in their country, that they–each one–would do a deep dive into the candidates and issues before voting. A deep dive that would go far beyond what the vast majority of what people–even those who feel they are well informed voters–are willing to do today.

Why? The answer is simple; only people who know what freedom is and don’t have it can truly appreciate it. Consequently, they risked everything to get it. And they were not going to endanger that hard won freedom by being casual voters.

Very few people today are anywhere near that diligent when it comes to voting. Why? The answer is again simple; we take our freedoms for granted, never believing for a moment that there is any connection between those precious–and rare–freedoms, and how well we inform ourselves before we participate in the political process. Since we do not realize what our freedoms are worth, what it cost to earn and maintain them, we assign little value to them. And they’re not worth protecting with something even as safe as being well informed and diligent. Note that we are not talking about taking up arms and fighting for our freedoms; we are talking about acquiring and analysing information.

All too many of our politicians, media and activists are no longer building upon the breakthrough vision that was America in 1776, desperately fought for and defended many times, and given to us to grow and protect. Those politicians, media and activists are the beneficiaries of the miraculous 1776 results from which we all benefit. They not only criticize and demean our country, they want to harvest the bounty that we have all inherited, without replanting, and use it for their personal and their party’s gain. Imagine for a moment a group that inherited a generations old, amazingly productive farm and ranch, now covering hundreds of thousands of acres, which had grown to be able to feed millions of people. Now imagine with me that the new owners, the new leaders, wanted to stop growing the operation. They found legitimate wrongdoing in the past, casually ignoring the great good things that were also done, and now want to stop planting and growing. And at the same time, they want, as some sort of penance, to no longer sell what the enterprise produces, but simply give things away. How long would...

View Details

Introduction

Was the 2020 Presidential election fair, or was the outcome engineered in a way to all but guarantee the election of the Democratic Party’s nominee?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

I want to start off by saying that I am convinced that any actual fraud was not sufficient to have swayed the election. Having said that, it does seem clear there was a fair amount of under the table activity designed to tilt the results. All of which was denied. And it goes without saying that none of it was self reported.

Self reported? Who does that? Well professional golfers, for one. And sometimes with millions of dollars at stake. The rules of the game, and they are honored, call for the player to self report an error, a foul, no matter how small, no matter how costly. It’s called the honor system. Conversely, in the NFL and NBA, we see repeated attempts to both deny having committed a foul, and to act in a way to influence officials that a foul was committed against them. Let’s call this the blame/duck the blame system. Q. What would it take for politics to be run by the honor system, not the blame system? A. It would take us living that way ourselves, and demanding that our politicians follow our lead.

So, Will, if the election was not determined by voter fraud or electronic count cheating, was the election fair? No. Here’s why.

To start with, the pollsters were clearly dishonest, not simply grossly incompetent. They were shockingly wrong about the 2016 election; at the time I thought they were just really bad at their jobs. But when the same pollsters made the same deeply wrong predictions again four years later, it dawned on me that the polling companies were working together to influence the election. Polling is a mature industry, staffed with seasoned professionals, supported by powerful computers and decades of data. There is no way the same polling companies could have made the same massive mistakes two presidential elections a row. They wanted to 1. Convince us that we are a center/left nation and to 2. Discourage Republicans from voting; why bother, there is no hope.

The MSM (mainstream media) were–and are–in on the deal. Trump does indeed deserve criticism for his many foibles and faults, but the constant drumbeat of disregard and scorn was not only uncalled for, but reveals a “whatever it takes” anti-Trump agenda. Both the pollsters and the MSM are there to report facts and events; that is clearly their job. And they pretend that’s exactly what they are doing. And both the pollsters and the MSM are dug in to be opinion influencers, not fact reporters. They both see their jobs as promoting their causes, and both embrace a “Whatever it takes.” philosophy of achieving their ends. Whatever it takes is another way of saying that the end justifies the means. Conveniently forgetting that all means are ends in and of themselves. Big Tech, e.g., Facebook, Twitter and Google, are in league with the polling companies, the MSM and the Democratic Party.

Today’s Key Point: The Goal of the Gang Four, pollsters, MSM, Big Tech and the Democratic Party, is to manipulate elections in a way that no Republican is ever again elected to national office.

The most subtle, yet the most powerful, way for the Gang to succeed in its mission is to support and encourage the less concerned, less involved, unmotivated and generally unknowledgeable voters to take a few minutes every four years and cast a ballot. These are the voters who know little or nothing about either our unique purpose or history as a nation. Few of them could answer basic civics questions, or even identify key political leaders. Most importantly these voters grab onto appealing cliches and sound bites instead of doing any checks-ins with opposing opinions and policy recommendations. The Gang works to create the false impression that if anything in life is hard, is not what is wanted or is merely inconvenient, then

View Details

Introduction

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

This is a global pandemic, requiring each and every one of us to take it seriously, and do our individual best to contain, and eventually, end it. Nothing less is acceptable. If you believe that COVID is a hoax, or that you are not called to go all out to do your part, then skip this episode. I will be happy to welcome you back to the next one; after all, I create two a week.

To start with, let’s look again at the two main tenets that we believe in at Revolution 2.0™:

Personal Responsibility; practice it, teach it and

Be Your http://resultswithreason.com/2018/03/23/am-i-my-brothers-keeper-2/ (Brother’s Keeper). The answer to the question, “Am I my Brother’s Keeper?” is a resounding “Yes”. There is no other answer.

Now, let’s apply our principles to the COVID world we live in.

Being personally responsible here means that we are responsible for keeping ourselves safe. This responsibility does not lie with the government or our neighbors, but ourselves. What else could personal responsibility mean?

Being our Brother’s Keepers means that we place this responsibility above all else, including our so-called personal freedoms. Just as the freedoms written about in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution do not allow us to speed through a school zone, or yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, we are not free to endanger others.

There are times when governments at all levels, local, state and federal, do indeed overstep their bounds, and impose unnecessary, even stupid, laws that do indeed unnesessarily and even arbitrarily restrict our legitimate and guaranteed freedoms. But we need to step carefully here. At the first whiff of real inconvenience, we must not shout things like, “Give Me COVID, or give me death.”, bastardizing Patrick Henry’s famous challenge. Henry was talking about trading his life in the pursuit of liberty; these COVID shouters are talking about trading their and others’ lives in pursuit of their personal liberty. Hardly the same thing.

Once we have earned the right to protest by: 1. Doing everything we can possibly do ourselves–personally–to fight the virus, and 2. We have a solid case that government is overstepping its bounds, then and only then can we act in protest. This takes research, thought and patience. And that is the opposite of lining up in predetermined teams, aligning with others in our team in support of or in opposition to things like masks and vaccines.

Masks, social distancing and hand washing all work; closing down outdoor dining when it includes those aforementioned precautions is insane on the face of it. And indoor dining can be structured in ways that work in the COVID world. Let’s hear from the Wall Street Journal on this subject. “The Fed reported that U.S. household net worth in the third quarter hit a record high amid the stock and housing boom. Government’s pandemic response, especially low-interest rates, has made the rich richer. But small businesses and their workers have been crushed. Joe Biden likes to call this the ‘K-shaped recovery,’ but what he doesn’t acknowledge is that the ‘K’ has been the result of government policy decisions. And now Democratic governors are whacking workers again with their shutdown orders.”

Remember: Before criticizing and protesting, we must have earned the right by our actions. And one of those actions includes setting the right example. Let’s start with stepping up and urging people to get vaccinated. We are going to hear from three voices here:

Fivethirtyeight.com. “Black people are notably less likely than other racial and ethnic groups to say they are going to take a COVID-19 vaccine, according to these surveys. For example, per the Pew survey, 83 percent of Asian Americans, 63 percent of Hispanics, 61 percent of non-Hispanic white Americans and just 42 percent of Black Americans indicated they would...

View Details

Introduction

We are not built to live in a spirit of fear and timidity, but of courage, love, and discipline.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

This concept has been expressed in many places, including the Christian Bible. Regardless of the source, I posit this to be a fundamental truth. Given the effect that COVID is having on all of us, even those not infected with the virus, this is a timely subject. Fear is everywhere. For some, it is the fear of the ravages of the virus, for ourselves and for those around us. For others, it’s fear of the government. For many, it is just a general malaise disguising itself as fear. I confess to being more than a bit concerned myself. I find that thinking through and sharing this episode is providing me with relief. I trust that reading or listening will offer you ease and comfort as well.

And it takes all three; love, courage and discipline. Any one or two is good, but for life to work as it should, we need the three of them working together. For example, the three types of food are proteins, fats and carbohydrates. At any given time, one or two may be more important than the others, but we all need all three working together.

And it all starts with love. What are our motives, our intent, when entertaining thoughts, taking actions or responding to another person’s thoughts and opinions? At one end of that spectrum is the drive to be right. “I am going to fix that person by showing them how wrong they are.” That can happen on the road when you believe you have been cut off, or at home when you think your spouse is wrong. At the other end of the same spectrum is loving and wanting the best for the other person. Here is what that sounds like, “What can I do that will work out best for that other person, as well as for me.” This is an example of win-win or no deal thinking. On the road it may be something as simple as a quick prayer or a good thought. At home, it starts with focusing on loving, which translates, at least initially, into first seeking to understand. The law recognizes the importance of intent as being central in many cases. Intent is a crucial element in determining if certain acts were criminal. Occasionally a judge or jury may find that “there was no criminal intent.” Example: lack of intent may reduce a charge of manslaughter to a finding of reckless homicide or other lesser crimes. Let’s focus on making love our focus, our intent. And I get it that focusing on being loving is a lot harder than focusing on being right.

Pro tip: Starting with gratitude, an attitude of gratitude, makes the love challenge dramatically easier. It is like there is a set of railroad tracks leading from gratitude to love.

Now to the courage part. We are clearly not talking about battlefield courage here. This is the courage to:

Challenge our own beliefs, no matter how deeply held.

Go public with them, our beliefs, despite criticism, ridicule and the ever more powerful cancel culture.

It takes courage to be open to seeking out challenges to long held positions and convictions. It takes no courage, nothing but obstinacy, to cling to them. Even more courage and determination is required to be open to challenging who we are, in addition to questioning our opinions. If we want a better kitchen, then we make the decision to remodel. It is always a messy operation, and starts with “demo”, demolition, a tearing down of the existing structures and appliances. And it always takes longer and costs more than we expected. But there is no other way. The same is true if we want to remodel our thinking, and remodel ourselves. And like loving, having courage is hard.

Let’s close this part with a lesson in courage. Years ago I was in McGuckin Hardware in Boulder, Colorado. I was in a checkout lane, when a man in his late 20s, clearly with cerebral palsy, came in and asked out loud for the manager. When the manager appeared asking how he could...

View Details

Introduction

With COVID, the Holocaust and Climate Change there are legions of deniers, the true unbelievers.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

All three of today’s topic areas, COVID, the Holocaust and CLimate Change are, if true, events of monumental importance which we ignore or, or worse, deny, to our peril. So the question is the extent to which each one of these is real as portrayed by those making that claim, and not exaggerated or even a hoax.

The Holocaust, the brutal incarcertion, enslavement and murder of 6M Jews would seem to be easily proven by overwhleming and compellingly shocking evidence. Tens of thousands of documents, photographs and videos all testify to the truth of this horror. Additional tens of thousands of eyewitnesses from the inmates to the guards to the Allied soldiers who saw the camps, and an equal number of German citizens who were forced to tour the camps in their areas have added their voices to the mountains of silent evidence. And the Holocaust started in the 1920’s when Hitler and his fellow Nazis promised to do just exactly they eventually did. Yet the willfully ignorant and callously knowledgeable deniers abound. This from the Atlantic Monthly, “Seventy years after the liberation of Auschwitz, two-thirds of the world’s population don’t know the Holocaust happened—or they deny it. These beliefs follow some unexpected patterns, too. The Middle East and North Africa had the largest percentage of doubters, with only 8 percent of respondents reporting that they had heard of the genocide and believed descriptions of it were accurate. But only 12 percent of respondents in sub-Saharan Africa said the same, and only 23 percent in Asia. People in these groups were likely to say they believed the number of deaths has been exaggerated—just over half of Middle Easterners and a third of Asians and Africans think the body count has been distorted over time.” What is the point of validating the horrible truth of the Holocaust? Is it as simple as knowing history so that we can learn from it? Well yes, but there is much more. The Germans of the 1920s, 30s and 40s, were no different than the people in any given country today. We need to know that we in America, the people in any country, can get as far away from any kind of decency as did the citizens of Nazi Germany.

If something as massively and obviously true as the Holocaust can be denied and claimed to have been a fraud, a hoax, what chance do issues like COVID and Climate Change stand against skeptics and deniers?

Let’s turn our attention to COVID. The numbers concerning cases, hospitalizations and death, from disparate sources like CNN, Fox, Ben Shapiro, the Wall Street Journal and my local paper are all pretty much the same. In round numbers as of today, 280K have died, with a total of 14M cases. That’s a 2% death rate, which means that if all 330M of us got “the rona”, 6.6M of us would die. We can logically dismiss the, “It’s just the flu.” claim.

But what about things like masks and lockdowns? One of the main ways that COVID is transmitted is through infected droplets that are expelled when a person breathes, speaks, coughs, etc. Masks are effective in greatly reducing the transmission of those infected droplets. Even a simple and cheap, low-level surgical mask is effective in filtering out most of the relatively large and “sticky” water droplets. Social distancing is as logical as mask use, as is hand washing.

Well, Will, what about lockdowns? Taken to its logical extreme, if all of us were locked down and isolated at home, the virus would necessarily quickly run out of steam. As would the economy, along with utilities, food production and distribution–everything. And every step we take away from that impossible complete lockdown scenario would make more goods and services available, and allow the virus to attack more people. So we need a balance, and that balance needs...

View Details

Introduction

Where does the practice of diversity and inclusion add to the desired results in any endeavor e.g., business, sports, education, etc.? In choosing the players for your favorite NFL team? What about in choosing the doctor for your grandmother who just tested positive for COVID? Should you include residents from the very different neighborhood three city blocks away from you in your block party?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

There is a lot of talk these days about diversity and inclusion. And it is not just politicians and activists who are trying to make points with their audience. I was looking at an advertising video for a popular, somewhat high-end restaurant chain with a location here in Colorado Springs. It pointed out that they offered an “inclusive experience.” Other than meaningless virtue signalling, what could that possibly mean? That they have beers from third world countries? Or that they have finally come around to serving blacks and other minorities? Or is it simply empty pandering to a clich-loving crowd?

Let’s look at a diversity example from sports. In the NFL players are selected purely on the basis of who can do the most to help the team earn wins, at a price the team can fit under its salary cap. There is an obvious and compelling tradeoff between performance and cost, value and price. Neither diversity nor inclusion are any part of these decisions. At the same time, there is a growing push to have more black coaches. The demand is that the coaching staff more closely reflect the racial makeup of the players. Why? When looking at athletes, the goal is to get the best player, not simply a qualified one, in each position, regardless of race. Why would the standard for coach and staff selection be any less demanding? Do those pushing for diversity here believe that having the best coaches and staff is less important than having the best players? Or is it because the activists are more than willing for teams to have suboptimal coaching and administrations, with likely reduced results on the field, in order for them to satisfy their diversity demands?

Politicians and activists are fond of observing that certain groups do or do not, “Look like America.” If I am doing market research prior to introducing a product that I want to sell to all Americans, I would want to have my group of test subjects look like America. In any other group, I want the best, not simply people who meet minimum qualifications. When I am looking for a doctor, plumber, or a handyman, my personal preference is to get the best I can get for my money. I might occasionally violate that preference, that principle. For example, if a friend’s child was trying to get a start in the plumbing business, and all I had was a clogged drain, I might take a chance on an unproven service provider. That would be my choice. If I had been elected to make decisions for others, as politicians and governments do, I would not have that option. People who spend taxpayer money are obligated to get the best people and the best results possible.

There are times when simply having qualified, “good enough” candidates for a job is what is called for, so let’s look at a couple examples:

Mass hiring of firefighters in a crisis. Yup, get as many qualified bodies as you can, as fast as you can. Even then, we will want to take the best of the lot and put them directly on the fireline and in supervisory positions.

Warehouse workers during peak periods, e.g., COVID-related increases in online purchases, or both brick and mortar and online stores during the holidays. And again, we will want to take the best and put them in the more important positions.

And there will be exceptions where putting minorities in positions of authority, for example on corporate boards, could improve results. It is possible that board members in those groups might have insights into parts of the employee population and the...

View Details

Introduction

Life is 10% what happens to us, and 90% how we react to it. That’s the principle; we are going to talk about specifics, illustrating the delights that can be had in the simplest things, and the peace that comes from overlooking idiocy, errors and insults.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

In the 70s, after the Army and graduating college in Boulder, I set out to start my first business. By today’s standards, I was broke, but since I was not aware of that definition, I was ignorant of my “problem.” My $100 per month G.I Bill ended with graduation, and my $2.87 per hour job driving a school bus had ended for the summer.

Now, what should I do? Well, start a business, of course.

I had about $100, and borrowed another $500. I lived in a two-bedroom cabin deep in the mountains West of town. The rent was $90 per month, accurately reflecting the market value of the cabin. On cold nights, you had to get into a freezing bed, thrashing about using friction to warm things up. The next morning, if there was any water in the bathroom sink, it was frozen. But no one told me that I was deprived, so I was happy with things like the quiet, privacy, and the windows that revealed one somewhat distant neighbor, and the majesty of the surrounding mountains.

After about two years in the business of building and selling loudspeakers in the cabin, I had just enough money to take off for a welcome rest. My ‘66 VW bus, “Gus-Gus the bus-bus” was my only transportation, so off we went. The first of the lasting happy memories came in the Arizona desert. I remembered the 1953 Disney movie, “https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046008/ (The Living Desert)”, where they showed that seemingly empty sand was teeming with life. So we stopped, got out and walked a dozen or so yards from the road, and sat down. After a few moments, we saw signs of life. Then more and more life. It was indeed a Living Desert. And we could have missed it. What else was I missing in my life?

My companion and I then went to see my dear friends, Geoff and Cindy, in La Brea, CA. To celebrate her birthday, I decided to take my friend to Spago in the LA area. My worn jeans and margarine existence had not prepared me for anything more sophisticated than “dine in” at a fast food restaurant, and I was nervous. And it did not help when we got there and saw that all the waiters were all in tuxes. Uh-oh. But the prices were not terrible; $8 to $10. Whew. Then I turned the page in the menu book, discovering those were the prices for appetizers.

Let’s fast forward to Puertecitos, Mexico, where much of the story unfolds. Another telling memory came as we were en route. We came across a group of RV-traveling Americans who had just dug up lots of clams prior to a clambake. We were invited to see what they were doing, and to share the harvest with them. Crack open and clean the clam, chop up the healthy amount of meat, add some butter, onions and other bits to taste, and cook over the simplest of barbeques. The clams were supplemented with local spiny lobsters, available from kids who dove for them in shallow water–for a dollar. Stunningly good food, in the open air with happy, sharing people. Then off to Puertecitos.

At the time, Puertecitos was a tiny village on a dirt road, 40 miles South of any communications link–and even that was a telegraph. We elected to stay at Speedy’s Campo, renting a space for $1 a day. Part of the attraction was a sign proclaiming “Ice Cold Beer.” “Ice Cold” must have been a brand name.

Niceties like electricity and indoor plumbing were luxuries, but remember my very modest at-home lifestyle; they were not missed. The town’s claim to fame was that it was on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baja_500 (Baja 500) race route. Other town highlights were a dominoes set, a six-room motel, expats, and a zoo. We’ll get to all of those.

In the early afternoon many of the residents, locals and expats, would...

View Details

Producing Revolution 2.0 is an absolute labor of love for me to do. But it is in fact a labor. So as we prepare to celebrate the holidays I thought it might be good to unplug and share with you some episodes from the archives. Stay well, stay healthy, and have a very Happy Thanksgiving.

Introduction

Diversity and inclusiveness are two concepts, goals, really, that are much in the news. Where is our desire for diversity and inclusion in the news and opinions that we seek out?

Here’s a better question: Why should we have to seek out different sources of news and information in the first place? Why have the various outlets stoppd reporting the news straight up and without bias?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Walter Cronkite was an American broadcast journalist who served as anchorman for the CBS Evening News for 19 years (1962–1981). During the 1960s and 1970s, he was often cited as “the most trusted man in America” after being so named in an opinion poll. Many people preferred to get their news from CBS because they liked Walter, but you could go to NBC or ABC, CBS’ rivals, and get the same information. Only the personalities were different.

Most of us know the story of the six blind men working to determine what was in front of them, then announce to the world what it was. Working with a different part of the elephant, each man came up with different conclusions. And each man was positive that he was correct–and that the other five were wrong. All six were wrong.

That is what we are doing today with our focus on only a single type source of fact and logic. “But, Will, that is not me!” If the vast majority of your sources of news and opinion agree with each other, with the same “facts”, assessments, likes and dislikes, it is you. And you are as wrong as any one of the blind men. Dangerously wrong.

Today’s Key Point: If we listen to only one of the elephant investigators about what they found, we would be as wrong as they are. In the same way, if we listen to only one, or one type of, news, political or financial investigators and reporters, we will be as wrong as any of the blind men.

Here are the news and opinion sources that I consult on a weekly basis, often all of them daily:

CNN
FOX
MSNBC
Wall Street Journal
Rush Limbaugh
Smerconish.com
Ben Shapiro
Quillette
National Review
Colorado Springs Gazette
BBC
Many columnists of all political stripes

It used to be that you could trust the news pages; only the editorials and opinion sections were allowed to show bias. Journalism once had rules; it had integrity. Integrity has been replaced by agendas–agendas driven by a “whatever it takes to sell the agenda” mentality. Now the only thing you can trust is the rare instance where several disparate sources say the same thing. Each source type is going to declare whatever elephant may be in front of us to be a fan, a wall, a rope, a tree, a snake or a spear. And going one up on the blind men, once news sources have made their initial declaration, no matter what new evidence might be discovered, they will stick with their original declaration, doubling down as needed. Once they decide to declare the elephant to be a tree, it will always be a tree. Once a source has decided that Trump is an embarrassing evil, he will always be an embarrassing evil. In the same way, if a source has declared Trump to be the Second Coming, the savior of Western Civilization, nothing will change their opinion.

“Well, Will, we can at least trust science, yes? After all, if scientists had studied that elephant, we would know that it was an elephant.” In school we were taught that math and science were impervious to opinion, and always revealed the truth to us. Then came various versions of climate change science, and the phrase “scientific opinion” was no longer an oxymoron. And now COVID “science.” If we can get into the furballs that I have seen over face coverings, clearly science has not settled even that one.

The problem is that science is being used as just another tool for the blind men among us to prove that the elephant is a rope or a fan or whatever they claim it to be. The blind men had an excuse; they were blind. They were at fault because they did not consult with each other, cooperating until they mutually discovered the truth. Today’s elephant investigators are not blind. Far from it, they have investigative tools available to them that would have been the envy of investigators and reporters just ten years ago. They do not use the tools to gain new information to challenge and reshape their claims; they use, twist, the tools to provide “evidence” to support the claims they have been making all along.

And it might get worse before it gets better. Most of our schools and universities have decided which part of the elephant they claim to represent reality. When these students see the very same claims being made in the mainstream media, they will think they have found the truth. Confirmation bias can be deeply convicting.

Here’s my view of what the elephant we call life is all about:

Life is simple. The rules for succeeding in life are clear. We pretend they are fuzzy or nuanced to avoid no. 2.
Life is hard. As it should be. How else could we grow and learn? How else could we develop ourselves so that we can help others to grow and learn? Beware of the many among us who claim that if any part of life is hard, that we are victims, deserving of profuse apologies and compensation.
Life is well worth it. The rules are easy to learn; discipline is hard. With no discipline nothing gets done. With some discipline, some things get done. With lots of discipline, lots gets done.

Absent the return of Walter Cronkite, we must all search through the disparate and apparently conflicting sources. We must communicate with each other, and find the truth on our own. And not only will we find what is real, but we will have developed research and analysis “muscles” that will serve us well in life.

Tell me what you believe. I and many others want to know.

As always, whatever you do, do it in love. Without love, anything we do is empty.

Contact

If you liked today’s episode, other episodes or the revolution2-0.org site itself, comment, subscribe, and encourage others to subscribe with you. Each One Reach One will help spread the word about Revolution 2.0™.

Will Luden, coming to you from 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Introduction

This is an open letter to anyone who has ever asked questions like “What am I supposed to do?” Or, “Do I matter?” Or, “Is this all there is?”

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Life is hard. Let’s start with a foundational truth: Life is hard, as it must be. And once you latch onto that truth, life instantly starts getting better and better. You grow and stretch, and you can teach and be a model for others to do the same, so that they too can grow and stretch. Observing that life is hard is not “tough love.” It is pure caring. The truth is always pure caring.

Today’s Key Point: There are people, groups and political parties telling you that life is designed to be easy, and that if life is not easy for you, that is proof you are a victim. They compound this self-serving and completely misleading claim by adding that you are therefore owed compensation, in the form of money, school or job preferences, and other unearned advantages. All to come at the expense of the people who they claim made you the victim in the first place. This is a formula for: 1. Generational victimhood and 2. Generational power for those selling this dysfunctional view of how the world works.

Success in life does not start with a lie, looking to convince others that they are victims; it starts with us convincing ourselves that we are the solution. Here are the steps to becoming that solution:

http://resultswithreason.com/2018/12/07/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,

BTW, this is not a 50%/50% proposition. Both need to be emphasized, making this a 75%/75%, or even a 100%/100% proposition. In other words, emphasize both. With those lessons planted firmly in our minds, let’s look at other parts of living well.

Congruency: All parts of our lives must fit together. No one with a weakness for chocolate who is on a diet to assist in returning to health would keep large amounts of their favorite Godiva treats or Reese’s peanut Butter Cups at home. For the same reason, no one who is digging in to learning to work harder and take more responsibility should hang out with friends who are not similarly committed. They will drag you down. Every time. Remember the crab lesson? A single crab in a bucket or cooking pot can easily escape. If there is more than one crab in the container, the other crabs won’t let an escapee out; they will pull at his legs making it impossible to leave. And we humans often do the same thing. If we are down and out, we hate to see others succeed, especially if they are our friends.

Gratitude: It all starts with gratitude. Gratitude is the bedrock, the touchstone–cornerstone–for any effective philosophy, religious dogma, or simply a way to get through life, or even just the day, successfully. Ingratitude makes for a grim and unproductive outlook on life, love and politics. Without gratitude, there is an inescapable emptiness; a feeling of being ungrounded. This makes a fertile ground for resentful thoughts of unfairness, e.g., “Why me?” Or worse, comparing ourselves to others.

If you immediately question what–if anything–you have to be grateful for, let’s take a peek at that.

Did you get up this morning?

When you did, did you have ready access to running water, maybe even hot and cold running water?

When you go to the store, for groceries or whatever, do you have multiple...

View Details

Introduction

The scariest part of our increasingly regulated society are the people who implement those regulations.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

When regulators regulate, bureaucrats are used to implement those regulations. Years ago, in 1998 to be exact, my wife and I were in the process of adopting a 10-year-old boy, who eventually became our much loved son. No thanks to our assigned clipboard holder. One of the myriad rules, hurdles mostly, that we had to comply with in order to complete the adoption, had to do with the temperature of our hot water. No, the rule was not in place to make sure there was sufficient hot water for everyone with an additional family member. The rule limited the max temperature after the hot water had run long enough to hit its high. After checking off other boxes on her forms, and, yes, she had a clipboard, she announced that she was going to check the water temperature. Withdrawing a thermometer that was at least a foot long from its case, she walked over to the kitchen sink, ran the water for a while, tested it, and announced that it was 3 degrees too high. Three degrees too high, not thirty degrees too high. Three degrees.

We had failed as prospective adoptive parents. She scheduled a time 10 days later to re-check this apparently key feature of our home. No, we could not just promise to turn down the setting on the hot water heater. The process had to be delayed by 10 days for a difference of three degrees. And this while our then prospective son sat in Juvenile Hall, unwanted by anyone including his family. He was yearning to get out of jail, and be with a family who wanted him. And want him we did.

Ten days later, after I had turned down the water heater, we moved past this “critical” milestone. Satisfied, she took out her clipboard, made a note, and the adoption could proceed. As she was driving away, I simply reset the water temp. We all managed to survive the added 3 degrees, but her methods had nothing to do with water temperature. It was all about control and job security.

Today’s Key Point: Regulators, the rule makers and clipborders, the rules enforcers, need each other. And both should be focusing on the welfare of the people they serve, ensuring that rules and regulations as written and enforced are a plus in people’s lives, not a thorn in their sides–or worse. But they don’t. The vast majority of both types are serving themselves, not the people under their authority.

Where could they have gotten that viewpoint, who is modeling that behavior for them? A. Politicians. They:

Fight to hold office for life.

Enjoy “Cadillac” healthcare far in excess of what Medicare For All would offer.

Retire with lavish lifetime benefits, and

Enjoy their power and control far more than they seek to serve, if indeed they seek to serve at all.

And clipboard holders are not always the lower level employees who appear in front of you looking for boxes you have not checked. They can be the heads of teachers unions using their own clipboard approach to checking boxes to restrict the growth of charter schools, and work to forestall any use of vouchers. Like the lady with the thermometer, they use their box-checking approach to satisfy their agendas, not the families and students they are there to serve. Clipboarders want control. They want to keep their jobs, and get promoted by having more boxes to check, requiring more people to work for them to check these ever-increasing boxes. And they know that making it easy for those they regulate and check on will not get them where they want to be–with more control, and more people reporting to them.

Private businesses, whether the local frozen yogurt shop or Walmart, know they cannot compete–or even survive–with unnecessary regulations and clipboarders implementing them. Amazon, for example, is famous for its “1-Click Shopping.” Quite the opposite of the...

View Details

Introduction

Cheap Grace is the selling of or wanting forgiveness and salvation from God without discipline or responsibility. A thought from Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Cheap Citizenship is the selling of or wanting freedoms and benefits from government without discipline or responsibility. A thought from Will Luden.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

All con games, where a grifter, a con artist, cheats a mark rely in no small part on the mark’s desire to get something for nothing. For example, a “pigeon drop” is a con game in which a mark or “pigeon” is convinced to give up a sum of good-faith money in order to secure the promise of sharing a larger amount of “found money”. Ultimately, the scammers disappear with the good-faith money and “drop” the mark who is left holding a worthless bag filled with news clippings cut into the shape of previously observed currency.

When either pastors or politicians sell us on the idea of something for nothing, we are being conned. And cons work only when the mark wants something for nothing, and believes that somehow there might indeed be free lunch, and runs after it. So-called “Good News” pastors want our donations and everyone’s adoration; “It’s Free” politicians want our votes and other people’s money. And both cheat us out of the life on this earth and after that we would have earned by taking responsibility and exercising discipline.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German theologian known for his support of ecumenism and his view of Christianity’s role in a secular world. His involvement in a plot to overthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment and execution. His “Letters and Papers from Prison”, published posthumously in 1951, is perhaps the most profound document of his convictions. When Bonhoeffer was asked why more Christians did not resist Hitler, his response was, “Cheap grace.” He went on to define it, “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession, absolution without personal confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ.” In other words, the Christians he was referring to wanted forgiveness and salvation, without the hard work of acting like real Christians, in this case resisting the evil of Hitler and Nazism. We live at a time when cheap grace is sold in thousands of pulpits, in person and online. Joel Osteen is but one example.

Just as perniciously, we are being sold–hard–on the concept of Cheap Citizenship. Allow me to paraphrase. Cheap citizenship is rights without responsibility, wanting other people’s money without first having done our very best over time. Cheap citizenship is declaring victimhood to absolve oneself of responsibility. Cheap citizenship is enjoying the freedoms and abundant lifestyle afforded to us today by the agonizing sacrifice of those who lived and died to provide them. All while declaring those very same people to have been so deeply flawed, so deeply evil, that all of them should either be totally forgotten, or identified as the scum of the earth. Cheap patriotism is demanding to vote with marginal credentials, and the voting choices made with cliche-based thinking.

Today’s Key Point: Cheap grace and cheap patriotism both promise something for nothing. Both lead to disaster.

Q. Okay, Will, what do we do? A. Remember that any right, privilege or benefit comes with an equal or greater responsibility.

Let’s hear another voice. “Freedom, however, is not the last word. Freedom is only part of the story and half of the truth. Freedom is but the negative aspect of the whole phenomenon whose positive aspect is responsibleness. In fact, freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of...

View Details

Introduction

As governments become bigger, they become disproportionately less accountable.

“The intensity of the sound is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the signal source.” -My Junior year high school physics teacher. (He stole it from Newton.)

“Government accountability to the people is inversely proportional to the square of the increasing size of that government.” -Will Luden

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Newton’s inverse square law as applied to sound explains why sounds quickly become quieter as the distance increases from the sound source. For example, if you want to get someone’s attention in the living room, speaking in a normal voice will work. If that same person is across the street, you might have to shout. If they are 2 or 3 blocks away, you will need another method of communication.

Luden’s inverse square law as applied to governments explains why as governments get bigger, they become much less accountable. It is obvious that small, local governments are more accountable than larger state governments. And state governments are more accountable than the Federal government. What may not be as obvious is that each of those governments becomes less accountable the larger they grow.

When I was 12 or so, I noticed that the bottom of the Dr. Lyons tooth powder (yes, tooth powder) left a rust-like oval on the sink. I wrote the company a letter with my observation, and suggested they fix it. I have no idea if they fixed anything, but they responded to my letter with a letter of their own, and gave me two free tins of their product. Not that a 12-year-old wanted any tooth powder, free or not, but that was pretty cool. As a profit-seeking company, they knew they were accountable to their customers.

The larger governments become, in significant part because they need size to give us the things we want in exchange for our votes, the less they need us. The more we get from a larger and larger government, the more dependent we become on that government. And the more dependent we become, accountability at their end becomes less necessary, we citizens eventually becoming bothersome to them. Instead of seeing the citizens as a priority, overly large governments see them–see us–as a nuisance to be worked around. And the more we get, the less likely we are to ask for accountability for fear of upsetting things, and not getting what we want. N. B. Asking for more and more from government is not at all the same as asking for accountability from government.

In a memorable section of John Steinbeck’s “East of Eden”, Lee, the highly intelligent Chinese-American household servant, waxed rhapsodic about the benefits of being a servant. Rather than being humiliated by his position as a servant, Lee sees servitude as a unique position to exercise power over a master who comes to rely too heavily upon his servant. After a long explanation of the benefits of servitude, he captures the downside succinctly. “But a servant does tend to lose his initiative.”

And as we become more and more dependent on government, that government knows what Lee knew: We lose our initiative, allowing the government to do more and more of what it wants, while becoming less and less accountable.

Let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (emphasis added) As governments become larger and larger in order to give us more and more, the consent of the governed becomes less and less important, having been bought and paid for.

Today’s Key Point: To the extent that we can hold our government accountable, we first must hold...

View Details

Introduction

Much of what is being sold to us by the media, and taught to us by politicians at all levels, is that we are deeply divided because the people on the other side are idiots at best, and evil at worst.

Don’t believe a syllable.

The “Divide and Conquer” approach to defeating your enemies is as old as politics and war. Win by getting your enemies to fight each other.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The Latin phrase “Divide et impera” is as old as politics and war. The divide your enemy so you can rule both sides tactic is attributed to Julius Cesar–he successfully applied it to conquer Gaul twenty-two centuries ago. But he wasn’t the first, nor the last, to implement it.

It is being done to us today, and quite effectively, I might add.

Let’s test my claim. We are being told all day, every day, that we are, “A deeply divided nation.” In the various attempts to prove it, some of what we are shown are scenes where large crowds of Trump supporters are enthusiastically waving American Flags. This is contrasted with, contrasted with, mind you, large crowds of people demanding justice when it comes to police murdering blacks.

There is no inherent conflict here. I do not personally know of a single person who objects to the flag, or believes that cops murdering blacks is in any way defensible. People like that they do exist, but they crawl through life on the fringes. The observation here has nothing to do with being a divided nation, but that whack jobs do indeed exist. Personally, I served under that flag for 3 years, 2 months and 25 days (but who’s counting), and have one that flies in the front of my home every day. And I abhor murders of any kind, perhaps especially when the authorities do it to civilians. And even more so if there is proven racial animus.

Here is another example of what we are being sold: People who support abortion are baby killers, while people who are against abortion hate women. There are people who have those views, but again they are on the fringes. And, yes, those fringes grow and deepen because the divide and conquer people fan the flames of disagreement, delighting when it flares up and becomes hatred. Here are the two questions that need to be debated in the abortion argument:

When does life begin, and

When is it permissible for the state to sanction the taking of that life?

That approach to this highly controversial issue will not sell many newspapers, or get many viewers, but it will lead to a reasonable discussion, and likely, resolution. But is reasonable discussion leading to resolution really the goal of those we work so hard to divide us?

Okay, Will, who is driving the Divide and Conquer strategy? A. Look at who benefits (Cui bono?):

The mainstream media have a much bigger audience when people have a deeply emotional stake in the issues, rather than a fact-based, logical approach. In other words, hate gets more viewers than logic.

Many leaders in both parties are also obvious perpetrators. In the book “1984”, the state kept inventing foreign enemies as a way of keeping the populace in line. That would be much harder today, given the Internet and other free-flowing information, so they pit us against each other in order to keep–and expand–their lush lifestyles and power and influence.

If those two observations make the MSM and many politicians sound hardhearted to the point where they put their needs and wants over the welfare of the nation, that’s because it is true. In the spirit of “Say their names”, say it with me: “The MSM and many politicians are far more invested in themselves than in our nation.”

“And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.” -John F. Kennedy at his inaugural address in 1961. What most of the media and many politicians should do for their country is to get over themselves and step...

View Details

Introduction

In 2016, the Mainstream Media/Pollsters cabal predicted a Clinton landslide. In 2020, the same pairing predicted an even bigger landslide for Biden.

With their thousands of professionals, powerful analytic tools and decades of experience, are they that bad at their jobs, or is there something else going on? And do they have partners?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s hear from Meghan McCain, anti-Trump Republican and daughter of the late Republican Senator John McCain. “Modern American polling is dead and modern American pollsters should find another vocation so they stop wasting all of our collective time and helping to gaslight the media and American public.” Did the pollsters get it wrong, did they learn nothing new after embarrassing themselves in 2016? I posit that the pollsters, Mainstream Media (MSM) and blue state authorities have formed a loosely organized, yet powerfully effective, coalition, a cabal, really, designed to make America permanently liberal cum progressive. An America that would never again have an effective conservative political presence, and would certainly never again have a Republican President. Pollsters are selling the narrative, one they know to be false, that America is a landslide liberal/progressive country. MSM, ditto. Blue state authorities are spinning their rules and rules implementation in an attempt to prove the pollsters and MSM correct in their false claim. America is indeed deeply divided, but the division is largely created by this three-way cabal; divide and conquer. We do not naturally hate each other; we are being taught that the Trump supporters are not only wrong, but dangerously and hatefully wrong. And the Trumpers rear up on their hind legs, shouting alliance to the President who supports them, while believing the false claim that the other side does indeed detest them. Remember the song in the musical “South Pacific”, “https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4cqTBA6L44 (You’ve Got To Be Carefully Taught)?”

Pause for a quick orientation: Unlike Ms. McCain, I am not a Republican. Unlike Mr. Biden, I am not a Democrat. As a registered Unaffiliated voter, my allegiance is not to one party or the other. My allegiance is to getting it right for America and its citizens.

Let’s take a look at my post election observations that lead me to my conclusions about the three-way cabal–the same cabal that has been working to depose Trump since he became the President-elect four years ago:

The loud and repeated claim of voter suppression turned out to be a fraud; that lie was put to bed with the overwhelming voter turnout.

Joy Reid at MSNBC just called Justice Clarence Thomas “Uncle Clarence,” a scurrilously racist epithet. The black Ms. Reid is getting away with blatant racism because she is far left.

The cabal says that it loves “The little guy” while it steadfastly ignores the thousands of poor whites who kill themselves with opiods, and the thousands of blacks who kill each other with sidearms.

The cabal says that it distrusts, and perhaps wants to dismantle, powerful corporations, yet Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and Google are given a pass because they are openly liberal.

The cabal insists that racists make up a strong segment of the Trump vote. Exit polls show the opposite; below is the racial change in the Republican vote 2016 v 2020 (%).

White Men -5

White Women +2

Black Men +4

Black Women +4

Latino Men +3

Latino Women +3

Other +5

GOP share of non-white vote, presidential elections (%)

1952: 21

1956: 39

1960: 32

1964: 6

1968: 12

1972: 13

1976: 15

1980: 10

1984: 13

1988: 18

1992: 11

1996: 12

2000: 9

2004: 17

2008: 10

2012: 11

2016: 21

2020: 26 (preliminary)

The cabal is dedicated to encouraging clearly unqualified voters, e.g.,

Not requiring a photo ID when voting. Here is a list of common places where you must have that kind of ID .

Buy...

View Details

Introduction

Politics is downstream of culture, and culture is downstream of religion. If we want to understand what is happening in our nation–in our world–work this “equation” backwards.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Running this observation backwards, religion influences culture, and culture influences politics. This seems so simple and clear, but very few people are talking about it, and this truth gets no play at all in the media. And here we are fixing that.

All of the major religions in the world share at least two of the same core teachings:

Love God, and

Love your neighbor.

None of them teach belittling or attacking others if they have the wrong thoughts or opinions. Instead, they teach love and forgiveness. And if we are going to do the truly hard work of loving in this way, we need the influence, the pull, the encouragement and discipline of a religion, or another sufficiently influential https://revolution2-0.org/we-all-need-a-moral-compass-ep-137/ (moral compass). A moral compass that we respect enough to follow it and take on these unnatural actions.

Hey, Will, is it really unnatural to love our neighbors? A. Yes. It is easy to love the loveable, and only slightly harder to love those who are merely annoying. We get no pats on the back for that. If the command to love one another is to mean anything, we must change and learn to love the unlovable. Democratic Socialists. Trump supporters. Antifa. Cops. Looters. The lot.

Here are my definitions of real love in action:

Love is having a shared history.

Love is coming through for the other person when you don’t much feel like it.

Love is not a blend of chemicals that wash over our brains when we feel ourselves falling in love. Love is a verb. And like all of life, real love is hard work.

As Americans, we all have a shared history; none of us have lived through all of it, but all of us have lived through some of it together. All of us can read and share all of the unique American experience in that way. And all of us can come through for the truly unlovable. Let’s take the two points in order.

The shared history part is very much the easier, and often either ignored or bastardized to fit an agenda. When I was young, I was taught that with rare and glossed over exceptions, America, as a country and its leaders and heroes, was almost all good. Today, the reverse is being taught. That conflict is easy to remedy. Start with understanding the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Learn the history of your country by reading honest history books. After getting a good start, you might try throwing in Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States.” If you have a sufficient grounding in our real history, Zinn’s deep bias in his twisted account will be all too clear.

What you will find is that our country, America, had a unique and truly inspired inception, a necessarily flawed implementation, and an up and down history since 1776. The overall results are impressive as we continue to reach the lofty goals committed to in the Declaration, and guaranteed by the Constitution. The real and overall impressive history of America is there for all to see. Revolution 2.0™ is certainly one source of the right information.

Now, let’s tackle the love the unlovable part. Let’s start with antifa and others perpetrating crimes against persons and property. The first thing with all of the unlovable is to pray for them. More specific to antifa, et at., arrest and prosecute the “Black Bloc” crowd and others for offenses including destruction or theft of property and assault. I remember a good friend saying, after one of his sons had done something wrong, “Thank God he was caught.” Initially, I was shocked by his reaction. After he explained, I understood that the process toward change needs to start with correction. Then others need to come alongside to offer...

View Details

Introduction

If we want to get our country back on track, and keep it there, the best possible education, starting early, is vital. That makes school choice my No. 1 political issue in 2020. Real school choice means that the national average of $15+K per year per student spent on public school K-12 education would follow the student, to be spent as the parents see fit. Parents would choose amongst freely available and equally funded traditional public, public charter and private schools.

Only one party supports school choice.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

“The caribou feeds the wolf, but it is the wolf who keeps the caribou strong.” Keewations (Inuit) proverb.

How could that be? Don’t wolves prey on caribou? Indeed they do, but Mowat proved that the wolves attacked and killed only the weak, diseased and injured caribou, leaving the herd stronger. He observed that even the fastest wolf had a nearly impossible time felling a healthy caribou. This limitation caused the wolf to make the herds stronger by eliminating the weak animals who would slow the herd, reproduce and compete for food.

In the same way that wolf packs make the caribou herds stronger, charter schools and vouchers will make public schools stronger. No sane parent would choose a charter school or take advantage of a voucher if the local school was strong, producing good results with its students. They would opt out only from the weaker schools. And unlike the caribou, weak schools get a second chance. If parents start opting for other choices in significant numbers, the troubled school has time to improve and strengthen. If the school cannot or will not improve sufficiently, it will close and improve the overall quality of the herd. If this happens repeatedly and over time, there might be fewer public schools. But the remaining public schools will be stronger. Even more importantly, the “herd”, public schools and charters, both serving the students, parents and the community, will be stronger.

Speaking of variety, I support the use of vouchers for faith-based schools. Faith-based schools, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc., are no more a violation of the separation of church and state than what is happening in most public schools today; espousing secular progressivism, humanism and/or deism. Or even atheism, which is often proselytized with an enthusiasm and passion that would be the envy of many a believer. Students presenting vouchers to a faith-based school would be allowed to opt out of any religious classes. And just how do students in traditional public schools opt out where teachers insert their personal convictions on subjects ranging from social justice and other politics to religion–or antipathy to any form of religion? In classes ranging from history to math.

Families with money already have the ability to make their own school choice, independent of charters and vouchers; they simply write a check to the private school of their choice (there’s that word, again). And this...

View Details

Introduction

The world long ago lost hope for a lasting peace in the Middle East. The frequent wars often had a religious basis, starting with the Romans in Judea, dramatically escalating the bitterness of the conflicts.

Donald Trump is on his way to establishing peace in that deeply dangerous hotspot, where three of the world’s most influential religions confront each other face-to-face.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Modern history in the Middle East began with the final collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of WWI. They had sided with the Kaiser, and the Ottomans suffered fatally when Germany lost. Post WWI, Jews began to immigrate, in small numbers, from various countries to their ancestral homeland, Palestine, then a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine (British Mandate) territory. After almost thirty years in control with some serious waffling about the right of Jews to come to Palestine, the British Mandate in Palestine ended in 1948.

In 1947, The United Nations voted for partitioning, forming two nations in 1948, Palestine and Israel, creating an echo of centuries of conflicts between these two peoples. The echo became gunfire when the surrounding Arab states attacked Israel, with the intention of eliminating the fledgling nation. The attacking Arab nations encouraged the Palestinians not to accept the UN partition, assuring them that they would be safe in their homes once Israel was quickly destroyed.

Despite being outnumbered and outgunned, Israel prevailed, driving out the attacking Arab armies, and increasing its territory substantially. Many Palestinians on lands newly occupied by Israel were left stranded. Some 700,000 fled after the defeat, ending up in refugee camps. None of the defeated Arab countries, despite their promises of victory and the Palestinians being safe in their homes, would take them in. Jordan, then Transjordan, would have been the logical host country.

In 1967 the countries surrounding Israel attacked again, once more with the announced intention to, “Drive Israel into the sea.” Israel prevailed, and again increased its territory. After this defeat, The Arab League issued its infamous Khartoum Resolution, the “Three Nos.” “No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel.” Given the firmness of this resolution, they had no choice but to try once again. The Arabs attacked in 1973, in what came to be called the Yom Kippur War because the Arab League struck on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. Israel was almost defeated this time, but they recovered and when an armistice was imposed, the deal forced Israel to recall its advancing armies from deep inside both Egypt and Syria.

The following decades saw many attempts to establish a lasting peace, with “Land for peace.” being the basis of negotiations. This worked in creating a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt, essentially trading Israel-occupied Sinai peninsula to Egypt for the peace agreement. All other attempts to trade land for peace since have failed. In 2005, Israel gave up its control of the Gaza Strip in exchange for the promise of peace, but Hamas, the elected, radically anti-Israel organization running Gaza, has been lobbing missiles and other weapons at Israel off and on ever since.

Along with land for peace, the “Palestinian Question” has remained at the core of any peace talks. The Question being what do you do with the Palestinians and their descendants who became refugees in 1948. International diplomats, including John Kerry, long term Senator, Democrat nominee for President in 2004, and the US Secretary of State under Obama from 2013-2017, have all forcefully maintained that no Arab country would ever–ever–agree to a separate peace with Israel. Land for peace, the Palestinian Question and other issues would have to be settled before the various Arab countries, acting...

View Details

Introduction

This is an open letter to anyone who has ever asked questions like “What am I supposed to do?” Or, “Do I matter?” Or, “Is this all there is?”

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

http://resultswithreason.com/2018/12/07/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,

If you immediately question what–if anything–you have to be grateful for, let’s take a peek at that.

Did you get up this morning?

When you did, did you have ready access to running water, maybe even hot and cold running water?

When you go to the store, for groceries or whatever, do you have multiple choices in almost every category?

Oh, and did you have transportation to and from the store?

And did you wake up in the most prosperous, diverse and free country on earth?

Moral compass: Some people call it your True North. No matter; the questions are

Do you have one?

If you have

View Details

Introduction

Employees of two downtown Colorado Springs restaurants recently protested tip sharing, the required dispersal of their tips among the whole staff.

Both restaurants display liberal political signs, and have invited liberal groups to hold events at those restaurants. Not surprising in that the city itself is liberal. My money says that a good number of the employees who are protesting to keep their tips to themselves are in full support of the Democratic Socialist agenda which includes Medicare For All and free college.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

“Of course,” was the reply.

“And if you had 500 sheep, you’d give away 250?”

“Absolutely.”

Impressed, the American had one more question before moving on. “And if you had two goats, you’d give away one?”

“No!” said the self-avowed socialist with some emphasis.

“Why not? What’s the difference?

“I got two goats,” was the reply, ending the conversation.

It is so very much easier to promote sharing someone else’s money and other things than to share your own. Just ask the restaurant workers. Here is a familiar and pertinent piece of wisdom, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” -Margaret Thatcher, British Prime Minister, 1979-1990.

Before we go on, I have nothing against sharing tips in bars and restaurants. Voluntary sharing, that is. Cocktail wait staff “tip out” (share tips) with bartenders, and food wait staff often share their tips with bussers and kitchen staff. They do this to incentivise and reward the people they depend on to provide good service to their customers, resulting in return customers and good tips. I am with today’s protesters in being against forced tip sharing.

“Hey Will, with all that is going on, COVID, anger against the police, the election, etc., why are you talking about tips and socialism?” A. Socialism is on the ballot. And caring for each other and our successes as individuals and a society demands that we look carefully at this issue.

Many of us don’t have the foggiest idea what the term socialism means. Let’s look at some useful economic system definitions:

Democratic Socialism: Most people who use this term are not talking about the traditional definition of socialism where the government owns the means of production. What they mean, or think they mean, is aggressive income and wealth redistribution vehicles like free healthcare, free college and free daycare–just for starters. They are not talking about the government owning and/or controlling entities like Ford and Facebook. Not yet, anyway. However, Senator Sanders, Representative Ocasio-Cortez and others are in favor of government ownership in many cases. Healthcare is an obvious example. And they will take Biden with them almost immediately should he win.

Traditional Socialism. See above, democratic socialism, with the addition of the government owning entities like Ford, Facebook and most everything else of size. You can keep your ice cream store if you have one. See Venezuela, Cuba and others as examples.

Communism: Traditional socialism with the addition of prohibiting any private property.

Capitalism: A system wherein people, individuals or groups, including corporations, own the means of production and engage in voluntary exchanges of money for goods and services.

Profit: Selling things, taking in income, for more than it costs to make them, drives everything; capitalism, democratic socialism, traditional socialism,...

View Details

Introduction

Senate Democrats are aggressively interviewing Judge Barrett as if she is a candidate for Congress. But even they know that is silly, because legislators are elected by the people, not approved by the Senate.

Why are they doing this? A. 1. They want the US Supreme court to violate its Constitutional charter and be a second Legislature and 2. They are grandstanding, playing to the voters who do not understand the elegant balance of power our Constitution set up with the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Senate Democrats are asking very little about the actual law or Judge Barrett’s jurisprudential thinking. Instead, one after another, they have used their time to focus on a parade of policy horribles if she is confirmed. And for emotional effect, they brought along photo displays of children and women who would supposedly be her victims on health care, abortion, gun violence and more. The picture they are painting is that if the Judge is appointed, women’s healthcare and healthcare in general, and LGBTQ rights will disppear, while gun safety and voting rights will also be tossed aside. All to be replaced by the world as depicted in the political scare novel, “The Handmaid’s Tale”. The Dems have been completely ignoring their role as lawmakers, and the Court’s role to determine a law’s constitutionality and to interpret it. If we end up with any of the unwanted scenarios the Democrats are painting, it will be the Legislature’s fault, not the Court’s.

“If I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case,” Judge Barrett said in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

Senator Feinstein. “It’s distressing not to get a straight answer.” The Judge gave straight answer after straight answer, but her replies did not fit with the politicking.

Barrertt again. “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world.” “It’s not the law of Amy,” she said later. “It’s the law of the American people.” Yes, and elected legislators write those laws.

Amy Coney Barrett’s faith, other personal choices or beliefs, must have no bearing on her rulings. The Judicial branch is not, and must not be, political. Judges and Justices must interpret the law, not make it.

Before we dig further into a conversation about the US Supreme Court and the Constitution, let’s ask a simple question: How many Americans, as in what percentage, could pass the US Citizenship Test, a test that most aspiring citizens take with English being their second language? What’s your take? (Don’t look at the answer yet.)

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/questions-and-answers/100q.pdf (The Civics (History and Government) Questions) part of the Citizenship test consists of 10 questions drawn from a list of 100 possible questions, and with only 6 out of 10 correct answers, you pass. They range in difficulty from the easy, like who was the first President and when do we celebrate Independence Day, to the more difficult, as in what year was the Constitution written. The vast majority of the questions are very easy; they are mostly layups, as we used to say.

Easy or not, only 36% of the 1,000 tested could pass. Remember, a passing grade is 60%. Respondents 65 and older scored the best (74 percent), while only 19 percent of test-takers 45 and younger passed. “The survey asks about everything from important dates to historical figures and current events. Only 13 percent knew when The Constitution was written, 1787, and 24 percent of respondents knew what Benjamin Franklin was known for (hint: it wasn’t inventing the light bulb). More than half (60 percent) of those surveyed did not know which...

View Details

Introduction

Few of us fall for the overt and outrageous lies, e. g., “Trump is a Nazi” or “Obama is a citizen of Kenya.” The most dangerous lies are the subtle ones, the ones disguised as honest reporting.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Here are two immediate examples of those dangerously subtle lies from the front page of Sunday’s Colorado Springs Gazette, my home newspaper on 11 October 2020; tell me if you see what the authors are up to in these multi-page article lead ins:

“A mostly peaceful afternoon of opposing demonstrations in Denver’s Civic Center park suddenly turned deadly on Saturday when a man was fatally shot.” -Julia Cardi writing for The Denver Gazette printed in the Colorado Springs Gazette, 11 Oct 2020.

“With few bridges left connecting rural and urban life, the region’s two largest counties split along party lines: one with the intent to preserve the past, the other pushing for progress.” -Alayna Alvarez writing for Colorado Politics; both articles appeared on the front page of the Colorado Springs Gazette on the same day.

Let’s examine these in turn.

The Mainstream Media (MSM) love to call any demonstration in support of causes they favor “mostly peaceful.” For example, hundreds of demonstrations that were indeed peaceful for hours, usually until after dark, then turned violent with burning, looting and occasionally a death or two, were labeled mostly peaceful. If the standards for applying the mostly peaceful label are that the majority of the time the event was not violent, and that the majority of the participants were not engaged in violence, then World War II was also mostly peaceful. And Korea. And Vietnam. And all wars.

In times of war, about one in ten, 10%, of all uniformed military actually see combat. And even those, mercifully, are actually fighting only a fraction of the time. Combat troops accurately describe their time at or near the front as days and weeks or complete boredom, punctuated by minutes or hours of sheer hell. The December 7th ‘41 Pearl Harbor sneak attack lasted 75 minutes. The next battles were not until Coral Sea and Midway, in May and June of ‘42 and Guadalcanal, a land battle that started in August.

This is not to make light of war; this is to expose as liars with a dangerous agenda those who label demonstrations and events where small or large amounts of violence against people and property are carried out as “mostly peaceful.” Imagine for a moment if newscasters had this to say on December 8th ‘41. “Yesterday was mostly peaceful, with only 75 minutes of unrest early Sunday morning.” Yes, I am stretching to make my point. The violence at Pearl Harbor far exceeded anything we have seen to date when it comes to media-proclaimed mostly peaceful events, going back from Ferguson until today. But the point remains valid: The mostly peaceful term is used to divert our attention from the violence that is occurring on a regular basis. “These are not the Droids you are looking for.” This is a quote from the 1977 movie Star Wars, spoken by Obi-Wan Kenobi after being stopped by Stormtroopers in search of Han Solo. Obi-Wan fooled the Stormtroopers by waving his hands, using The Force to cloud their minds. The MSM are working to fool us by clouding our minds by not telling us the truth. Don’t fall for it.

But, Will, so much of the violence is just against property. Why does that bother you so much? Property rights are fundamental to freedom and human rights. Back in the Old West, just about the lowest form of life was a horse thief. Horses were a vital part of everyday life, needed for many things, including transportation, and impossible to lock up like your car. It was the honor system. Go into town or to see a neighbor for any reason and you had to leave your horse unattended. Your horse, an asset needed everyday and usually all day, was easy to steal. It took no courage, no cleverness; any...

View Details

Introduction

“If people don’t want to come out to the ballpark, nobody’s gonna stop ’em.” -Yogi Berra, Baseball Hall of Fame catcher.

“If people do not want to change, nobody’s going to stop ‘em.” -Will Luden, Host, Revolution 2.0™

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

In the 1960s in Boulder, Colorado, I was peripherally involved in a group that opened a “Free Store” in downtown Boulder. The noble, naive and unstudied motive was to provide free clothing, and eventually, medical services, to people living on the streets, as a way of changing their lives. With high hopes and the sense of being on a breakthrough, anti-capitalist mission, the store was stocked with a good starting quantity of clean, used clothing displayed on the usual retail racks and shelves. There was even a starter amount of medical supplies. The buzz started when the first street people came in. There was disappointment when the first “shoppers” took off the clothes they were wearing, dropped them onto the floor, put on fresh gear, and left without a word. The buzz turned to frustration, and finally to resignation as this scene was repeated multiple times a day. The “store” closed after a few weeks, with the street people (the term for the homeless at the time) complaining about the lack of selection as the volunteers stopped bringing in more clothing.

Do any of you remember what I call the “How many does it take?” jokes? One that comes to mind is, “How many Microsoft engineers does it take to change a light bulb?” A. “None, Microsoft just declares darkness to be a standard.” Now that I have prepped you, try this one. “How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?” A. “None. The light bulb has to want to change.”

Ond of the things that makes jokes funny is the element of truth in them. Yogi was right that baseball fans must want to come to the ballpark. And it is true that an individual needs to want to change before anything new can happen. The free store approach in Boulder, and other free stores at the time, made the dreamy assumption that street people, if cared for and given clean clothing in good repair, would begin to change their lives, practically on the spot. The assumption underlying this naivete, was that “the system”, notably capitalism, was holding them down. Not true. Personal choices are what hold street people down. Personal choices are what holds anyone down, or lifts them up.

Today’s Housing First approach to the homeless makes the same unfounded assumption as did the philosophy behind the Free Stores. But it is not the system, it is not the absence of affordable housing; it is personal choices. And not just one or two bad decisions; it is always a series of poor personal choices over time.

Let’s take a look at the evolution of the terms used for people living on the streets:

Town Drunk, derelict

Bums and vagrants.

Homeless

Unhoused

Without a permanent address

There are successful pushes to change the terminology and dramatically raise the amount of taxpayer funding that goes toward “solving” the homeless problem. But there are no successful pushes to correct or alleviate homelessness. The number of homeless, the garbage generated, and negatively affected neighborhoods, continues to soar. Why?

Because the light bulb needs to want to change. Because you can’t go and force fans to come to the ballpark even if you offer them a free ride, anymore than you can force the homeless to change the choices they make about how they live their lives if you offer them free food and a hotel room.

So, Will, what’s the solution? The first thing to understand is that not all of the homeless can or even want to be “saved.” In fact, only a small percentage can. Many are quite happy with their so-called freedom and access to a variety of drugs. Others are so far gone with mental illness, perhaps either caused or amplified by drug addiction, that they either do...

View Details

Introduction

Christopher Columbus: Hero, brutal conqueror, or both? Today we look at Columbus, and a lot more; statues, movies, and teaching American History. This is an exercise in seeing ourselves and others as we and they really are. Isn’t that kind of honesty fundamental to any kind of development; individual, societal, financial, physical or spiritual?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The 1969 movie “Goodbye Columbus”, adapted from a Philip Roth novel of the same name, focuses on the differences in the main characters in this boy meets girl story. We are looking at the differences between those of us who want to remember and learn from, grow from, our past as it truly was, the warts and the horrors along with the heroic and miraculous, and those of us who want to denounce and erase everyone and everything that does not meet their current standards of approval.

Much has been written and said about various statutes, and we’ll get to those. But let’s start with a couple of movies; one very recent, and another older, made in the glory days of the big Hollywood studios. “The Help” was made in 2011 and set in 1963 Jackson, Mississippi. I found it difficult to watch in places, primarily because it exposed the horrific way that Black maids were treated by the middle class White housewives. I also found it hard to watch because virtually every one of the White housewives was portrayed as vapid, nearly useless in the home, and neglectful of their children. The White husbands and one boyfriend played very minor roles. The Black maids were portrayed as the heroes. The young White woman, Skeeter, displayed courage, but was shown as more of a catalyst and a woman coming of age than a heroine.

It was not a well made movie, nor was there much of an effort to show any kind of balance. But it does the needed work of shining a harsh light on a part of American life that we all need to see, understand, remember and correct. But there are voices demanding a different response, a different kind of imbalance. Here’s Natasha Reda writing for Glamour, “A lot of people are watching The Help right now. In fact, according to Entertainment Weekly, the 2011 film is the most-viewed movie on Netflix amid nationwide Black Lives Matter protests…Well, the film was written and directed by a white man, based on a novel by a white woman, and centers the story around white people—particularly Stone’s character (Skeeter), who is a prime example of a white savior. It’s understandable that many Twitter users have slammed The Help as a tool to educate yourself about systemic racism in this country, especially when the streaming service and other platforms offer better options by Black filmmakers.”

Here is a representative quote from the review by Kim Renfro at Insider.com, “The ‘white savior’ trope is tiring, and it’s also counter-productive to real change when it comes to systemic racism.” And another voice, “I beg of you: stop watching The Help, it will not make you better at facing your privilege or whatever,” Elamin Abdelmahmoud posted on Twitter.

In other words, these people are saying the movie does not deal with the American Black history in exactly the way they believe it should, so don’t watch it. You might develop incorrect thoughts, and we can’t have that.

Fact check: The movie made it clear the real hero was the Black maid, Aibileen, played by Viola Davis. Skeeter’s privilege (the young white writer) was slight at best. She was a recent college graduate living at home, and had to scramble to get a low paying job writing a cleaning advice column for the local paper. She had a strained relationship with her Mom, and apparently no relationship with her Dad.

The 1939 Academy Award winning movie “Gone With The Wind” portrayed a deeply false and romanticized version of plantation life pre Civil War. Anyone who has seen that movie and knew nothing else about slavery would...

View Details

Introduction

As the most powerful person on the planet, the President of the United States is often referred to as the leader of the Free World. Either Donald Trump will continue in that role, or Joe Biden will step into the role.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Neither candidate came across as anything like Presidential, much less like the leader of the Free World. I have heard reactions ranging from “Clownshow” to “World Wrestling Entertainment”, including “Embarrassing”, “Kanye was the winner” and “The US lost.” The most telling reaction from several sources was, “After that performance, just don’t vote.”

I agree that America lost, but likely for a different reason that the others with this reaction. The vital discussion of today’s key issues is what we as Americans lost.

The first and most important issue is how we choose our leaders. The two-party system is no longer producing leaders capable of engaging in stimulating discussions like the Lincoln/Douglas live and only in person debates, or intelligent, easy-to-follow and highly civil faceoffs like the one between Kennedy and Nixon–the first of the televised debates. Unlike today, the first TV debate setting was simple; bare stage, a moderator with a lectern, and the candidates in separate chairs. And a pleasant, enlightening discussion. If we want a return to that modus operandi, that MO, it is up to us as voters to get the job done. The candidates and their parties are playing to us, and playing up to what they think we want. And to a great extent, they are right. If we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be https://revolution2-0.org/americas-unqualified-voters-ep-89/ (better voters). And we need a very different voting process–more on that later in this episode.

Let’s lift some representative issues from a recent https://revolution2-0.org/2020-presidential-voting-guide-biden-v-trump-ep-266/ (episode), 2020 Presidential Voting Guide: Biden v Trump (EP.266), to remind us of some of the important issues, and help erase the memory of that first debate.

“If you believe that the Republic form of government laid out in the Constitution is the right choice, vote for Trump.If you believe that we should abandon the Electoral College, a fundamental part of the Republic format, then vote for Biden. In other words, if you want a national popular vote to replace the College, vote for Biden.

If you believe the New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning work on the 1619 project was correct in saying the year 1619 represents the real founding and legacy of America, vote for Biden.If you believe the view that the real founding occurred in 1776, with documents that Jefferson called, “A silver frame (Constitution), around a document of gold.” (Declaration), vote for Trump.

If you believe that we should have open borders with amnesty for all, vote for Biden.If you believe that America should have secure borders with a wide, but controlled, gate, then vote for Trump.

If you support school choice, vote for Trump.If you believe that increased funding for traditional public schools is the answer to the issues in K-12 education, vote for Biden

If you believe that government should be the resource of first choice, then vote for Biden.If you believe the individual should be the resource of first choice, vote for Trump.

I leave it to you to do your own pick’em on issues that are important to you, e.g., https://revolution2-0.org/mit-established-science-and-climate-change-ep-195/ (climate change), https://revolution2-0.org/2019/01/22/ (abortion), https://revolution2-0.org/one-state-solution-israel-palestine-ep-151/ (Middle East) politics and peace, etc. The key is to separate the issues from the personalities. I am not saying that personalities are unimportant; I am encouraging all of us to have a clear understanding of the issues as well as our take on the candidates themselves.

Now let’s get to the...

The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy

View Details

Introduction

We have not seen anything close to the truth with the vast majority of the Breonna Taylor agenda-driven images, soundbites and analyses that wash over us multiple times a day. Truth is the most marginalized voice of all.

The vast majority of us want true justice, and a permanent, united peace. In order to know that peace, we need to have the facts–all the facts and nothing but the facts–facts will lead us to the truth. Only the truth can lead us to true justice.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

How many of us have been told that Breonna Taylor was murdered in her bed while sleeping? And then told that a systemically racist police force could do that to any random Black person at any time?

That is a lie, intentionally designed to increase the fear and anger among Blacks, and anybody who believes that lie, toward the police specifically and White society in general. And people understandably believe that lie because they want to trust their news sources. Destruction, more deaths and a further divided and angry country are the inevitable and desired result. Let’s look at what really happened.

The No-Knock Warrant. When the police applied for a warrant to search Taylor’s apartment, they also asked for four other warrants to be served near simultaneously: one for a suspected “trap house” allegedly operated by Jamarcus Glover and Adrian Walker (no relation to Kenneth Walker) at 2424 Elliott Avenue, two for vacant homes near that address, and one for a suspected stash house on West Muhammad Ali Boulevard. Judge Mary Shaw approved all five warrants. There was sufficient evidence connecting Taylor to her previous boyfriend, Jamarcus Glover, to issue the warrant for Taylor’s address. Drugs were found when the separate warrant was served on Glover, and he was arrested that same night.

The police decided before the raid to serve the No-Knock Warrant at Taylor’s address as a Knock Warrant. Evidence presented to the Grand Jury showed the police knocked and announced who they were more than once before entering.

Video shows that Officer Brett Hankison was agitated before they used a battering ram on the door to enter. A fellow Officer was trying to calm Hankison down even before they entered.

Getting no response to their knocking and announcing, the three officers, Hankison along with Sergeant Jonathan Mattingly and Detective Myles Cosgrove, entered Taylor’s apartment following the use of the battering ram. Breonna and her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, had left their bedroom, and entered the hallway. Walker said that he had not heard any knocking or announcing, and fired his legal gun at what he thought was an intruder, striking Detective Mattingly in the leg. Mattingly and Cosgrove returned fire, killing Taylor who was standing near Walker. Analysis showed that Cosgrove had fired the shot that killed Ms. Taylor.

The agitated Officer Hankison fired 10 shots which entered nearby apartments. Hankison was correctly charged by the Grand Jury with three counts of wanton endangerment, each carrying a sentence of up to 5 years. Officer Hankison was fired last June, and Mattingly and Cosgrove have been on administrative duties. Mattingly and Cosgrove were, also correctly, not charged for returning fire.

Kentucky Attorney General, David Cameron (photo), went to some length to tell everyone the Grand Jury had done its job well, and pleaded for people, especially celebrities, not to stir up negative reactions with misleading information. But much of the media are filled with people reacting to just that–deliberately false information. That is not only wrong, but downright dangerous. Think of how many people actually believe that the cops simply barged into Ms. Taylor’s apartment, opened fire, and killed her in her bed. Lies like this one tear at the fabric of an already torn society, add fuel to the race fires, and influence elections....

View Details

Introduction

Is the Supreme Court’s function to, “Do the right thing,” as dictated by the nine individual Justice’s consciences, or is it to determine if a law or other enforceable rule is constitutional?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

A key part of the genius of the founding documents is the separation of powers amongst the Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches. The checks and balances with the three branches of government were put in place to avoid having one branch dominate the others. Aided and abetted by many of the Justices themselves, there continues to be a destructive push to make SCOTUS the second legislative branch; the backup branch if the duly elected representatives in the legislature are deemed to have gotten it “wrong”. A group of lifetime political appointees can right that “error” by the people’s representatives through judicial legislation, lawmaking from the bench. And judicial legislation should be an oxymoron.

Let me support the answer to the opening question by quoting the late Justice Antonin Scalia. “The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge.” This is Scalia’s clear and unambiguous answer: a Judge (or Justice) must apply the law, the Constitution; his personal beliefs have no place in a decision. Personal beliefs, personal convictions on issues, belong to the Legislature. That’s where laws are made. If a law that may make a Justice or judge gag is constitutional, and no one’s constitutional rights were violated in the application of that law, the Justice must–must–uphold that personally-offending law as constitutional. Leave making and changing laws to the legislature, and amending the Constitution to the amendment process.

Today’s Key Point: Justices and other judges must avoid changing or making laws based on their personal beliefs. The Judicial branch is there to rule on the constitutionality of the law and its application, and whether a crime was committed under the law. We need three equal and distinct branches of government; Judicial, Legislative and Executive–not two Legislatures and an Executive.

Imagine for a moment that you are having a new house built, and you need a full complement, say ten each, of carpenters, plumbers and electricians to get the job done. After four months into an expected three month completion, you visit the job site and see a mess–with completion nowhere in sight. Then you notice that there are twenty carpenters, ten plumbers and no electricians. When you asked the General Contractor how that happened, he said, “Well, you see, all of the electricians thought that carpentry was the more important job, so I allowed them to make the switch.” “Can’t you see that is not working? We will never get what we paid for and deserve this way.” The GC shrugged, pointed to the crew and said, “There is nothing I can do. The union protects them, and I cannot fire a single one.”

Let’s try a different example. Your child is in school, taking classes in Geometry, English, US history and Civics. You notice that the Civics Zoom classes are always about alternative views of the history of the US. The teacher is passionate about consistently sharing his views, so you arrange for an in-person visit. After some pleasantries, you ask, “You are the civics teacher, why are you concentrating on history, and your version of history at that? My child is taking a separate class in history, and you are supposed to be teaching civics. You know, the different branches of the government, how laws get passed, and so on.” “Well.” the teacher replied, “What I am teaching is more important than anything in a civics class. Who cares about how a law gets passed in a systematically racist society?” Here your student has two history teachers, and a single teacher in geometry and English. And is learning nothing about civics–the topic of today’s episode.

The construction example, while...

View Details

Introduction

This voting guide will concentrate on issues, not personalities, and help you to understand how the issues influence your vote. There will be no commentary about things like dementia or narcissism. Feel free to contribute your own thoughts on those subjects in the comments.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

If you believe that the Republic form of government laid out in the Constitution is the right choice, vote for Trump.If you believe that we should abandon the Electoral College, a fundamental part of the Republic format, then vote for Biden. In other words, if you want a national popular vote to replace the College, vote for Biden.

If you believe that we should have open borders with amnesty for all, vote for Biden.If you believe that America should have secure borders with a wide, but controlled, gate, then vote for Trump.

If you support school choice, vote for Trump.If you believe that increased funding for traditional public schools is the answer to the issues in K-12 education, vote for Biden.

If you believe that government should be the resource of first choice, then vote for Biden. If you believe the individual should be the resource of first choice, vote for Trump.

I want to expand my caveat; there will be no discussion here over which party is the more or less manipulative. And no discussion of the Republican push to seat a successor to Justice Ginsburg, and no speculation over whether or not the Democrats would do the same thing if given a chance.

I am focusing on the issues, in significant part because I see so little of that discussion elsewhere. There will be no discussion of who is the bigger liar, who is the less well balanced 70-year-old white guy, or who is less articulate than whom. To paraphrase, “It’s the issues, stupid.”

I am working not to favor one side or the other in this discussion, so if my preferences come though I apologize. My attempt here is not to persuade, but to clearly lay out the issues so that voters can align their ballots with their views on the issues. Not whether they simply like or don’t like a candidate. And with almost every news source playing to their own biases, callously presenting them as hard news, talking about issues and who supports what is important.

The Republic form of government is a key part of our founding documents. The Tenth Amendment’s language is simple and straightforward, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Founders envisioned a national government of limited and enumerated powers. Going further, the Founders instituted the Electoral College, the primary purpose being to protect the smaller states from the power of the larger states. All states have two Senators, in addition to the number of Representatives as determined by population. The total equals the number of Electors. The argument is building that this underrepresents voters in large states, and overrepresents voters in the smaller states. Those who make that argument want a national popular vote.

The 1619 Project created by Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter at the New York Times, is a bold effort to place slavery at the heart of the founding, success and ongoing character of the United States. In other words, America’s founding, success and character are so deeply rooted in slavery that many of its institutions have to be fundamentally torn down, and rebuilt. The counter view is that the union of the 13 original colonies would have

View Details

Introduction

When I was young, the milkman would deliver his product in glass half gallon jugs, left by the backdoor in portable metal wire carriers that would hold, if memory serves me, a total of 2 gallons. This was before homogenization, meaning that the cream would rise to the top, and the milk jug had to be shaken by hand each time you poured if you wanted it blended. Alternatively, if you wanted just cream, you could pour it off the top for cooking, coffee, etc. It greatly benefits all of us to praise anyone who reaches their full potential, and to encourage others to do the same, including those with more talent, more opportunities and more resources. A rising tide does indeed raise all boats. All of us need the cream to rise to the top. As we need everyone to be able to live up to their full potential.

Before the homogenization process, if left alone, the cream would always rise to the top. Today, we are homogenizing our society so that we are becoming more and more blended, more and more the same. And more and more average.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

One of my enduring memories growing up in Strafford Village on the “Main Line” West of Philadelphia, was getting the milk off the back step when freezing temperatures had caused the cream at the top of the milk jugs to push up the waxed cardboard cap, revealing about 2” of cream sticking out the top, in addition to what was still in the bottle at the top. I was fascinated by the mini cream tower, topped by the waxed cardboard cap–now detached from the bottle. I knew that freezing temperatures caused liquid to expand, and was charmed by seeing that physical law in action. BTW, this is where the term, “The cream always rises to the top.” originated.

Whole milk, unhomogenized, was all that you could buy. Today, milk is homogenized, and sold as 0% fat (skim), 1%, 2% and 4% (whole milk). You can get heavy cream, light cream, half and half–and maybe more variations. But the cream is not allowed to rise to the top.

Today’s Key Point: Homogenizing milk intentionally keeps the cream from rising to the top in the container. The Homogenization of America intentionally tries to keep the cream from rising to the top in our society.

In schools and increasingly in our thinking, we are focusing our efforts on “equality”, with many people, notably former President Barack Obama, calling inequality the defining challenge of our time.

But we must be very careful about what we mean by inequality. Here are the options.

Legal inequality. There is none of that left. If you know of areas where there is inequality under the law, please jump into the comments section with your examples.

Inequality of opportunities. That will always be with us, and impossible, and wrong to change.

Inequality of results. See above.

Equality of results and freedom are incompatible. If people are free to succeed or fail on their own, to rise and fall on the basis of their talents and effort, we will never have equal results. If we insist on–demand as a matter of law–equality of results, we will have very few freedoms. Let’s hear another voice on this subject: “Human beings are born with different capacities; if they are free they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.” -Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Russian novelist, historian, and short story writer. Solzhenitsyn won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1970.

Now, let’s address inequality of opportunity. We have that in abundance. Some of it we must leave alone, and other parts we must correct. Using education as an example, we see there are inequalities that we should not try to fix, and inequalities that we must use all the tools at our disposal to correct –and do it now. If a family is able to afford to send their children to top private schools from pre-K through graduate school, well, good for them. My parents couldn’t, and neither can I. But that does

View Details

Introduction

“Who is La’Ron Singletary?”

Chief Singletary is the suddenly retiring Black Police Chief in Rochester, NY. Announcing his retirement in the wake of the firestorm following the death of Daniel Prude while in police custody, the Chief, only 40, said, “As a man of integrity, I will not sit idly by while outside entities attempt to destroy my character. The members of the Rochester Police Department and the Greater Rochester Community know my reputation and know what I stand for.”

Police leadership, and the rank and file, are beginning to feel betrayed by the very people they serve. They are retiring, quitting and otherwise giving up in the very cities and neighborhoods where they are needed the most.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The iconic novel, “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, starts with “Who is John Galt?” As the book unfolds, it is revealed that Mr. Galt is the reclusive leader of the capitalist producers of the world, who, led by Galt, go on strike against a world that rewards needs over contribution, and virtue signalling over real virtue. Although not very well written, the hugely popular book makes an interesting point.

I am not making the case that Chief Singletary is the new John Galt. Police are retiring, quitting and otherwise giving up on their own, and do not need to be led in that direction as in Atlas Shrugged.

What kind of cops do we want, and what kind of cops will we have as a result of today’s growing anti-cop environment? What kind of quality law enforcement officers will remain on the job and committed after Black cops are called “Coon” “Uncle Tom” by in-your-face screaming mobs? The very same frenzied mobs that call White officers “Fascists” and “White Supremacists’, with not a single one of the mob being able to give a coherent definition of fascist. To them, a fascist is anyone who does not fully agree with them and their actions. Their definition of White Supremacist is much the same; to them, the terms are interchangeable. What kind of people will want to be cops when they and their fellow officers are attacked physically or verbally by mobs, by the media and in social media?

Let’s go over the wildly different roles that cops play in our communities. From giving out parking tickets, to being on SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) teams, from desk jobs to patrolling dangerous neighborhoods, from responding to noise disturbances, to showing up in active shooter situations. In every role I want well trained officers, in departments with high morale; dedicated officers who are willing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect the citizenry. I want officers who are proud of the roles they play in the community, and are proud of doing it well.

I do not want cops who simply want a paycheck and a pension; cops who are willing to put up with the growing vilification because they have no pride in their roles as law enforcement. Those types are not going to stick their necks out; they are going to lay low for 20 years, then retire. Crime would soar, and we’d be far less safe, with things getting worse all the time as the bad guys figured out they had things going their way.

Back to Rochester. Deputy Chief Joseph Morabito and Commander Fabian Rivera also announced their retirements. Two other high ranking officials, Deputy Chief Mark Simmons and Commander Henry Favor, voluntarily returned to the lower rank of Lieutenant, where they are protected from being fired by Civil Service regulations.

Here is what the Mayor of Rochester, also Black, said after the death of Mr. Prude. “Mr. Daniel Prude was failed by our police, our mental health care system, our society, and by me.” Let’s examine those claims.

Let’s look at the facts as a way of tempering the emotions that arise anytime we hear about a Black man being killed by White cops. Police came across Mr. Prude at 3 AM, naked in the streets, shouting mostly irrational phrases

View Details

Introduction

These two Martians, prompted by our probes on and around their planet, landed here in the US. They were looking for signs of intelligent life.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Revolution 2.0™ stumbled into an exclusive interview with two self-professed Martians, Gog and Magog. I took them at their word about their planetary ethnicity because they were thoughtful enough to be small and green, arriving in a flying saucer; some stereotypes are downright helpful.

I call this meeting an interview, but as you will soon see, they asked most of the questions. I was out in our backyard, repeatedly saying “Good potty!” to our 9-week-old Standard Poodle. (BTW, lest you think the life of a podcaster is all glamour, consistently hobnobbing with presidents and celebrities, I do this a lot…:) ). Their saucer landed a few feet away from our blazing fire pit.

As they emerged from their spacecraft, one of them said something that was entirely unintelligible. I responded with, “What? Who are you?” (Best I could do in the moment.) After apparently recalibrating their speech mechanisms, he spoke again. “We are Gog and Magog, from Mars. We were taking another lap in your ionosphere, saw your fire and thought this was as good a time as any to settle the question of whether there is intelligent life outside of Mars.”

“Would you like to sit down?” I asked, not really knowing if they were standing or sitting at the moment. “Thank you”, answered one, while identifying himself as Gog. They adjusted themselves in an odd way, which I suppose meant they were now sitting. “May we ask you some questions?”, asked Magog? “Feel free.”

“We lubb the slogan ‘All Lives Matter’; why does it make so many people mad?” “Lubb?” I responded. “Sorry, translation error; I meant love. We love the slogan ‘All Lives Matter. We also hear slogans like ‘Black Lives Matter’ and ‘Blue Lives Matter’. Aren’t they simply subsets of the completely correct claim that ‘All Lives Matter’? It seems…” Gog interrupted with “What is a ‘Blue life’? We can’t find any Blue people.” Undeterred, Magog continued, “It seems that when some people hold up signs saying Black Lives Matter, others hold up signs saying All Lives Matter, and they start yelling and fighting. Then some other people hold up signs saying that Blue Lives Matter (he glared at Magog to keep him from interrupting again). The Blue people and the Black people also don’t seem to get along.”

In the interval when I was trying to think of a way to explain this to an extraterrestrial, Gog, politely, this time, asked, “Who are the Blue people? And why does Black people mean people who are mostly not black, but various shades of brown? And why does White mean all those people who are not white? Isn’t your primitive printer paper white; do you know anyone who is that color?”

Well, he had me there, but I offered. “Well, Blue means a profession, law enforcement, and Black means, well, anyone with African ancestry, or who looks like they might have African ancestry.” They looked confused, so I went on, “And White means that you are not Black, Latino, a Pacific Islander, from Spain, or Asian.”

They slumped a bit, looked at each other, then looked back at me, asking together, “Why don’t the colors work together?” At this point, I wished that I had not turned on my fire pit. I ventured, “Well, you see, everyone is looking for justice.” Again, together, they asked, “How do you get to justice for all by fighting each other? Is one side really the enemy?” I began to fidget, wondering how on earth (pun intended) I had gotten picked as the person to answer for all of this.

Gog changed directions slightly by asking, “If everyone wants justice, then everyone must want laws to be enforced. Why are so many people mad at the Blue people who enforce the law?” Thinking that at last I had one I could answer, I said, “Some people think that law enforcement is systemically bad, and

View Details

Introduction

Queen For A Day was a popular radio and TV program that ran for 20 years, starting in 1945. The “contestants” were women who would tell their tales of woe, often crying in the process, hoping to persuade the audience that their plight was worse than the others, thus deserving of the cash and other prizes.

Sarcastically referred to as “Poverty Porn”, Queen For A Day was not only a precursor to future TV giveaway shows, it unwittingly preceded the creation of the victim hierarchy, wherein various identity groups vie with one another to claim being the worst off, therefore winning the title of being the most deserving. Instead of the Biggest Loser being about the person who was disciplined enough to lose the most weight, this version of the Biggest Loser is exactly that; the one who has lost the most and has not come up with a fix somehow winds up being the biggest winner.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

In QFA, female contestants worked to convince the audience their tale of woe was the worst, and therefore more deserving, than the others who were also pouring forth their stories. All while adding as much drama as possible in the hopes of convincing the studio audience. The audience did not vote, as in one vote per person; an “Applause Meter” was used. The woman with the loudest response won. Not unlike today, where the groups that make the most noise, peaceful or not, are considered by many as the most deserving.

Sponsors also won. The show was very popular for many years, giving sponsors of QFA widespread exposure for their products, many of which were offered as prizes.

The radio and television networks, including ABC and NBC were also big winners. The show hosts, notably Jack Bailey, and the staff were also winners.

So, Will, were there losers? Yes, the contestants, the audience, and most of all the so-called winner. The winner, to the musical accompaniment of “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomp_and_Circumstance (Pomp and Circumstance)“, would be draped in a sable-trimmed red velvet robe, given a glittering jeweled crown to wear, placed on a velvet-upholstered throne, and handed a dozen long-stemmed roses to hold while her list of prizes was announced. Even if we do not recognize the name of the celebration tune, we have all heard it, likely many times. This is the traditional song played during graduations, graduations being a celebration of years of achievement. Queen For A Day used it to celebrate the person for whom the audience made the loudest noise in support of her tale of woe, her applause-seeking hand wringing and tales of misery.

Yes, I am being critical of the show, but more to the point I am being critical of the Queen For A Day philosophy too many of us, and too many politicians and other so called leaders, have developed and are pushing on our society today. QFA itself had critics. “Veteran television writer Mark Evanier has called the program ‘one of the most ghastly shows ever produced.’ He further described it as ‘tasteless, demeaning to women, demeaning to anyone who watched it, cheap, insulting and utterly degrading to the human spirit.’” -Wikipedia. I am being critical of today’s growing Queen For A Day philosophy. Queen For a Day was all about rewarding being down and out, and made that into a contest, celebrating the woman who best convinced the audience to respond to her situation and drama with the most raucous applause.

Applause? Yes, applause. Tales of tough times and crying were rewarded with applause, prizes and a major feel-good celebration. QFA did not even mention job training or any form of self-reliance. None of the prizes had anything to do with a daycare award if the lady needed that to go to work. And nothing was ever anyone’s fault; they were a parade of victims, each hoping to be seen as the biggest victim. The final cruelty was playing the graduation song for the winner as she donned a robe and a...

View Details

Black Lives Matter, “My Fair Lady” and Sports: Meh (EP. 261)

Introduction

People watch movies and watch or attend professional sports events for much the same reasons. They want to be entertained by the best in the business, and to live in a world for 3 hours or so where they are lifted out of the mundane, and can be immersed in a world where COVID, politics and finances are forgotten. Refreshed after the exciting event, they are better prepared to face the issues in front of them.

As sports continue to insert politics more broadly and deeply into their events, they are depriving their fans of a big part of what they came for: temporary refuge and peace.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

I am not boycotting any sports, nor am I encouraging anyone else to boycott. Boycott “Transitive verb: to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with a person, a store, an organization, etc., usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions…”. I am not boycotting, and I am also not watching much anymore. This is not a comment about Colin Kaepernick or the BLM movement; I have shared those thoughts in other episodes, and may very well do that again–but not here. I don’t want to watch movies or sports that push any agendas, whether I strongly support, strongly disagree with, or simply don’t care one way or the other about the agendas. I would not watch the Super Bowl, or game seven of the World Series or the NBA Championships, if that game was set on pushing BLM, Rush Limbaugh or Mother Theresa.

A boycott implies that the potential customer is refusing to buy something that he would normally purchase, but certain principles bar him from buying what he would like to have. And boycotters love to evangelize, encouraging others to join the boycott. Professional sports are changing in a way that they are no longer delivering a product that meets my overall entertainment needs. That’s not a boycott; that’s disinterest. And I am not trying to encourage others to be disinterested with me. But if you are experiencing the same decline in interest as am I, yet feeling odd about what feels like a boycott, this episode might give you clarity and calm about your feelings. Here’s an example from my own history. I used to shop regularly at Sears. Over the years I bought many tools and appliances from them. I even bought the original Nintendo Gameboy from Sears, using it to play Tetris. Long before Sears started to fade, I stopped buying from them. I was not boycotting; they stopped offering what I wanted, so I just stopped buying there from lack of interest. Like my current lack of interest in professional sports.

My wife, Marcia, and I enjoy watching movies together at home a few times a week, alternating who gets to choose the film. Her recent choice was the masterful musical, “My Fair Lady,” winner of six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor and Actress. Before the movie started, both of us verbalized our eager anticipation, emphasizing that for the next 3 hours, well 2 hours and 50 minutes, we were not going to think about COVID, political arm wrestling, riots, the economy or anything at all unpleasant. If we were informed that since our last viewing of “Lady”, that political agendas had been added, we would not have selected that movie. We would not have wanted to see costumes and sets altered to reflect the chosen agenda. We would not have wanted to see the actors being interviewed, supporting the added agenda. We wanted to, and did, thoroughly enjoy the unaltered masterpiece. And, as with many sports, if most musicals were altered to feature an agenda, we would likely lose our taste for musicals in general. Remember: this is not about a particular agenda; we would not respond well no matter what the added agenda might be. Here is another related story from my personal experience. Some years ago we were attending a...

View Details

Introduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LeBron_James (LeBron James) is one of the best basketball players of all time; some make the credible case that he is the very best. The GOAT; the Greatest Of All Time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rand_Paul (Rand Paul) is a US Senator and physician. As an ophthalmologist, Dr. Paul established his own clinic in 2007. Now in his second term as a Senator, many look to him as a leader in Libertarian and general political thought.

Both are beyond expert in their fields. When I want expert advice, I go to an expert.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

I enjoy having talks about this and that with friends and acquaintances. When I am in conversation with my friend who is an expert about all things Porsche, I listen very carefully, ready to implement any of his advice and thoughts that apply to my current driving needs. And I will file everything else away for future use. He has made a successful career knowing about Porsches, being an instructor at their main driving school, and learning the ins and outs, including the tech specs and the useful upgrades on all years and models. When I listen to the same friend hold forth on politics, I am happy to hear his thoughts, but now I am listening more for entertainment than to learn from an expert.

Pause for a key truth. Subjects like politics and finance are complex, demanding in-depth study and application over the years in order for anyone to be considered knowledgeable. To go further and be seen as an expert, one would need to have demonstrated knowledge and success over time, separating oneself from the crowd with superior logic and demonstrable successes. I have experienced this throughout my decades in business. The very same people who would not jump into the nitty gritty of technical or financial issues, loved to pounce on sales and marketing issues as if they actually knew what they were talking about. They did not recognize that sales and marketing successes were just as grounded in specialized education, training and experience as were technical and financial successes.

Okay, Will, aren’t you about to say that we should not listen to LeBron James when he talks about politics? It is fine to listen to Mr. James when he talks about political issues, and we need to remember that we are listening to his feelings and personal opinions. Both are real and valid, and should be respected. Just as we might want listen to Mr. Paul if he decided to hold forth on the future of man-to-man defenses in the NBA. It might be fun, but we would be well advised to remember that we are not listening to an expert; we are listening to a non-expert’s feelings and personal opinions.

Let’s try another example. If your doctor tells you that you need to add supplemental vitamin D to your diet, you know that you are getting good advice from an expert who has the correct facts in hand, and the knowledge required to apply those facts in your life to your advantage. If the same doctor was holding forth on, say, cars or politics, without establishing solid credentials in either field, you might enjoy the conversation, but not take the advice to heart in the same way as her thoughts on your health.

Today’s Key Point. If we are following the advice of experts in one field when they hold forth on other subjects, we make four key mistakes:

We are incorrectly imputing their known expertise in their profession to other areas where they are making their feelings and personal opinions known.

We make the silly assumption that because they are famous due to their success in one field, they know what they are talking about in areas that did not have anything to do with making them well known.

We dismiss the outside-of-their-expertise subject as not needing in-depth study and experience for the speaker to be taken seriously.

We confuse feelings and personal opinions with in-depth expertise and successes in the...

View Details

Introduction

The overwhelming tendency is to allocate 100% of the fault to one entity or the other. That agenda-driven process is almost never either useful or accurate.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

“Bring the guilty bastard in, and we’ll give him a fair trial.” I overheard the senior officer on a three officer court-martial board say that to the other two officers in the hallway just prior to entering the room where the trial was about to begin. The accused was found guilty.

As soon as news of a black being shot by the police is released, there are often one of two typical knee-jerk reactions:

“If he had not resisted, he would still be alive.” or

He is black; that is why he is dead.”

And here is an interesting, all too common approach, “I demand an instant investigation, ending in the immediate firing of the officers involved, followed by murder chargers.” That is today’s version of, “Bring the guilty bastard in, and we’ll give him a fair trial.’

In the highly interconnected world that we all live in together, blame and credit lie everywhere. There are almost no instances where either blame or credit are correctly assigned to one party or the other. Marriage. Business transactions. Sports controversies. Political dustups. Wars. And when cops kill blacks.

Reforms in how we police ourselves are needed, and needed now. Yes, how we police ourselves; after all, the police work for those whom we elect. Reforms are also needed in education at all levels, and politics in ethics, term limits, campaign funding, how our military responds to threats, infrastructure, etc. I am not saying this to make the need for police reform seem trivial, but to point out that we need reforms everywhere.

Let’s lay out some helpful truths:

We need to understand the difference between intelligent, necessary profiling and racism. For example, intelligent profiling dictates that if you are looking for an armed man who is stealing opiates from drug stores, you would not start looking at nursing homes, or FB groups that advocate for more gun control. Racist profiling starts with the conviction that a black dude did it. There is also an important difference between racial and racist, and that distinction can apply to profiling. Intelligent racial profiling would lead you to believe that if you chased a suspect running away from his home in a virtually all-black neighborhood into a latino secion of town, that you would announce the suspect on the run is likely black. An example of racist profiling comes when the assumption is that the suspect had to be black, because that is what blacks do.

Police departments are not systematically racist. Yes, there is racism in some police departments, but it is far from systemic. There were 10M arrests made in 2019; if 10,000 of those were based on racist motives, that would still be only 1%–hardly systemic. And most people, even activists, cannot name 10 instances where racism was suspected or proved in an arrest. Likely not even 15 with a Google search.

Now, let’s get to the discussion of who is responsible for what. Police are responsible for being well trained, treating civilians with respect when appropriate, and using the lowest level of force needed to deal with a situation while still protecting themselves, other officers and bystanders. They cannot be held responsible for not always doing everything correctly, especially when what is correct is defined in hindsight. Tens of thousands of patients die every year because doctors do not always do everything correctly. But 99% of them did their best. That is true of cops as well. And aggressive legal action must be taken in both professions with the 1% of the bad news doctors and cops.

“Follow the order, then do something about it later.” That was the good advice I received in the Army. If you thought an order was stupid or wasteful, do it anyway, then deal with it later. Applied...

View Details

Introduction

Diversity and inclusiveness are two concepts, goals, really, that are much in the news. Where is our desire for diversity and inclusion in the news and opinions that we seek out?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Cronkite (Walter Cronkite) was an American broadcast journalist who served as anchorman for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_Evening_News (CBS Evening News) for 19 years (1962–1981). During the 1960s and 1970s, he was often cited as “the most trusted man in America” after being so named in an opinion poll. Many people preferred to get their news from CBS because they liked Walter, but you could go to NBC or ABC, CBS’ rivals, and get the same information. Only the personalities were different.

Here are the news and opinion sources that I consult on a weekly basis, often all of them daily:

CNN

FOX

MSNBC

Wall Street Journal

Rush Limbaugh

Smerconish.com

Ben Shapiro

Quillette

National Review

Colorado Springs Gazette

BBC

Many columnists of all political stripes

“Well, Will, we can at least trust science, yes? After all, if scientists had studied that elephant, we would know that it was an elephant.” In school we were taught that...

View Details

Introduction

Revolution 2.0™ does not support the various get out the vote campaigns. Here we encourage only the get out the deeply well researched and thought through get out the vote campaigns. To be completely honest, I don’t want the casual, mostly disinterested voter participating. No, I do not want to change the law; I want to change behavior.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

One of the eternal truths in politics, is that the less well informed voter, the casual voter, including those who are so disinterested that they cannot stir themselves to register and go vote every two to four years, will support the party that promises them the most, for the least effort in return.

It takes an average of about 30 minutes a year to:

Keep your voter information current.

Go vote, or

Vote the mail-in ballot sent to your correct address, and addressed to you as a registered, active voter.

If someone is not willing to do that, how likely are they to do more than bumper sticker research, go deeper than accepting cliches as thinking, and do more than seeking out only the news outlets and people who are preaching what they already believe?

A casual approach to anything has a strong tendency to lead to the easiest way to be given the most that you can get. Anyone, including voters, needs to be willing to engage in deep shovel research and thinking before they will even consider solutions, including political philosophies, that will demand hard work from them after the voting is over. Decades ago I was still too young to vote, but was old enough to be aware of the election process. Back then, absentee ballots were allowed only for those who could prove they were unable to vote in person. You needed to supply evidence that you were sick, out of town, or otherwise physically unable to get to your polling station. I remember hearing announcements like this on the radio (yes, radio):

“The votes are in, showing a tight race. The absentee ballots have yet to be counted, and they always break heavily toward the Republicans.” Or,

“The weather is unexpectedly bad tonight; that will favor the Republicans by depressing the Democratic vote.”

I did not know why that was true way back then, but I do now. The Republican philosophy has always leaned more toward dependence on personal actions and personal responsibility, while the Democrats lean more toward the government being responsible for things like our personal standard of living. And that belief in prioritizing personal responsibility gave the Republicans motivation to vote even when it was somewhat less convenient.

Pause for a comment about the current dustup over mail-in balloting and alleged hanky panky between the White House and the USPS. It is quite possible that shotgun ballot mailings, including unsolicited mass mailings to unmaintained voter lists, as a way of extending the voting franchise, will result in voter fraud. It is also possible that the USPS, beset each year with losses in the billions of dollars and hamstrung by layers of regulations and powerful unions, isn’t the best vehicle to expand the franchise to millions of casual and disinterested voters. This is not an episode about voter fraud. The point in this episode is that I do not want to encourage voting by the casual and barely interested voter in the first place, separate from any possibility of fraud.

But the Democrats do. They know what I know, what we both now know: The more casual, yes, even disinterested the voter is, the more likely they will be to vote Democrat. There are millions of careful, deeply thoughtful voters who vote consistently for the Democratic ticket. And I admire them for the careful, comparative research they perform before exercising their voting rights. I have no admiration, instead I have a deep disregard for anyone or any party who wants to expand our precious voting franchise to people who otherwise cannot be bothered to

View Details

Introduction

The role of VP on a presidential ticket is usually unimportant; ticket balancing and vote getting are the main selection criteria. Not since Harry Truman replaced Vice President Henry Wallace on the Democratic ticket in 1944 has a VP pick been so consequential. Truman was Vice President for only 82 days before he became President when Franklin Roosevelt died on April 12th, 1945. If the Democrats win in November, how long will it be before Senator Harris becomes the President? Knowing how close VP Candidate Karris is to being the President of the United States, was she chosen for the right reasons?That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Thant is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

If a major corporation is looking to hire a key Senior Vice President, the obvious heir apparent to the soon-to-retire President, this is not the hire where any success-seeking business would think about ethnicity or gender; the laser like focus would be on who is the best person to lead the company to maximum success for the next several years. Note that I said “best”, not simply “qualified.” If you are hiring droves of entry level workers for a rapidly growing business, then looking for merely qualified workers may be sufficient. You can let these hires sort themselves out over time, promoting those who stand out, keeping the ones who simply do their jobs, and getting rid of the ones who are substandard. When hiring for more senior positions, you are looking for the best candidate, not just someone who can hold down the position, doing a satisfactory job with few successes but no outrageous failures.

Let’s bring this issue closer to home. If you are looking to hire a contractor to do a complete remodel of your kitchen, are immutable traits like race and gender your first priorities? Of course not. You would focus on finding someone with the experience and references that would convince you this contractor would be the best one to rip apart your kitchen, and rebuild it in exactly the way that you want. And somewhat close to on time, and on budget. If this person was also, say, Irish or female, that might be a fun bonus, perhaps even a tie breaker, but not for a second would these types of characteristics be part of the selection criteria. Why would our reasoning be anything different when hiring the President of the United States?

From those who support Harris’ selection, the praise is centered on her being Indo-Black and female. Are we nominating someone for a movie role, seeking an enthic and gender fit with the character? Are we indulging in an affirmative action hiring process while dealing with the most important job on the planet? Do we want some other form of social justice driving the selection of the most powerful person on earth? My take is even more troubling than that. Most voters want–demand–what is best for themselves, and everyone else can go fish. And if they can stick it to the other party at the same time, all the better. Some reverse this, with sticking it to the other guys as the priority, and getting what they want for themselves as second. And they don’t care who gives it to them. They will vote for whomever promises them more of what they want, and that is all the “experience and competence” they need to see before making their choice.

Kamala Harris is not even close to being the best VP candidate in the Democratic Party; likely not even in the top half. And the Democrats themselves agreed with this assessment with their declining support for her in the Democratic presidential sweepstakes. Harris started strong, but when the debates began and people actually saw and heard what she had to say, her support all but disappeared. Biden cannot possibly be the best candidate for President the Dems have, and I remain firm in my position that Donald Trump is not the best man the Republicans have to offer. Mike Pence is likely the best of the bunch, and the...

View Details

Introduction

Here are a few examples of intentionally misleading–and dangerous–doubletalk:

Defund The Police

Black Lives Matter

Me Too

Antifa

Mostly Peaceful

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Key Point: The groups and political forces using intentionally misleading doubletalk are cynically looking to appeal to groups that have different thoughts about each of these slogans. They will speak out of different parts of their mouths depending upon which group they are addressing. They keep the different interest groups supporting them with the various topics and agendas, while expressing false amazement at how any interpretation of the slogan, save the one they are putting forward at that moment, could be believed by any non neanderthal. Let’s look at these examples.

Defund the police: The word “defund” has never before been open to interpretation. Let’s get some help from the dictionary. “De·fund /dēˈfənd/ Verb, gerund or present participle: defunding. “prevent from continuing to receive funds.” I think we all know what the word means, but here we have confirmation, “prevent from continuing to receive funds.” Those using the term want to rally support from groups who want to completely abolish the police to those who want to reduce funding by, say, 10%, and those who want to keep the overall funding level the same, but send civilians, non sworn personnel, on calls that may, for example, involve mental health issues. They will say different things at different times in different places to the different interest groups. As they will when questioned by critics. “What will this city be like when you take all of law enforcement’s money away by defunding the police? Won’t the criminals be even more bold?” “What? Who is talking about that? We simply want to refocus some of the funds more intelligently.” Ask these very same people how they would react to demands to “Defund Planned Parenthood” or “Defund Public Broadcasting.” They would know, correctly, that the call is clearly to completely remove taxpayer funding.

Let’s deal with what “Black Lives Matter” means. Does it mean that:

Reparations are mandatory, and long overdue?

Affirmative Action and race preferences in hiring, promotion, awards, academics, business and home ownership, etc., must be enforced?

Black lives matter differently because of how many have been treated; racist treatment that while perhaps falling short of physical harm needs to be acknowledged and dealt with?

America is deeply racist, racist to its systemic core, and must be torn down and rebuilt along different lines with different rules and principles?

It means all of the above, and the BLM leaders are targeting the different messages to the different interest groups. To the many of the people still resonating, as I am, to the seemingly indifferent murder of George Floyd, the appeal is to reduce the incidents of racism, from the simply irritating to the murderous. When they can get away with it, the BLM claim expands from observing, correctly, that racism exists in systems to the claim that there is systemic racism. And then expand the claim to hold that America itself is systemically racist. Systemic, by the way, means that something pervades the entire system. For example, if you take a pain pill because of discomfort in your knee, the pill affects your entire body; it cannot contain itself to just your knee. Simple statistics would prove there is no systemic racism in law enforcement. Of the 10M arrests each year, if 10K of them were shown to be based on racism, that would add up to only 1%. And most people could not come up with the names of 10 victims of alleged racist arrests or incidents of racist cop violence without a Google search. We have sufficient anecdotal evidence that we must have police reform, including different and better training, and likely different hiring practices. And we have statistical...

View Details

Introduction

It only takes a moment to realize that 2020 is not about Trump v Biden.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Before we go any further with each other today, allow me to tell you where I sit, before I tell you where I stand. In 2016, Trump was my 18th choice among the 17 Republican candidates for the nomination. Then the Dems nominated Hillary Clinton; what was this registered Unaffiliated voter to do? When I expressed my view at the time that the choice was between a known lifelong criminal and a possibly dangerous buffon, I infuriated everyone. I was being honest, and paid the price for it. And here I go again.

The upcoming election is between Trump and the Progresive wing of the Democratic party; Biden is just a placeholder. This election has nothing to do with small v big government, fiscal responsibility v soaring deficits, or conflicting foreign policies. With Biden in his basement, it looked like it was going to come down to Trump v Trump, with the Democrats betting that Biden’s verbal stumbles were going to be overlooked in the face of Trump’s Tweets and flights of factual fancy. And it looked like the Dems were winning.

But in what might be a repeat of 2016, the Dems might be snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Biden in the Basement might very well beat Trump on the Stump. But can AOC and Bernie, with a side of Pelosi, beat Trump? Throw in the mayors of Portland and Seattle, and any government entity that does not denounce and defeat politically-based or simply criminal violence in their areas on the side with AOC, Bernie and Pelosi. That’s the actual contest. Until recently, the Progressive wing of the Democratic party stood for new expenditures for free education, healthcare and housing, different approaches to a Universal Basic Income, worker involvement on corporate boards, and climate change changes, all paid for by some combination of increased taxes and higher annual borrowing. Now that wing is adding defunding the police, and having them stand down in the face of clear, damaging and repeated violence against people and property. And this inexcusable violence is increasing at an alarming rate.

We all remember the Democratic debates, where it seemed that Biden, a pale second coming of Obama, won the nomination because he was not on the left of the already left-of-center party. Sure, he tilted a little in the direction of the Progressives then, but all of those in the know were sure that he would lean back towards the center after he won the nomination. Not so much. Biden is in part changing his rhetoric, tilting ever leftward, and in larger part being painted with the progressive brush that is coloring much of the Democratic party as being sympathetic to, if not in cahoots with, Antifa and Antifa-like tactics, and the Marxist core of the Black Lives Matter movement. The party where its chosen Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler, said that claims of Antifa violence in Portland are a “myth.” That party. With apologies to James Carville, when physical safety is at stake, it is no longer about, “The economy, stupid.”

Gun sales are soaring, especially among first-time buyers. With disproportionate sales to Blacks. Why? (Answer coming.) Talks shows, letters to the editor, and personal conversations are being laced with concern about physical safety. Claims that the protests are “mostly peaceful” are falling on deaf ears as we are being shown photos of looted businesses and burning government offices. We are beginning to resent being told that after two months of violence in, for example, Portland, that federal “Stormtroopers” (Nancy Pelosi’s word) are the cause. At the end of June, the Minneapolis City Council voted unanimously to “defund” the city’s police. Not surprisingly, crime is on the rise. That’s a reason why people are buying guns.

During the Vietnam War protests, one of the rallying cries was, “Bring the war home.” The

View Details

Introduction

The cure is education, encouragement, and one-on-one love, assistance and belief.

Giveaways in any form, including reparations, loan forgiveness, unearned certifications, above market pay and below market goods services may look attractive in the short term. They are really cruel teases, doomed to leave the recipient angry and feeling some combination of having been cheated and remaining entitled to more. Like a huge meal of junk food, these measures leave you temporarily satisfied, but soon to be hungry again–and devoid of the needed building blocks to grow smarter and stronger.

That is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

But Will, what about making things fair with income and wealth redistribution? My claim, my conviction, is that if somehow, by waving a Marxist magic wand, we could suddenly make everyone’s current income and total wealth exactly the same; everyone has the same paycheck, same value in homes and cars, and the same amount of money in the bank, nothing fundamentally would change. Within 10 short years, everything would be right back to where we started, with the same people being at the top and the bottom of both the current income and overall wealth charts. And the same activists would be pointing to the inequalities in income and wealth, still demanding “justice.” When challenged about why this total redistribution plan had not worked, the not surprising answer would be, “It was not done the correct way.” And they would be right, but for the wrong reason.

Pause for a call for volunteers: Curing the increasing income and wealth gap is primarily a task done by us as individuals, one-on-one with others. Asking government, at any level, local, state or federal, to do that for us is a cop out. The keys to income and wealth are:

Valuing a useful education and being willing to work hard over time.

Respect for legitimate authority, and

Knowing the basics of handling money.

The above cannot be taught by city councils, state legislatures, or Congress.

Okay, Will what are the keys to knowing how to handle money?

Spend less than you earn.

Earn more than you spend (yes, those are different).

Practice delayed gratification.

Listen to Albert Einstein when he said that compound interest is the 8th Wonder of the World.

Of course we need to teach our children these basics. And model that behavior for them. But what happens if other children are not taught these vital lessons? Or worse, are taught destructively opposite behavior? It is still our responsibility. Governments cannot teach how to live well, and encourage these kids to do exactly that, so who is left? We are. And if we don’t do it, it ain’t gonna happen.

In addition to teaching and encouraging our up and coming generations about how to live well, they must be taught and encouraged about why to do the hard work that leads to living well–the motivation part. Let’s take another look at the partial lesson from the “Give a man a fish” example. Most of us have heard the piece of wisdom pointing out that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach that man to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime. Well, not so fast. In order for someone to want to fish for themselves, buying and maintaining the tackle, sometimes going out in the cold and rain, and occasionally spending most of the day trying hard, and coming back with nothing, they must be motivated. Without motivation, they will still want the free fish. Now, let’s add one more level to using fishing as a metaphor for feeding humanity. Teach a man to teach others to fish, and how to motivate them, and you feed a nation. Governments cannot do any of this; only we, you and I, can.

But, don’t the individuals have responsibility for themselves? What happened to personal responsibility? Nothing happened; personal responsibility is alive and well. But that is only 75% of what is required. The other 75% is being...

View Details

Introduction

“The road of life is filled with flat squirrels that refused to make a decision.” -Unknown

“The Silent Majority must stop being silent, or it will no longer be the majority.” -Will Luden

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

It is time to stop the wedding, the marriage of our government, our money, and our futures with the call for:

Defunding the police.

Severely limiting free speech.

Medicare for All, along with free education and housing for all.

Open borders combined with a welfare state.

Believing that America as conceived and founded is inherently and irredeemably evil rather than flawed but inherently good with the progress to prove it.

The destructive belief that government, not the individual, is the first place to turn to make ourselves, our communities and the world better.

And so very much more.

If there is a Silent Majority, and I believe there is, it is time for those in that majority to speak up and act up. Make a difference. Get educated about what is going on. You need to know what might happen if you stay silent, quietly waiting to vote in November, believing that is all you need to do to be effective. If that is what you do, stay silent and wait to vote believing that fulfills your responsibility, the game will be well and truly over before you even suit up. You will run onto the field, only to hear the referee blow the double whistle signifying the end of the game.

This applies to the Silent Majority of liberal Democrats who are standing by while their party is snatched away from them by Progressives, led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,

AOC, a New York City Representative in Congress. AOC is registered as a Democrat, and describes herself as a Democratic Socialist. Here are only a few of the changes that AOC’s party, the Democratic Socialists, demand. The https://www.socialists.nyc/ (NYC Democratic Socialist) site demands: End The Carceral State; decriminalize most actions, and let people out of prison. Free housing and education for everyone. Open borders. Worker control over the economy. Go to the site and see for yourself; you will not believe me.

This applies to the Silent Majority of voters who are watching as our country is torn apart by forces on the rapidly growing edges of the political spectrum. If you do not like what has been happening when the protests get violent later at night, with vandalism, looting, burning and physical harm–even killings, what are you doing about it? Especially–but not only–if you live in Portland, Seattle, Denver, Minneapolis–and other places. How long is either Silent Majority going to let those who claim to represent us and have our best interests at heart fight like spoiled children, while their clear focus is to get reelected time and again and to seize more power in the process? Yes, there is a swamp in DC, and it includes both parties. You want a place to start with what we should be expecting, and, yes, demanding? Start right here: 1. Term limits. An absolute must. 2. Any law passed by Congress must apply equally to them–and everyone in government. You want Medicare for All? Okay, then truly make it apply to “all”. Get rid of the separate and better healthcare insurance for government workers, and the even more lavish healthcare enjoyed by Congress.

And are you as tired, embarrassed, frustrated and, well, as angry as I am that all of us have to dismiss deep and dysfunctional flaws in both major parties and their candidates in order to vote for our preferred set of principles? Rational voters on both sides are openly dismissing their preferred candidate’s serious defects in order to get the “right” Supreme Court nominees, and the policies they prefer. When Bill Clinton got caught in a huge lie by a semen-stained dress, the Democrats said that character did not matter in a President, and the Republicans claimed that it did. In 2016, things were completely...

View Details

Introduction

I am not trying to paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when he famously said, “I have a dream.” I had a dream that came to me while sleeping, a dream that rocked me to my core.

“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 18:1-5

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The meaningful part of my dream starts with me sitting on the ground outside of a church resting against a pillar. I wasn’t thinking about much of anything when a pleasant looking man, about 35 or so, walks up and asks, “Do you mind if I sit with you?” “No” I replied, moving around on the pillar a bit to make room. As we start talking about this and that, the opening chit chat that starts many conversations with friendly strangers, I notice that he is more than pleasant. Even though he is looking away as we spoke, there is something like a glow that seems to fill his personal space and the space around him. We must have gotten to the part where we started talking about our professions, because I remember telling him that I was a podcaster, and that I was involved in the technical aspects of selecting and working to understand new software, and the intellectual aspects of working harder and smarter to understand the political and financial world around me, and to improve my skills, hone my craft, when it came to expressing the truth in a memorable and persuasive way. That caused him to look my way with the beginnings of a smile on his face. But the glow increased, and increased far more than a slight smile might explain. In the moment that I was talking to him about my intellectual pursuits to strengthen the quality and influence of my podcasts, I stopped and surprised myself by saying, “I have the wrong main focus, instead of my priority being getting better intellectually, I need to be a better person, a better Christian, and make that the focus of my podcasting ambitions.” He looked away, with the glow again increasing in intensity, and said, “There’s another one the devil will not get.” I surprised myself again when I said, “I cannot be a good Christian with intellectual pursuits as my main focus.

He turned to look directly at me, seeming to penetrate me with his eyes, with the glow increasing in intensity yet again, a glow that was at once joyful and comforting. With his face a foot or so from mine. With warmth, intensity and expectation he asked, “Do you know why?” “Yes” I said, finding the words as I spoke them, “Because if I focus on my mind, my intellect, I can never come to Him as a child, as He has said I must. He seemed to come closer, his smile increasing as the glow grew and filled the entire world of my dream, suffusing every cubic inch, every molecule, with warmth and light.

And the dream ended, right then and there. He did not have any final words, but I could see that he was well pleased with my answer. And a new focus for my life, including my professional life as a podcaster, began.

None of this should be taken to mean that I place little value on intellectual pursuits, in my life overall, and with Revolution 2.0™ in particular. Head and heart are both vital, in the same way that an intensive search for facts and listening to your gut are both valuable. Intellect and instinct. How do you balance the two? Well 75%/75% seems about right. (Those of you who follow Revolution 2.0 know that I do not see the world as needing to add up to 100% all of the time.) Depending on what you are thinking about, and where you are in the process, one or the other may appropriately be emphasized, but you put yourself at risk if you do not give full attention to both before coming to a decision and taking action.

Many religions appeal to both the head and the heart. Christian teaching has it that Christ sent the Holy Spirit to...

View Details

Introduction

Cancelling and other forms of suppressing free speech, pushing for the President to be elected by the popular vote, and the move to end the filibuster in the US Senate are all examples of the belief that Might is Right. This is the belief that those with more votes, with the bigger guns, with the willingness to be more violent than their opposition, are automatically in the right.

But when the tables get turned, and they always do, these very same people, facing Might on the other side, will abandon their Might is Right stance, and then claim that Might is Oppression.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

This process usually starts out with protesters claiming that those in power are oppressing them and others: Might is Oppression. Cries of “Fascist” and “Nazi” will screech from the mouths of those who cannot accurately define either term, and certainly have no useful or accurate knowledge of the history of either philosophy. Should those protesting against the current system gain power, they will quickly switch to a Might is Right stance. The double irony is that they use the very tactics they cried out against in order to put themselves in power, then double down on these Might is Right tactics and thinking to stay in power.

Another way to claim that might is right is by declaring, “By any means necessary.” Haven’t we heard radical groups state their goals, then declare they will achieve those goals by any means necessary. Out of curiosity, I wonder how many of the by any means necessary proponents did or would have railed against waterboarding, the enhanced interrogation technique used to extract needed information from terrorists.

The Seattle Chief of Police, Carmen Best, threw in the towel when it comes to protecting property. Citing the City Council’s decision to prohibit the use of, “…less lethal tools, including pepper spray…”, she observes the legislation, “…gives officers NO (emphasis not added) ability to safely intercede to preserve property in the midst of a large, violent crowd.” In other words, if you live in Seattle, your business or personal property, your small business if you have one, your home, car and bicycle, anything tangible, is up for grabs. If the mob wants to either steal or destroy them, it is now official that they can do exactly that. The mob’s “might” has given it the “right” to steal and destroy. Imagine with me if the authorities in Seattle decided to confiscate the rioters’ helmets, shields, expanding batons, commercial grade fireworks and other defensive and offensive weapons, how long it would take for the mob to run crying to the ACLU for relief. All while crying out “Theft by the KKK fascists!” My guess is about five minutes. After the Chief sent her letter to the citizenry, the courts temporarily blocked the city Council’s restrictions on the police. But the radical council remains in power.

Today’s Key Point: One of the core protections guaranteed to us in America is the protection against the tyranny of the majority. That is why we have the Electoral College. The 50 United States have very different needs, wants and interests. What is best for California may be completely unwanted in, say, South Dakota. That is precisely why Wyoming and the Dakotas are entitled to the same number of Senators as California, New York and Texas. Conversely, the House of Representatives is apportioned by population, with the 435 Representatives assigned as a percentage of the total US population. Each state has electors totalling the number of its Representatives plus its 2 Senators. For example, Colorado has 9 Electors; 7 Representatives and 2 Senators. The Electoral College is designed to protect the smaller states from the popular vote tranny of the larger states. Inside each state, the popular vote picks the electors; the presidential candidate with 270 or more electoral votes wins. This is just another part of the genius of our

View Details

One Percenters–Of All Types (EP.249)

Introduction

The top 1% of income tax filers make more than $500K each year, and pay more income tax than the bottom 90%.

The bottom 1% of cops nationwide participate in causing the horrific damage that results from the murder of George Floyd and similar actions.

Most protesters are indeed peaceful, but the 1% who are not are causing untold damage to people, their neighborhoods, the economy–and inviting civil war.

If we are going to talk about one percenters, let’s talk about all of them.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

It seems that belonging to the top 1% is no longer a compliment, but an accusation, as in “How dare you cheat the other 99%?” The 1% referred to here are the top income earners; let’s remember that they pay more in income tax than the bottom 90% of all earners. This is not a “fair share” episode, but it is asking the question in passing, how much more would it take for them to be paying their fair share?

If the top 1% earners are cheating the bottom 99%, then are sports Hall of Famers cheating those who were not selected? Less than 1% of those who played in the NFL are in the NFL Hall of Fame. Did they somehow cheat or disadvantage the 99 of players who were not elected? And before you tell me that the top earners had unfair advantages like a head start or family connections, including inheritance, let me point out that 80% of all American millionaires are self made. And look at the families where multiple siblings and multiple generations in the same family played professional football at a high level. That is clearly a combination of genetics and at-home teaching and encouragement, along with the examples and expectation of extended family, coaches and teachers, and friends.

We are expanding the look at the 1%ers in this episode, observing there are 1%ers in every group–both at the top and at the bottom. Some people are in the top 1% because they worked hard and smart over time; others are at the bottom because they did the opposite, failing and choosing the wrong path to start with.

According to Wikipedia, less than 1% (there’s that number again) of the US population is in prison. This has nothing to do with genetics, and everything to do with the level and type of at-home teaching and encouragement, along with the examples and expectation of extended family, coaches and teachers, and friends. Said simply, most of us will live up to or down to the expectations that are set for us, and the examples we see in our home, in school and with our friends, and with those who are held up as examples of success to us.

Among Law Enforcement Officers, LEOs, the statistics we all see show that no more than 1% of them commit crimes against citizens that show them to be racist, sexist, or simply power-mad and angry. As a quick sniff test, what percentage of the arrests are comprised of incidents like the George Floyd murder? Can you name more than 100, even with a Google search? Given that there are more than 10M arrests each year in the US, you’d need 10,000 George Floyds to get to 1%.

Now let’s look at the “mostly peaceful demonstrators.” To start off with, I agree that protesters over time, including the recent vastly increased wave of protesters, are mostly peaceful. But how much comfort can we take from that observation? For example, if your doctor said to you, “Good news. Your body is mostly free of cancer.” Or, “Good news, you tires are mostly not flat.” That would not be good news to me.

In a protest crowd of 2,000, if only 1% of the protesters were violent, that would mean that 20 people were out there looting, burning and doing things like occupying neighborhoods and police stations. It does not take many with torches, incendiaries and iron bars to do horrific damage. Especially when the police are told to stand down–and stand down for days and weeks.

Ah, now to Antifa, the “heroes” who...

View Details

Introduction

When I take a “Red” position, e.g., advocating personal responsibility or standing up for fiscal discipline, the Red people see me as a 100% ally, and are appalled when I advocate for something they have put in the “Blue” handbook. Conversely, when I push something from the Blue book, e.g., face masks when in close public contact, the Blue people see me as a 100% ally and are appalled when I take a Red position on a topic like school choice.

The above examples represent dangerous groupthink on both sides.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Yes, Revolution 2.0™ is not all red, not all blue, but still not at all purple. Purple implies a simple compromise, like you want to spend $40 on our dinner date, I want to spend $20, so we compromise at $30. That’s a meet in the middle compromise. Revolution 2.0 is based on seeking and fulfilling common goals, not compromise for the sake of compromise. And a state, perhaps Colorado, is described as purple if about half of the voters cast their ballots one way, and the other half the opposite way. Both halves may be rigid in how they follow their party’s norms and dictates, but the state is still described as purple.

I describe myself as a man seeking common goals. (How’s that for a party name?) I am registered as Unaffiliated in CO; there are more of those than either Republicans or Democrats here. Don’t most of us share the same common, bedrock goals? I don’t mean desires that many share like wanting this party or this candidate to win (or the other party or person to lose), I mean the core, meaningful, underlying goals that most of us share. Find the common ground (yes, it exists), add facts (use the courtroom standards for admissible evidence here), then apply non agenda-based reasoning. It works. And if the discussion falls off track, go back to the common goals–the touchstone–to get back on track. Back to bedrock.

Let’s look at a few examples together:

Poverty Goal: Getting people out of poverty and into comfort in a way that they can sooner rather than later stay there on their own. And providing lifetime support for those who can’t provide for themselves.

Race Goal: Achieving racial harmony and overall success. Not by using race to support any particular ideology, and not by being afraid of being politically incorrect. We can get there–together–only by recognizing the strengths, and, yes, and weaknesses, of each ethnicity. It will take great courage in today’s political climate to speak this necessary truth.

Gender harmony and overall success Goal: Pause for the truth. Men and women are not the same. And races are different. And herein lies enormous power. We can lean on and benefit greatly from the various strengths of the races and genders, using those positives to shore up the accompanying weaknesses. Learn from each other. Depend on each other’s strengths. In this way, the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. 1 + 1 + 1 = 15–or more. But only in this way. If we defy part of the fundamental genius of God and nature and insist that all ethnicities and both genders are the same, the whole–all of us–can never be more than, well, a collection of people with much the same to offer. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3–at best.

Abortion/Pro Life/Pro Choice Goal: Given that all of us are truly pro life and pro choice in the original and powerful definitions of the concepts of life and choice, how then do we have an...

View Details

Introduction

“The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.” -Joseph Stalin, Russian dictator.

We grieve and want to make needed changes when a Black man like George Floyd is killed, suffering for long minutes right before our eyes while law enforcement officers seem to be either unconcerned or intentionally cruel. And we are right to do that. But we seem unconcerned when Blacks are shot and killed in the thousands by other Blacks on a regular basis.

The dictator seems to have a point.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s topic is going to be at least as controversial as abortion, which Revolution 2.0™ has tackled more than once. Let’s start with what “Black Lives Matter” means. Does it mean that:

Black lives matter as much as any other lives?

Black lives matter more than other lives?

All Black lives matter?

Black lives matter differently because of how many have been treated; racist treatment that while perhaps falling short of physical harm needs to be acknowledged and dealt with?

Or perhaps something else?

I will begin my answer with the belief that the motto is intentionally vague. If the slogan was not intentionally left up to interpretation, why is there not more of a clear definition? If anyone claims that All Lives Matter or that Blue Lives Matter, they are slammed unmercifully, and risk losing their jobs or worse. Why? How on earth could it be that saying that All Lives Matter can in any way be controversial, much less cause such violent verbal and

physical reactions? Don’t all lives matter? The only rational explanation is that since racism does exist on a declining individual and group basis, that Black lives matter differently because they are the only group that has faced such deep-seated discrimination for so long, and we must complete the fix. I get that, and I agree. But there seems to be something more going on here–much more.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) as an organization wants us to believe and act on this explanation, while using the energy and momentum of the good people who accept that motivation to achieve deeper and far less noble goals. The founders, Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi, are all avowed Marxists. This episode will not debate capitalism vs communism, but I will repeat what I have said before: Communism has destroyed far more economies and killed tens of millions of people more than both World Wars combined. BLM goals also include reparations, the end of cash bail, and defunding the police. And far, far more. And as any of their demands are met, they will immediately escalate, adding more demands.

Here’s what is written in the About section on the BLM site: “#BlackLivesMatter was founded in 2013 in response to the acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s murderer. Black Lives Matter Foundation, Inc. is a global organization in the US, UK, and Canada, whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes. By combating and countering acts of violence, creating space for Black imagination and innovation, and centering Black joy, we are winning immediate improvements in our lives.” I am sure that is the truth and nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. And to an earlier point, they are very selective in the part where they claim to be, “…combating and countering acts of violence…”

Let’s take a step back and look at the legitimate observation that Blacks, to our discredit, are often treated differently and worse than other ethnicities, including Whites. That is true, and the incidents are in decline. Here’s just one clear example of that decline. The 1939 Academy Award winning movie “Gone With The Wind” portrayed a deeply false and romanticized version of plantation life pre Civil War. Anyone who has seen that movie and knew nothing else about slavery would have come away...

View Details

Introduction

I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in Reno recently. The place was a mess due to a remodeling which included laying new tile on the main floor. A man who looked to be about 30 and Hispanic was on his hands and knees spreading adhesive prior to laying the next piece of tile. I stopped and said, “It looks good.” He turned from his work, looking up at me with a huge grin and said, “I want to make this good for everyone.” He said it in a way that I believed every syllable, because he clearly believed in what he said to me.

I can’t tell you if he was here legally or not, and I am beginning not to care. America, by its lengthy and callous inaction on immigration policy, has given up the right to criticize anyone who is here illegally. And we will continue to have forfeited the right to be incensed about illegals until we as a nation have a simple, clear and consistent immigration policy, and stop using immigration as a political football.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Whoa there, Will, have you flipped out and gone open borders on us? No, not for a second. But pause with me for a moment, and look at this man. He is happy working on his hands and knees. He is cheerful, and loves contributing. And more than likely, after a hard day of physical labor, he returns to a modest home and limited circumstances. Yet he greeted me, a stranger, someone who was staying where he was working, with a bright smile while sharing the joy in his contribution. I want more people like that. Don’t you?

The solution to the https://revolution2-0.org/inexcusable-crisis-at-our-southern-border-ep-148/ (immigration) issue in general and illegal immigration in specific is crystal clear: I have addressed it several times in previous episodes. We could have both secure national borders and a fair and equitable immigration policy–all while taking in more immigrants than we do today. But both political parties have intentionally fumbled their chances to implement the clear, understandable and effective fix.

People come across the Southern border quite easily. If caught, they are sometimes released and re-cross the same day. Visa holders overstay their allotted time with no one checking up. Many employers look the other way because they need a ready supply of workers who are willing to do unattractive work for marginal pay. Certain political groups look away because they know the majority of these people will vote their way, legally or otherwise. Can anyone fault those who sneak across looking for something–anything–better than what they had? These people are crossing a deliberately porous border, drawn by cynically attractive incentives. The employers and politicians have created what is in effect an open border policy, essentially making legal the action of crossing the border without papers–and allowing residency without any further processing. Didn’t all that just make illegal immigration legal?

The elephant in this room is the question of who wants and who does not want open borders. None of the conversations about the effectiveness of physical barriers, breaking up families, amnesty, so-called anchor babies, the cost/benefits of illegal immigration, DACA, etc, make any sense until we understand where we are on the question of open borders. Please don’t get into an immigration discussion with me until you tell me where you stand: are you for or against open borders? We want truth in advertising, how about truth in discussions and disagreements?

Let’s look at the controversy over the effectiveness of border barriers. Of course they can be highly effective; the only question is, “Do you want them to be?” The USSR proved that the Berlin Wall was painfully effective in keeping people, even those desperate for freedom, in East Germany against their will. And Israel built a wall that has all but eliminated suicide bombings by keeping their enemies out. The U.S. can do both of...

View Details

For well over 2 years, I believe I have done only one or two Encore Episodes. Creating and delivering two episodes per week, every week, is challenging, But there is a lot to share with you; part of me wishes that I could do more.

But it is time for a creative rest–with family. Last Tuesday and today I am sharing well-selected Encore Episodes. This episode was selected because I believe it does a fun job of showing how–and why–selecting sports teams to follow and root for must be a very different process than choosing and committing to more consequential beliefs, e.g., politics and finance.

Introduction

My step-father, Charles J. “Chuck” Warner, bought two season tickets to the Broncos in 1960, the first season of the old American Football League. The family shares those tickets to this day; I am a dyed-in-the-wool Broncos Fanatic.

When it comes to more substantive issues, e.g., political, religious and economic beliefs, I take a far more studied approach. And I adapt and change as new and better data are available, and as my thinking advances.

Not so with my Broncos; I am a fan(atic), loud, opinionated, and unchanging in my loyalty. My devotion to the team was an accident of history, and does not need to be earned through performance or results. Now, isn’t how I became a forever Broncos fan exactly the way so many people come by and defend their beliefs in areas that actually matter, like politics, economics and religion?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

In the early days, the Denver Broncos were a lousy team, with underfunded ownership, shaky management, and an uninspiring roster of players and coaches. They played in a Triple A baseball stadium, home of the Denver Bears. Other teams, notably the Oakland Raiders, beat them like a drum. And I, along with much of Colorado and surrounding states, embraced them with a fervor that would rival that of the fans of a Super Bowl team.

Our loyalty, devotion and enthusiasm was not something that needed to be earned through excellence on the field. Like family, we loved them because, well, the Broncos were family. Had to start a running back for a game as the QB? No problem, Go Broncos! Went 3-11 one year, with no real prospects for a big improvement the next year? No problem, Go Broncos! Sold only 2.5K season tickets for the first year? No problem, Go Broncos!

When Hall of Famer Floyd Little, star running back at Syracuse, was drafted number 6 overall by the Denver Broncos in 1967, he asked, “Denver? Where is Denver?” Then #44 put Denver on the map.

When the Broncos traded with the Colts for John Elway, the number 1 overall pick in 1983, the seeds of a championship team were sown. More seeds were sown when Pat Bowlen bought the team in 1984.

In 1977, Denver went to it’s first Super Bowl; this one against the Cowboys. Craig Morton, the Cowboys hand-me-down QB, led the Broncos against the Dallas team piloted by the legendary Roger Staubach. I sat with a group of fellow Broncos fans watching the game at the Harvest House in Boulder, Colorado. In a game that was not as close as the score, the Broncos lost 27-10. No problem, at least we beat the hated Raiders to get to the Bowl. Go Broncos!

After graduating from Harvard B-School, I went to Silicon Valley for 30 years before returning to Colorado. I paid for the NFL Sunday Ticket all those years so I could get all of the Broncos games. I would fly to Denver with my sons, Billy and Sean, and my friend Robert, to take in games in person. Now that I am back in Colorado, my youngest, Joshua, and I would take in 3-4 games each season. One time, I got to be at Mile High Stadium with two sons and a grandson. Those many games created some of the best times of my life.

This is quite the opposite of how I deal with topics like politics, religion and economics. I am constantly doing deep dives into what I think that I think I think. I completely buy into...

View Details

But it is time for a creative rest–with family. Today and Friday I will be sharing well-selected Encore Episodes. The George Floyd ‘n’ Me episode was selected because I believe it does a credible job of injecting humanity onto the aftermath of the horrendous Floyd killing.

Introduction

I grew up in suburban Philadelphia, until I was 15 and left for Colorado to live with my Mother in early 1959. I lived on the “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philadelphia_Main_Line (Main Line)” in the 1950s, where I remember an often played and frequently discussed public service spot on radio that featured the suggestion, “Take a Negro to lunch.” I was about 12, and having had almost no contact with Negroes, I thought that was a good idea. We could all start to get to know each other.

One of my favorite bits of wisdom is that behind every face there is a story. In the midst of racial upheaval in our country, America, I am going to “get naked” and share the racial part of what is behind this face.

That is the subject of today’s 15-minute episode.

Continuing

Like most of the middle class families in my lily-white area, Dad went to work and Mom was the homemaker. As was common, we had a Negro housekeeper, Elsie Kayah, who came in once a week. She kept to herself and worked hard. I thought it was pretty cool when I heard from my Stepmother, Paula, that Elsie was a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roller (Holy Roller). Dad (also William Luden) was quiet, timid, and book smart. I yearned to know him. Paula was the original Wicked Witch of the West. I yearned to get away from her. My Mom had left when I was 1, and I did not see her again for about 8 years.

Included in the discussions about the lunch with Negroes campaign, were specific issues, e.g., would you sell your home to a Negro. One day, during the height of these public discussions, I asked my Dad if he would sell our home to a Negro. I was sure I knew what his answer would be, but he responded, “No, that would reduce the property values for our friends and neighbors.” I froze. My Dad was not perfect. What should I do? Well, I just sat there in disappointed silence.

Years later, after I had moved to Colorado, my Mom, Stepfather, Chuck Warner, and I were in a restaurant in Denver where they had the 1959 Ingemar Johansson/Floyd Patterson heavyweight championship fight on the radio for all in the restaurant to hear. I had allowed myself to be charmed by the romantic image Johansson had built around himself; handsome guy, surrounded by fine things and beautiful women. And he did not seem to train all that hard, and certainly not in the usual sweaty gyms. To this 17-year-old, that was heady stuff. I started getting excited when it became clear that Johansson was going to win. Chuck told me to quiet down and cool it. Mom supported him, pointing out that the black wait staff would not react well to my enthusiasm. And right there was another lesson in race relations; the first one taught to me by my Dad, the second by my Stepfather. Both of them had served in the segregated Army in WWII.

After flunking out of college as a Freshman at the University of Colorado (decades before you had the say “Boulder” to identify the campus), I went into the Army. For 3 years, 2 months and 25 days, I slept in crowded open bays with blacks and whites, and served overseas for 27 months with both races.

View Details

The Hug Rule (EP.245)

Introduction

The Hug Rule:

It takes four hugs a day for survival,

Eight hugs a day for maintenance, and

Twelve hugs a day to thrive.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

During these COVID days (daze), I am falling below the survival level. But the no-hug COVID days will eventually be behind us. Will the division bordering on hatred also recede? It does seem to be growing.

In the 1969 British romantic drama film “Women in Love” one memorable scene has two men wrestling physically, and apparently emotionally as well. One of the men asks the other, “Why can’t men say ‘I love you’ to each other as freely as women do?” Dang good question. And, just perhaps, women should be more free with verbal expression of love as well.

So, let me be the first in this conversation to say it: I love you. BTW, hugs are not only an expression of love, but can lead to beginning to learn to love another, and to further bind that love.

Practically every religion on earth commands us to love one another. When asked which is the greatest commandment, the Christian New Testament depicts Jesus paraphrasing the Torah: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” before also paraphrasing a second passage; “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Islam is similar: “The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, ‘You will not enter Paradise until you have faith and you will not have faith until you love each other. Shall I show you something that, if you did, you would love each other? Spread peace between yourselves.’”

Love in Hinduism is a sacrament. It preaches that one gives up selfishness in love, not expecting anything in return. It also believes “God is love”. Picking up on the God is Love theme in the Christian Bible, John 4:8 and 16 state that “God is love; and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.”

Buddha teaches about love in a way that speaks very clearly to some of the great issues of our day. “In true love, there’s no more separation or discrimination. His happiness is your happiness. Your suffering is his suffering. You can no longer say, ‘That’s your problem.’”

We’ll close this section with Confucious reflecting on one of the great truths that is becoming more and more evident in our world. “It is easy to hate, and difficult to love. This is how the whole scheme of things works. All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get.”

One of the core Revolution 2.0™ beliefs is that https://revolution2-0.org/life-is-hard-as-it-should-be-ep-106/ (Life is hard)–as it should be. Perhaps Confucius will subscribe–from wherever he is…:).

And a piece of enduring wisdom from a friend: “When you hug your children, never be the first to let go.”

From Healthline.com “The stress-reducing effects of hugging might also work to keep you healthier. In a study of over 400 adults, researchers found that hugging may reduce the chance a person will get sick. The participants with a greater support system were less likely to get sick.”

And from Adventisthealth.org. “You know in your heart that a warm, close hug feels good to the core. But did you know that it may actually have health benefits? For starters, there’s evidence that a hug — such as from a partner, a loved one or a friend — may help tame daily tension, ease our worries and even help us avoid getting sick.” Take that, COVID!

We have heard from Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and followers of Confucius–and respected health organizations. Love and hugs are crucial to our healing, to our coming together. Let’s close with some thoughts from the Beatles from their “Come Together song:

Come Together

…

One thing I can tell you is

You got to be free

Come together, right now

Over me...

View Details

Introduction

We are busy taking today’s idea of morals and correct principles and applying them to yesterday, rooting out anything that does not “fit.” There are no set rules, no committee and no governing body. No “civilian review board” has promulgated agreed-upon criteria by which to make judgments, a thumbs up or thumbs down on historical personalities, yesterday’s heroes and monuments. The crowd has become the Emperor in the Coliseum.

We cannot predict what the morals and concepts of correct behavior will be fifty to a hundred and fifty years from now, but very likely much will be different. Whose memories, whose statues, will be vilified and erased then? Perhaps the very people who are doing the vilifying and erasing now will be erased–cancelled–then.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

“Let him who is without sin, cast the first stone.” No one threw a stone–or even a pebble. Everyone walked away, hopefully to contemplate their own faults, and not anyone else’s.

Imagine for a moment, the stunning and ongoing societal progress that would result if all of the energy that is being devoted to “correcting” the sins of the past were redirected with every involved person looking inward, focused on making changes in themselves. But that would involve hard work over time. Work like that never really stops. Protesting monuments and other people’s actions in the past is relatively easy, involves no self-correction, and allows for two of the most dangerous of all human emotions: self-righteousness and self-congratulations.

Let’s make another overall point here before we get to actual names. Every historical figure was deeply flawed. All human beings are deeply flawed. Why can’t we see the whole person, rather than either just the good parts, or just the bad parts, with the pendulum swinging wildly. You know, the holistic view. And looking at the whole person, the good, the bad and the ugly, will allow us to better understand the different, the good and bad, parts of ourselves.

Growing up I was taught that historical figures like George Washington and Christopher Columbus were flawless heroes. George Washington was the Father of our Country who brilliantly defeated the British with a ragtag army and never told a lie. The cherry tree myth is the most well-known and longest enduring legend about https://www.mountvernon.org/research-collections/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington/ (George Washington). In the original story, when Washington was six years old he received a hatchet as a gift and damaged his father’s cherry tree. When his father discovered what he had done, he became angry and confronted him. Young George bravely said, “I cannot tell a lie…I did cut it with my hatchet.” Washington’s father embraced him and rejoiced that his son’s honesty was worth more than a thousand trees. All a manufactured myth.

Today, the almost exclusive focus is on Washington the slaveholder. George Washington was indeed the Father of our Country, and miraculously defeated the British Empire with little more than a ragtag army. He lied like the rest of us, and he was a slaveholder.

Columbus was once portrayed not only as a visionary in standing alone knowing that the world was not flat, but as tenacious and brave as well. Put all of that together, I was told, and here you have the man who discovered America. Today, all I hear about is his often brutal treatment of indigenous peoples. Columbus did not discover America, but he did open it up for European exploration. He was indeed brave and tenacious, else he would have failed in his historic adventures. And he was often guilty of brutal treatment of the people he found in the new lands.

Robert E. Lee, along with other Confederate leaders, is much in the news, focusing on his role as a slaveholder. My issue with Lee, greater and far more damaging even than his being a slaveholder (and by all accounts not a kind one) was

View Details

Introduction

“The killing of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta demands we severely restrict the use of deadly force. Yes, investigations must be called for – but so too should accountability. Sleeping in a drive-thru must not end in death,” Stacey Abrams, former member of the Georgia legislature and 2018 gubernatorial candidate, wrote in a tweet

“Hands up, don’t shoot.” Out and out lie.

Mr. Brooks is not dead simply because he was sleeping in a drive-thru. And “Hands up, don’t shoot.” referring to the Michael Brown killing, is an aggressively perpetrated lie. Lies and fictions like these are callously spread to advance agendas–all while claiming the moral high ground.

If a policy or an agenda cannot stand up to the, “Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” then it needs to be either changed or completely discarded.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The first time I came across planned and coordinated fiction and lies by a major entity was during the 1954 McCarthy televised hearings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy (Senator Joseph McCarthy), R-WI, rose to national fame in February 1950 when he asserted in a speech that he had a list of “members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring” who were employed in the State Department. I knew that some people thought the senator was lying, and others thought he was onto something important. The hearings eventually exposed McCarthy as a charlatan. On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States (censure) Senator McCarthy by a vote of 67–22, making him one of the few senators ever to be disciplined in this fashion. He died in 1957 at age 48, and his name is still synonymous with lying and manipulation on a national scale.

In 1960, the Republican Eisenhower Administration was involved in international lying. The Russians, under Nikita Khrushchev, claimed that the US had been caught flying high altitude spy missions over Russian territory. Eisenhower’s administration at first denied the claim, saying that it was a civilian weather research aircraft. Only after the Russians produced the pilot, Francis Gary Powers, and the U-2 spy plane, did the administration fess up to what it had been doing, and admit to having lied about it. In accordance with his pre-mission briefing, Powers confessed that he had indeed been in a spy plane over Russian territory, spying for the CIA. He spent almost two years in a Russian prison, before being released on a prisoner exchange.

These two incidents remind me of a quote from Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda, “Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it.” But we need to match that quote to one of Lincoln’s, “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” -Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States.

Here is a big, false claim, “There is systemic racism in the US.” Or, “We must end systemic racism in America.” And this claim is being asserted over and over again, both directly and indirectly. Stacey Abrams supports this claim. As does everyone who perpetuates the, “Hands up, don’t shoot” lie. All of the evidence shows that Michael Brown was advancing on the officer who shot him, and he was advancing on the officer after Mr. Brown had tried to take the gun from the officer by force. The several witnesses whose accounts started the Hands up, don’t shoot fiction, all declined to testify in court. And for an easy to understand reason, not one of them had a video or even a photo supporting their version of the event.

There are many believable stories of ugly race-based incidents. I believe much of the anecdotal evidence of racist actions and events, perpetrated by both law enforcement officials and civilians. But we should all be demanding real...

View Details

Introduction

In the 1988 movie, “Stand and Deliver”, Jaime Escalante is a mathematics teacher in a school in a Hispanic neighbourhood. Convinced that his students have potential, he persuades them, including gang members and no-hopers in an overall underperforming school, that they could take and pass the rigorous Advanced Placement exam in calculus.

Mr. Escalante, played by Edward James Olmos in this true story, convinced his students there should be more for them than the usual life for poor minorities in East LA. There is more for us than just being well informed and regular voters. We, too, must Stand and Deliver.

The Silent Majority cannot stay silent any longer, or it will no longer be the majority.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

In an episode on https://revolution2-0.org/americas-unqualified-voters-ep-89/ (voting), commenting on America’s unqualified voters, I made the point that I am not a supporter of get-out-the-vote campaigns. I am strongly in favor of getting out the well researched, well informed vote. In today’s episode, I am taking that thought process an important step forward.

Even well informed and regular voting is not enough. We must act. Speak our minds. Let others know where we stand. And do it clearly and often.

“But Will, my work environment is hostile to my views; I don’t want to lose my job.” I get that. Even before the new century, before we moved back to Colorado, my wife was afraid to share her thoughts about party affiliation for fear of a negative reaction from her employer, a multinational business. “They would not fire me directly for my politics, but they’d find a way.”

We are in the middle of a huge upheaval in the US, a cultural revolution that is well underway. Don’t for a second underestimate what is going on; we are in a tug-of-war for our country that is no less important, no less consequential, than the one in 1776. It is clear to all of us now what needed to be done back then, but it was not at all clear to everyone at the time what was at stake, and which side to choose. In round numbers, about half of the 2.5M people in the colonies in 1776 were pro-British, and the other half pro-Revolution. And no doubt many who were leaning one way or the other were not all that invested in their choice. About 3% of the country, 75,000 people, actively supported the fight to free the colonies from the British. “Really, Will, how could such a small percentage get anything done, much less defeat the British Empire, the greatest economic and military power the world had ever seen?”

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” – Margaret Mead, Cultural Anthropologist. Three percent of our current population is 10M people. There is nothing on earth that 10M citizens cannot do.

Let’s listen to some of the Revolutionary America’s 3%:

“These are the times that try men’s souls.” Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, December 1776. Exactly, Mr. Paine. And here we are again.

“I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry (Patrick Henry), speech in the Virginia Convention, 1775. No one is asking that we make that stark choice, but devoting a part of our lives to liberty, to “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” is well within everyone’s grasp.

“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” Nathan Hale, before being hanged by the British, September 1776 We are not being called to die for our country, but we are called to live for it.

“Men, you are all marksmen – don’t one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Then fire low!” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Putnam (Israel Putnam), repeated by Colonel Prescott to the men, June 1775

View Details

Introduction

“You Are Leaving the USA” is the sign greeting anyone at the border of CHAZ (CHOP?), AKA Antifastan, the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone in downtown Seattle. And the sign is 100% correct.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

There is absolutely nothing American about CHAZ, its leaders or followers. They do, however, bastardize many of our principles in the name of their cause–whatever that may be on any given day. Here are a few examples:

They have borders, and they enforce them.

They have armed police, just not the trained ones with body cameras.

They act in the name of “the people”, but no one has been elected–they simply assert the authority they claim at any given moment.

And further, they:

Rip American flags from the hands of those who dare wave them.

Deny entrance to business establishments to those suspected of anti-CHAZ thinking.

Challenge many of the occupants of the 500 living spaces in the occupied zone as they go about their daily lives.

I do not believe this group of disorganized anarchists, radical ideologues and partiers will have a long-term, negative effect on Seattle in particular, or America as a whole. But if allowed to grow, or even tolerated, this kind of thinking can spread. And the mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkan, has gone on record as saying this is a “Patriotic block party.” They will likely dry up and blow away as did the Occupy Wall Street gang a decade ago.

But beware of the underlying thinking that says it is okay to seize private and government property on behalf of a cause. The same thinking that claims their cause to be “autonomous” while expecting free services, all paid for by real life voting taxpayers.

Is any of this beginning to sound familiar? Let me help with that:

They want to be completely free, to be autonomous, while being supported by others.

They want to cancel, to shut out, those with whom they have known or suspected philosophical or political differences.

They want authority without accountability; power without a voting democracy.

All while claiming the moral high ground.

Here is an example of what being autonomous means to CHAZIans.

Can’t have a proper revolution without sunglasses and Gatorade, eh?

For those of you who ever had or ever were a teenager, does this sound familiar? I am reminded of the title of a talk aimed at the parents of teenagers, “I hate you, get out of my life; but first, drop me off at the mall!” Translated into CHAZian, “I hate you, stay out of my country, but first ship me everything in the mall!”

“Okay, Will, just how did all of this come about?” The area around East Precinct in Seattle became a battleground between protesters and police in the past few weeks, leading the governor to send in the National Guard and for the mayor to impose a curfew.

During the violence, demonstrators threw missiles at police, cars were torched and looting broke out, according to local media. At the weekend, Seattle police used tear gas and flash bangs to disperse protesters. Members of the city council rebuked the police department, accusing them of heavy-handed tactics. Then on Monday, the mayor ordered barricades to be removed near the precinct and the police building was boarded up and abandoned. This is the very same mayor who says this is a patriotic block party.

Is there any identifiable leadership? Well, no one elected or appointed by anyone elected. Solomon Simone, whose nom de CHAZ is Raz, is the self-styled leader of the CHAZians, perhaps believing the AK-47 and pistol he carries while screaming “This is war!” gives him all the right to be a leader that he requires. Critics call him a “warlord.” But it’s been discovered that he sent out ugly homophobic tweets several years ago, so he could be deposed. Raz claims “someone is creating fake tweets from my page somehow.” Basically, your guess is as good as mine as to who–if...

View Details

How To Fix Race Relations, Or Any Relationship. (EP.240)

Introduction

Here is the process:

Take 100% responsibility for the relationship.

Tell the other party that the relationship is important to you.

Ask them to speak first; seek first to understand.

Tell them about what you see and feel.

Discuss, find and implement correcting and healing behavior.

Repeat.

Oh, and take 100% responsibility for the relationship

This applies to everything from person-to-person relationships, race relations, and police and community relations. Trust is a 2-way street, with both sides being equally responsible. We will look at how that applies in today’s racial anger and confusion, but first we’ll look at some foundational principles.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The key to fixing any relationship is to take 100% responsibility for the fix, to take 100% responsibility for making things better. Not 50/50 or 75/75; 100/100. Ideally both parties will step up to this level of responsibility. If the other party does not, then we do it–you do it. Let’s think about this for a minute. To the extent that you assign responsibility to others for whatever the problem is, it is to that very extent that you make yourself powerless. For example, if you think that you are 25% responsible for an issue, that makes the other entity 75% responsible. That clearly means that unless the other party changes, that 75% of the issue will never be solved. You have effectively given 75% of the power–your power–away. And we have 0% control over others, including changing them. We have 100% control over ourselves.

If you think that you are meeting someone halfway, I can guarantee you they feel that you are falling well short of that goal, while feeling they are doing far more than their half. From their perspective, your idea of half looks much smaller – perhaps like just a token gesture. So, instead of 50/50, let’s try 75/75. Yes? Won’t my 75% look at least like 50% to the other person? Maybe, but let’s take it up another notch; take 100% responsibility for finding a solution. What? One hundred percent? Q. What is this other person’s responsibility if I’m doing 100%? A. They subscribe to Revolution 2.0™, and take 100% responsibility also.

When you take all of the responsibility, your attitude changes toward the other person or group. And they will see it, and they will change along with you. Here is an important truism: When we change how we think about someone else, they change. This is well worth repeating: When we change how we think about someone else, they change. If you don’t believe me, try it. And try it like you mean it. Then comment and let us all know how it turned out.

Let’s apply this to race relations. Ready? Both sides take 100% responsibility for making things work. I can hear it now. “Whoa, Will, what are you talking about? One side has almost all of the responsibility because they have caused almost all of the problem!” My response to that is quick and clear, and it is not to assign either guilt or blame. I would ask, “Do you want to assign blame and guilt, or do you want to fix the problem?” That’s another way of saying you can be right, or you can make good things happen, but not both. Which do we want?

Let’s look at some specifics from both perspectives:

Police need to create an attitude of trust and “I’m here to help.” Neighborhoods need to cooperate with police in everything from simple friendliness to volunteering needed information.

Police need to rid themselves of racists and other bad apples. Neighborhoods need to rid themselves of their bad apples, including gangs and gang leaders. “Taking back our streets.” must start with taking back the streets from the gangs who own them.

Police and citizens need to break the power of the police unions, the government unions that protect bad cops and lower the quality of policing. Neighborhoods and...

View Details

Introduction

Only correct speech is not violence. And only correct speech is acceptable.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

In the movie, “Cool Hand Luke”, Paul Newman plays prisoner Luke Jackson. Strother Martin is the Captain in this Southern chain gang prison film. After trying to escape for the second time, the Captain says to Luke, “You run one time, you got yourself a set of chains. You run twice, you got yourself two sets. You ain’t gonna need no third set ’cause you’re gonna get your mind right. And I mean RIGHT. [To the other inmates] Take a good look at Luke. Cool Hand Luke?”

Powerful forces are working, with increasing success, to get all of our minds “right”. And it is not just the media, powerful political groups and social media working on our minds–sometimes it is family and friends.

Luke never beat the system, but he refused to let them get his “mind right.” And he left an important legacy for his fellow inmates.

The First Amendment is not just about speech; it covers 5 important freedoms: religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly and redress of grievances. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The need to guarantee free speech arises because we all need to be free to say and write things that may deeply disturb some others, even things those others might find hateful. The First Amendment right to free speech is there to protect speech that some may find deeply objectionable. If people wish to be deeply offended, that’s on them, but the so-called offensive speech is–and must be–protected. And as silly as it may be to have to point this out, silence is also protected. Without offensive speech, without hate speech, there would be no need for the Constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

In recent years, “Speech is Violence” became a slogan with certain crowds. Groups protesting speakers would claim that their violence in shutting down the speaker was justified because of what the speaker said–or was said to have said. “We will shut this talk down by any means necessary. His speech is violence and we must respond with violence.” The speaker did not need to even hint at violence to give rise to this claim. All he had to do was say the “wrong” things.

This early cancel culture soon spread to the media, social media and politics. We will see that clearly now as we start a list of examples with the Tom Cotton op-ed piece in the New York Times. The Times published an op-ed by Republican senator Tom Cotton, arguing that the president should invoke the Insurrection Act, sending federal troops to help restore order across the country. In response, reporters and editors at the Times took to Twitter to insist that the paper must “retract” Cotton’s op-ed as it “puts Black New York Times staff in danger.” In a fight that developed between the older, liberal (in the original sense of the word) staff and the younger, progressive staff, the editor of the Times, James Bennett, 54, was forced to resign. Over an op-ed piece.

In case you thought this was a one off, and could only happen at the Times, in nearby Philadelphia at the Inquirer, its editor, Stan Wischnowski, 58, was forced to resign over the assigned title to an article. The headline, “Buildings Matter, Too,” was not chosen by the author, Inga Saffron, the paper’s architecture critic. Saffron’s article worried that buildings damaged in violence over the past week could “leave a gaping hole in the heart of Philadelphia.” I would not have chosen that headline, and at the same time one would have to be wed to an agenda to make the case that the headline means that buildings matter more than or as much as Black Lives. No sane person would choose...

View Details

Introduction

That is the subject of today’s 15-minute episode.

Continuing

Years later, after I had moved to Colorado, my Mom, Stepfather, Chuck Warner, and I were in a restaurant in Denver where they had the 1959 Ingemar Johansson/Floyd Patterson heavyweight championship fight on the radio for all in the restaurant to hear. I had allowed myself to be charmed by the romantic image Johansson had built around himself; handsome guy, surrounded by fine things and beautiful women. And he did not seem to train all that hard, and certainly not in the usual sweaty gyms. To this 17-year-old, that was heady stuff. I started getting excited when it became clear that Johansson was going to win. Chuck told me to quiet down and cool it. Mom supported him, pointing out that the black wait staff would not react well to my enthusiasm. And right there was another lesson in race relations; the first one taught to me by my Dad, the second by my Stepfather. Both of them had served in the segregated Army in WWII.

My next lesson came at Fort Riley Kansas, after both Basic and Advanced Training. Bill Duvall and I became good friends while serving in the HQ Platoon, HQ Company, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry Regiment. We had the same sense of humor, the same vocabulary and outlook on many things–and we were the only two to go to the Post library at all, much less to try and read Beowulf. I hardly noticed that Bill was black. But apparently his black friends noticed that I was white. One day, Bill came up to me announcing, “I can’t be friends with you anymore.” With his group of black friends standing a few feet away, he continued, “They are calling me an Uncle Tom, and I have to choose between you and them.” He walked away, and that was the last thing he ever said to me. That hit me hard, and I tried to understand what was so different about me that his black friends...

View Details

Introduction

Today we are going to hear from Charles (Charley) Bobo. Charley is a close and respected friend. More important to the Revolution 2.0™ audience, Mr. Bobo has well researched, strongly held and thoughtfully delivered thoughts about a recent COVID-induced debate: nonessential vs essential work and workers.

That is the subject of today’s hour-long interview.

Continuing

“I recently heard an interview with Mike Rowe, the host of the TV show Dirty Jobs, discussing his thoughts on the COVID shutdowns. He stated something very interesting when he said, ‘In regards to an economy, every job is essential.’ How incredibly true that is.

Medical workers are essential and the spotlight has been on them for the past several months during COVID. However, without the electricians to keep the power flowing in the ER — without the sanitation workers to keep the hospitals clean — without the steel fabricator who repairs the bed frames — without the assembly worker who sews bed sheets — without the carpenter who expands the need for cabinet and storage space in the ER… where would we be?

For an economy to truly succeed, every person and every job is essential. Not a single person is expendable and the inconsistency of such classifications by the government over the past few months is just laughable. Dog grooming classified as essential but dentistry not? Abortion essential but cardiology not?

College’s Contribution to this Problem:

For more than fifty years, our educational system has promoted the greatness of a college education. However, the pendulum has swung too far in a direction that has brainwashed society into thinking that without college, you’re somehow a failure and will be relegated to the ranks of the uneducated to be an electrician, sanitation worker, steel fabricator, assembly worker, or carpenter (all the positions I just mentioned in the second paragraph). The mantra has become, if you can’t ‘make it’ in college, then you can become a tradesman or skill worker; as if somehow that’s the consolation prize for one’s failure of not going to college.

And I lay this problem at the feet of the governmental education system for two reasons:

First. When the government took over managing the college loan programs in the 1990s, the money became too easy to borrow. Colleges saw this opportunity and have taken advantage of it. Tuition has increased at a rate 200% faster than inflation. Colleges have increased administrators at a rate double that of teachers/instructors between 1987 and 2012. So now these colleges have become very top heavy with fat salary administrators who really don’t educate anyone, but sit in their ivory towers spouting theory and complaining about social injustices.

As a result, with federal loans accounting for much of the $1.5 trillion in outstanding student loan debt and more than a million people defaulting on their loans, taxpayers are paying the bill for a broken system.

Second is the false sense of security kids are promised by going to college. Forty years ago, only about 26% of middle class workers had a degree. Today almost everyone has a college degree (if not a Master’s); meaning the value of a degree is decreasing and becoming a commodity rather than an asset.

As a result, the golden ticket kids are promised rarely leads to their desired job upon graduation. According to the https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/53-of-recent-college-grads-are-jobless-or-underemployed-how/256237/ (U.S Department of Labor), 53.6% of college graduates under the age of 25 are unemployed or underemployed. And a lot of that has to do with degrees that produce nothing in an economy, such as gender studies and social justice. There are actually Bachelor and Masters Degrees in these subjects. But what does that produce in an economy? Strife and guilt? I didn’t realize promoting strife and guilt produced anything other than more strife and guilt, but there

View Details

Introduction

The actions of the former Minneapolis officers were horrifying, inhumane and intolerable in every way. The aggressive taunting on both sides of the video camera recording the event was sadly revealing. And the days of widespread looting and burning had nothing to do with honoring or seeking justice for George Floyd.

Were the officers being racist? No, not directly. What we are seeing here is the racial component of the deepening and destructive divides on our country, America. And there are dangerous divides in politics, between the sexes, the so-called haves and have nots, and an increasing number of identity groups–many invented for political purposes.

There are no heroes here, and we need them. There are no heroes here, and precious few people are even doing the right thing. Where are they? Who are they?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The antagonism, the distaste and distrust, and, well, fear, that is often evident on both sides of different issues, be they racial, political, etc., are signs of a larger issue, not simply indications of a division related to one specific issue or event. That’s why I say that the Floyd event is not racist. And the other divisions and divides are not “ist” issues either. If we wanted to have an “ist” word that summed them all up, it would be “agendist.” In the Revolution 2.0™ dictionary, that word describes anyone who starts with an agenda, selecting only the data and thought processes that support that agenda.

agendist noun

a·gen·dist | \ ä-ˈgen-dist \

Definition of agendist

: of, relating to, or stressing and defending agendas

agendist thinking

an agendist social media post

: showing skill in promoting agendas at all costs.

an agendist law or ordinance

As we look for heroes, or even those who are simply getting it right, we are going to skip over the agendists.

Joe Biden was not a hero when he said that Floyd’s death was a symbol of “…ugly, systemic racism.”

Donald Trump was not a hero when he tweeted that, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.”

The people burning down neighborhood businesses are not heroes. Not a single person participating in, encouraging or condoning any kind of violence is a hero. Nor are the people perpetuating the, “Hands up, don’t shoot.” lie.

Many of the civil protesters are getting it right. And you can be civil while being angry, loud, boisterous, demanding and unrelenting. The civil protesters who are going the extra step of encouraging those who might be prone to violence to stay civil are some of my heroes. But where are they?

If there are any of the people operating under the banner of Black Lives Matter who are going into the inner cities, where the overwhelming majority of black murders occur, with the intention of saving and changing black lives, I want to know who they are. I would be humbled to simply know them. There are no headlines there, no approval from the crowd or the media. Not even a single camera.

The people who actually pause, contemplate and think before they react to anything are getting it right. Those who honestly research opposing opinions before they react are heroes.

Very few of us pause and think; we react according to our agendas, in line with our team’s thinking. Let’s take a look:

Group A:

Believes Climate Change is an existential threat.

Sees COVID-19 as a real and lasting threat.

Wants free and readily available abortions.

Sees America as still deeply racist.

And sexist.

Wants more and more things to be free, with an ever more progressive tax structure.

Hates Donald Trump.

Group 1:

Overall, sees Climate Change as more of a hoax than an existential threat.

Sees COVID-19 posturing and reactions as a government power grab.

Hates the remaining and decreasing instances of racism and sexism, along the racists and sexists.

Wants a tax structure that supports only what the...

View Details

Introduction

The “Reader’s Digest” used to be in every home and waiting room in America. The stories, humor and features were widely popular, and often passed along. All of the stories were said to be true; here is one from yesteryear about a Captain Smith during WWII.

The good Captain was working away in the bowels of the Pentagon, handling vital war-related paperwork. He always arrived on time at his department, but he never finished until hours after everyone else had gone home. This happened everyday for over a year. He noticed that another Captain always finished early, and finally approached the lucky one asking, “How do you do it? You leave two hours early every day, and I work about two hours of unpaid overtime.” The response was, “I just take the harder work and mark it, ‘Refer to Captain Smith’. In a department this big, there has to be a Captain Smith.”

Dodges like this used to be called goldbricking or passing the buck. When individuals do it, that is what it is still labeled. When groups do it, the label changes.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The Captain who was sloughing off the work to Smith, let’s call him John Nemer, drew the same pay, worked in the same office and went home early every day, having “finished” his work. Giving a first name to Captain Smith, Ron Smith went home two hours late–four hours later than Nemer–everyday. And we can make a couple of observations about both Smith and Nemer from just this brief story:

Smith.

A hard worker, who never complained.

He clearly saw his contribution to his country and the war effort as valuable.

Willing to work harder than the entire office without slacking.

Nemer.

Lazy, and without much of a conscience.

Thought that cheating was okay if you got away with it.

Was casual at best about his responsibility to his country and the war.

Had no concern at all about the poor SOB who was doing the hard parts of his job.

This is more than just a short story with a quick point. So, Will, how does this apply to us today?

John Nemer was clearly not a believer in one of the core Revolution 2.0™ philosophies, i.e., we are all 100% https://revolution2-0.org/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (responsible) for everything in our lives. Ron Smith was.

And it goes much further than that. Captain Nemer knew full well that he was passing his responsibilities along to a Captain Smith. And when asked, he was shameless in admitting what he had gotten away with. You can almost hear the pleased tone in his voice when he explained what he was doing. And we can but wonder how the real Cpt. Smith reacted.

Do you know a John Nemer? Do you sometimes feel like Ron Smith? “Yes” for me on both. Do you know some groups and political movements who remind you of Nemer?

There is a lot of talk about inequality in our society, with the core point being that if things are unequal, they are unfair. And if there is unfairness, there is a victim, and therefore a victimizer. The end point in this thought train is that the victimizer owes the victim, and this debt is usually structured in a way that the victim stays a victim, and generations of victims are created in the process.

This victim seeking thought progression ignores two key truths:

We must structure a society that demands equality under the law, but does not require equality of results and

We are all 100% personally responsible for our own lives and levels of success and happiness.

Somewhere along the line, these two truths were bastardized and have become:

We are all the same, regardless of race, gender, etc., and we should all be guaranteed very nearly the same results and

Personal responsibility is a dog whistle for racism.

Captain Smith would agree with the first two truths.

Captain Nemer would love–and promote–the bastardized versions.

Let’s hear Capt. Smith put it in Revolution 2.0™’s...

View Details

Introduction

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

When Hall of Famer Floyd Little, star running back at Syracuse, was drafted number 6 overall by the Denver Broncos in 1967, he asked, “Denver? Where is Denver?” Then #44 put Denver on the map.

When the Broncos traded with the Colts for John Elway, the number 1 overall pick in 1983, the seeds of a championship team were sown. More seeds were sown when Pat Bowlen bought the team in 1984.

This is quite the opposite of how I deal with topics like politics, religion and economics. I am constantly doing deep dives into what I think that I think I think. I completely buy into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates (Socrates) when he says, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” And I would add that life and thinking need to be constantly reexamined. Like showers, examination needs to be done repeatedly, or things begin to stink.

And…

And going to the same, friendly sources over and over again does not come close to examining anything. Let’s try an example here. Say you have lost your smartphone. You have looked carefully in all the usual places, but no joy. Does it make any sense to keep looking and relooking in just those places? If you do, are you being at all rational in expecting to...

View Details

Introduction

I keep reading and hearing that we are all, “In this together.” and “We will defeat COVID together.”

Is that really true? Or are we on very different agenda-driven teams? Are we “In this together.” in life overall?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Wow, Will, you usually have such professional and provocative featured images; what’s up with this pile of plastic-wrapped doggie do? I am frequently on this little used fire road deep in the hills with an access point less than 70 yards from my home. I see an occasional fellow hiker, sometimes with a dog or two, horseback riders and the odd mountain biker.

And here by the side of the fire road is this carefully wrapped and tied plastic bag of do-do left in plain sight. And not all that far from one of the more recent piles of horse road apples. It takes work to get a small thing like this all wrong. The best thing to do is just leave the droppings. Very few people come by, and it will return to nature a lot faster than the much larger horse droppings. If you want to pack it out, well, then do it. The worst possible approach is to pack it in plastic, then just leave it. I have seen this done on frequently used trails and residential sidewalks where, unlike this remote fire trail, packing out Fido’s business is clearly the right thing to do. And people are usually watching to see what you do. So these citizens pack the feces in plastic, and go along their merry way. Leaving the “present” for someone else to deal with. And, yes, I picked up the package in this episode’s photo and, well, dumped it when I got home.

People who do things like that are clearly not “In this together” with anyone but themselves. And our daily lives are rife with similar examples. Here are some small and large examples:

People who leave their shopping carts in grocery store parking spaces.

Are they the same people who hoard critical supplies when there is an emergency?

Drivers who cross three lanes of traffic, crowding other drivers to get to their preferred exit.

Drunk drivers.

Etc.

And what about the “In this together” of the corona world?

From everything I see, here’s what is really going on:

“I am in this corona world with everyone who agrees with me. And I will fight those who disagree.”

“My primary purpose is to be right, and to make those with other beliefs wrong. COVID is just the vehicle for my fight.”

No, I have not heard anyone say exactly that, but those two statements are very much what is communicated.

Let’s start with what should be an easy topic; face masks and social distancing. Either they work to protect others and should (must) be used when within the 6’ social distance of non-household members, or they don’t protect others and need never be used. Much of the intense disagreement over what is a very easily researched subject comes from what I see as agenda-driven, willful ignorance. For example, there is a photo of a box of cloth masks circulating on social media, with a warning that these masks do not protect the wearer from COVID-19. Well, D’uh. That is not their purpose. Here’s the photo

Along with one of the more benign comments, “Masks are useless?? Says so right on the freaking box!!”

When I am feeling reckless, here is what I will post in reply. “There are different types of masks, with different purposes and capabilities. Cloth masks are designed to and are proven effective at protecting others from the possibly infected droplets we all expel when breathing, talking, coughing or sneezing. Only N95 masks, correctly limited to certain medical uses, are effective in protecting the wearer against tiny incoming viruses. This warning lets wearers know that cloth masks will not do the job of an N95 mask.”

Anyone want to guess what I get back from that post? The responses range from the ridiculous to the vile, and not all from the anonymous social media cowards. Many of the insulting and...

View Details

Introduction

COVID-19 has budgets being reassessed and often cut, in homes and at different levels of government. Here is a remarkable opportunity to change our thinking from, “This is good, let’s pay for it.” to, “Here’s the budget, let’s rank our priorities and see what we can afford.”

Today’s Money Tip: Treat all money, e.g., your employer’s and the taxpayer’s money, like your own.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Here’s something we hear frequently. “Having an educated population is good for society, so it should be taxpayer funded.” Well, having a well fed, clothed and housed population, with everyone having adequate healthcare, is also good for society, so by the same logic all of it should be free.

How many of us have heard our parents or others say, “Money does not grow on trees.” Money, wealth, is created by people acting as individuals and in groups working together in businesses. On the other hand, governments do not create wealth, they exist by taxing those who do the creating.

Responsible individuals, families and businesses start their budgeting process with a list of needs and wants. For individuals and families, needs include paying monthly living expenses; rent or the mortgage, utilities, adequate clothing, basic insurance and nutritious food. Wants could include anything from a better smartphone, to fun snack food and cool clothing to remodeling the kitchen. Businesses and governments have different lists, but the principle is the same. The list is then prioritized and compared to the money available. When you get to the point on the list where the running total for the needs and wants equals the money available, you draw a line and that is where you stop the spending. It would be fine to keep the unfunded items in mind for later consideration, but it is not okay to go to your credit cards or some other lending agency to pay for additional items. But the federal government does exactly that every year, year in and year out, creating a mountain of debt that we are transferring to our children and grandchildren. (Did anyone think that Obama, Trump, Pelosi or Schumer were going to pay it?)

The current national debt is about $25T. Trillion. A billion dollars is a boatload of money, and a trillion dollars is a thousand billion. We owe 25 thousand billion dollars, $25,000,000,000,000. Or about $70,000 for every man, woman and child in our country.

Today’s Key Point: When you get to the point on the list where the prioritized running total for the needs and wants equals the money available, you draw a line and that is where you stop the spending.

Let’s take a look at a specific spending bill. The House of Representatives just passed the biggest spending bill in history. Even bigger than the previous trillion dollar COVID pending bill. Some of the “highlights.”

$915 billion more for state and local governments, on top of the $150 billion in direct aid they’ve already received and hundreds of billions in the Federal Reserve’s cut-rate loan program.

$175 billion for housing assistance, and $160 billion for repealing the $10,000 cap on deductible state and local taxes. With this “SALT” reversal half of the money goes to the top 1% in blue states; 96% goes to the top half in those states.

The Bill would extend the extra $600 in unemployment insurance for another several months through Jan. 31, 2021. This means that about half of the U.S. workforce will earn more by not working than returning to their jobs. It guarantees that the jobless rate, which may reach 20% in May, will stay high through the rest of the year.

Even at $3 trillion the House included nothing to fund the Paycheck Protection Program for small business. So don’t help private businesses keep workers on the payroll, but do keep people for longer on the government payroll.

The bill also proposes another round of $1,200 rebate checks to individuals, this time including a similar amount

View Details

Introduction

“Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins.” -Oliver Wendell Holmes, a well respected American jurist who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932.

My guess is that we would all agree with Justice Holmes. The question comes in how to apply this general rule to the corona world.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Before we can get into today’s topic, we need to deal with misplaced assumptions about other people’s and groups’ motives; let’s start with a few:

“Democrats are so invested in defeating Trump they are willing to utterly destroy the economy to get the job done.”

“Republicans are so invested in having Trump reelected they are willing to risk additional, widespread serious illness and death, especially among minorities and the elderly.”

Me. “I believe the evidence that wearing a face mask protects others.” Response. “So, you are a supporter of the lockdown that is destroying businesses and livelihoods as well as the entire economy.” Or worse, “Government dupe!”

Don’t we always run the risk of screwing up royally when we assume another’s motives to be borderline evil in order to make them wrong, and us right? Let’s take the three previous example in order:

In the main, Democrats are for a more cautious approach to reopening America. And they cite statistics that support that approach. Some of them, including Bill Maher, have been wanting a recession as a way of getting rid of Trump in 2020. But does that by itself mean that the more gradual approach is wrong?

Republicans are generally more aggressive in their reopening strategies, and tend to cite lower and less concerning numbers than the Democrats. And many of them are highly motivated to reelect the President. But does that by itself make the more aggressive strategy wrong?

In the conversation that I cite, the responders clearly assume that anyone recommending face masks has a whole stack of other wrong beliefs, based on the assumptions they are making about the mask promoter’s motives.

And the difference in outlook is stark. A recent poll shows that 71% of Republicans believe the worst of the virus has passed, while 74% of Democrats are saying the worst is yet to come. We’ll soon find out, but my money says that both sides will claim they were right.

Here is a recent Facebook exchange between two people whom I have known and respected for years. Ready? Hang on:

Person 1. “There is an important distinction from ‘freedom to’ (do whatever we please even at the expense of others) which leads to anarchy, and ‘freedom from’ which implies consideration for others and the community as a whole and preventing the actions of ‘freedom to’.

I believe that freedom means ‘freedom from’, because if I do whatever I please (gun down an innocent person because I feel threatened, or spread a virus) the person I hurt has no freedom. Freedom for one should not come at the expense of freedom for all.”

Person 2. “Oh my gosh (Person 1)…gun down an innocent person because I feel threatened, or spread a virus.’ Seriously? That is how you see our point? That is so harsh and wrong to make that comparison. Hey, I could do that too…I could say all you lockdowners want people to die from lack of cancer treatment, increased poverty, effects of depression e.g., suicide. But I won’t do that. I don’t think that way. I don’t think you think that way. Please stop thinking openers don’t care about life. All we want is freedom ‘from’ nullifying the Constitution and marching headlong into socialism which historically kills MILLIONS in the long term. We must think long term here.” Followed by, “You are being conditioned to think that people who stand up for their freedoms are selfish, extreme, irresponsible, hateful, irrational and lawless.”

This is an example of the type of national conversation that is being...

View Details

Introduction

Today we are going to hear from a respected friend of mine, Jim Kuhn. Jim is an Air Force Academy graduate, a pilot and an instructor pilot. Mr. Kuhn has a long and distinguished career as a project management professional. He has a solid platform of success and personal growth for talking to us about focusing on doing the right thing.

That is the subject of today’s hour long interview.

Continuing

“Before we get into the real topic of today, it’s probably best to talk a little about my early years growing up and how I came to the beliefs I came to and still hold today about what character consists of and how to develop and maintain a moral compass which I will define in a bit.

I grew up in the 1950’s in middle America in a stable, middle class family with one sister who was two years older than I but we didn’t run in the same social circles. My father was an Air Traffic Controller and worked extra jobs for extra money and once I was in junior high school my mother returned to work mainly as a clerk typist, also for extra money. We didn’t really lack anything.

Times then had a sense of normalcy. It was post WWII and there was still an air of patriotism in the nation. Life was good.

When I was ten or eleven, I saw a movie about West Point, the US Military Academy, and was immediately motivated to think about becoming a cadet. Later, as a freshman in high school, my algebra teacher who was also the baseball coach, asked me what I wanted to do later in life. I told him of my desire to attend West Point because I wanted to become a pilot. He asked me if I had heard of the US Air Force Academy and I told him I had not. During our conversation, he gave me a catalog of instruction that described the Academy, what courses I would take, what life would be like and what courses I should take in high school to prepare. I used that catalog to plan my high school career toward gaining an appointment to the Academy. It served me well and I won an appointment and entered the Academy shortly after my graduation from high school in Olathe, Kansas.

The Air Force Academy was still new. My class was the fifth class to enter and the first full strength class of cadets, and the first class to spend all four years at the permanent site—the previous four classes were smaller because they spent time at Lowry AFB in Denver while the permanent site was being built. My class was also the first to have a sitting US President speak at our graduation. John F. Kennedy was named an honorary member of the Class of 1963 and in November of that year you may remember, he was taken from us by a sniper’s bullet. So there’s a little history.

Now let’s get into character and moral compass which are our topics for today. I should preface this with the fact that I became a Christian when I was about 14 years of age and those basic beliefs influenced my views going into the Academy. I believe that everyone examining this subject should have a personal foundation upon which to build.

A key element in our initial cadet training was the Cadet Honor Code which states, “We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate anyone among us who does” which was based on the Honor Code of West Point since they had been around a while. The toleration clause was not included in the West Point Honor Code however, but it was added in 1970 following the example of Air Force. For many years at USAFA, a single infraction of the Honor Code meant immediate dismissal with which I personally had no issue. Remember, back then times were different. Roughly a quarter century later, the first infraction was examined as to whether it was a deliberate offense or simply a misunderstanding or lack of training. If not deliberate, a second chance was awarded. Society had changed.

The mission of the Academy also has changed over the years. In 1959 when I entered as a cadet, it read, “The mission of the United States Air Force Academy is to provide instruction, experience

View Details

Introduction

All the examples of character and the types of behavior we see in individuals, groups, political parties and governments during the corona crises, were baked in well before this crisis. Crises don’t build character, they reveal it.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Key Point: Character is developed over the years, little by little. Following examples, trying on what feels right, seeing what works in the little things. Then taking those lessons and applying them to larger and larger issues. And along the way, our character is formed. Thinking and reactions are less deliberate and more automatic; actions and reactions are quickly taken as a result of the character we have developed, far more than from any spur of the moment introspective thought. So when we come face-to-face with a crisis, we react in accordance to the character we have developed for ourselves.

We are going to look at a series of examples as we explore this topic.

If we see citizens in camo with high-capacity, semi-automatic rifles held in front of them in a ready position with a military sling, marching to protest face masks or movement restrictions, nothing was purchased recently, nor has any new thinking developed. They had that gear, thinking and propensity to take strong anti-government actions well before we entered the corona world.

Governors who announce strict lockdowns, followed by helicopter patrols and threats to jail violators, leaned heavily toward very strong government control well before a single corona body bag appeared.

People who cite marginally related as well as misleading COVID statistics while ignoring the real evidence, are not supporting science as they claim. They are using whatever they can find to support their agendas. And those agendas have been with them long before anyone knew that corona was anything more than just a beer.

Those who respond to claims or comments with which they disagree with retorts like, “Dupe”, “Trumpist”, “Commie”, “Libtard” or simply politically neutral cursing, did not find that debating style when they first heard of the coronavirus. That has been how they handled themselves for many years.

And those who focused on caring about others before the corona crisis will continue to be that way, as will those who did not. Crises, from a fender bender where the other person was at fault, or a global pandemic, will only reveal–perhaps amplify–previously developed characters.

So, Will, how do we develop character? A. The same way we learn to play the piano, run a marathon, or pass algebra: focus and practice. To do anything well, we must focus and practice. Character development is exactly the same.

To start, we need to decide that being a person of good character is actually what we want. As with anything else in life, we need to decide where we want to go, before we can effectively start planning how to get there. And some are going to decide that they want the kind of things and benefits in life that are inconsistent with focusing on having a strong moral character. And for anyone, it is a huge benefit to actually examine what it is that we want. Without that introspection followed by a firm decision, we either wander about not knowing what we want and where to focus, or we think to ourselves that we want to be the good guy while acting differently–and never calling ourselves out on our own BS.

Many of us, myself certainly included, often tell ourselves that we don’t know what to do, to explain why we are not acting on something important in our lives. What is actually true in almost all cases, is that the what to do part is clear, but the doing part is hard. Here is an easy example; you need to break up with someone, but you don’t because you say to yourself, “I don’t know if this is the right thing. And I certainly don’t want to hurt their feelings. And there’s that party Friday–who would I go...

View Details

Introduction

Rephrasing the question to be more specific, “If you are a monotheist, believing in one God, are there multiple paths that allow us to truly connect with that Supreme Being?”

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Today’s Key Question: If you are a monotheist, believing in one God, are there multiple paths that allow us to truly connect with that Supreme Being?

Today’s Key Answer: Yes.

I’d like to sit down with you with a piece of paper or a small white board to help explain, but we’ll have a go just as we are. There are several monotheostic religions in the world, the main ones being Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Arguably there are others, but we do not need to either make or refute that case here. The three main monotheistic religions have different views of God, or they would not be separate religions. If they all had the same views and thoughts about the Supreme Being, then we would need only two, or perhaps even one, monotheistic religion. Does that make sense so far?

Okay, then; their different views about God can mean only one of three things:

Only one of the religions has it right about God, and the others are wrong.

All of them are right in their unique views of God, meaning that there are really multiple gods–flying in the face of the shared, core belief in one God.

None of them have it right about God.

But the shared, core belief is that there is one God, a God who is real, whole and universal. I share that belief with a deep conviction. I find it incredulous to believe that God would permit, much less mandate, us to live in a world where by accident or personal choice, the majority of us were condemned to being forever unconnected to Him because we were on the wrong dogmatic path, i.e., we did not select the correct religion, the correct set of specific teachings.

The largest of the world’s religions is Christianity, at about 2.3B, followed by Islam at 1.9B, in a world of almost 8B. I disagree with some of my Christian brethren who are convinced that one can come to God only through a belief in Christ. And they will quote scripture to help make their case. And judging from what I have seen, there are a fair number of Muslims who feel that way about Mohammed and Allah, and also have quotes from the Quran and the Hadith to back them up.

But what about the 13-year-old shepherd boy, let’s call him Batu, in Mongolia who gets killed by a runaway yak? In this hypothetical example, Batu grew up in a tightly knit, loving family, but a family that while spiritual was not religious. Is anyone willing to say that their view of God allows for Batu the shepherd boy to be without God for all eternity because he did not adhere to the correct set of religious doctrines and dogma?

Are you? I’m not.

I believe in one God, and my path to that God is Christ. It is impossible to connect the dots of my life without seeing God’s hand all along the way, and Christ is my path to, and connection with, God. There are other legitimate and effective ways to make that connection, to see and experience the wonder that is God. Christ said that the two main commandments are to love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Don’t other religions, including Judaism and Islam, vigorously support those principles? And which major religion has an issue with the 10 Commandments.

Q. Okay, Will, why is this a topic on Revolution 2.0™? Have you changed your focus to religion? A. No. One of the themes that is often mentioned here is the need for a https://revolution2-0.org/we-all-need-a-moral-compass-ep-137/ (moral compass).

Having a moral compass is a recurring theme for those of us at Revolution 2.0™. I refer to its importance frequently in my semi-weekly episodes, so it is entirely appropriate for us to return to the subject from time-to time.

If you don’t have a solid moral compass that you follow, then nothing else...

View Details

Introduction

Every parent has heard one or more of their children protest, “It’s Not Fair” loudly and often. The protested issue could be assigned homework, who got the better Christmas presents, bedtime, why you won’t buy them the car they want–you name it and it has been deemed to be unfair.

Every parent has responded in the same, correct way, “Life is not fair.” A tough, vital lesson. Have we forgotten that piece of hard-to-take wisdom?

Today’s Key Question: When unpleasant events and circumstances are dropped into our laps, whether we are fully, partially, or not at all at fault, what are our first thoughts? Where do we turn for remedies?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

One of my favorite stories involves a parent travelling with three young children in the back seat of the family car. The Mom broke a candy bar into three pieces, and offered them to the kids. Each child fussed and complained that their piece was not as large as the others. The Mom scooped up the pieces, aligned them at the bottom, bit off the tops so that they were all exactly equal, and handed them back. Each child got less, but by golly they were all equal.

I heard a surprisingly similar conversation on talk radio; the issue was single-payer healthcare. The guest was supporting the Canadian model, going back and forth with a caller about how long it took to be approved for and schedule surgical procedures. After several heated back-and-forths, the guest said, “I don’t care how long it takes, as long as everyone has to wait the same amount of time.” Said, differently, “I don’t care if I get less candy, as long as no one gets more than I do.”

Everything must be fair and equitable under the law. No one would question that. My take is that we are there now; we are all equal under the law. Do you also believe that? If not, do you have examples of where the law as written unfairly discriminates? But if by “fair” we mean that our circumstances need to be equal or nearly equal to that of others, life is indeed not fair. Nor should it be. Still a valuable and vital lesson. Here are just three places where our circumstances are different, often very different.

Education. Some are born into families where it is routine to pay for private schools up to and through graduate school. Is anyone for trying to make those circumstances equal? And some are born into families where education is respected, and the children are encouraged to work hard to get a good one. That one is free, and at the same time invaluable. I was “privileged” to have been born into the latter type of family, not the former.

Dinner table. Some families share wisdom, humor, and lessons about life, both in general and with specific lessons for the years their children are with them. That is a powerfully rich blessing. And other kids do not have that advantage, that privilege.

Abilities. All of us have different bodies, intellects and abilities, with wildly varying life possibilities depending on what we are blessed with.

These were just three examples of where life is not fair. And there are many, many more–virtually endless examples. But so what? Pay no attention; let’s shake it off, and get on with maximizing what we have. When we do that, we will all find that what we have is more than enough. More than enough.

This takes us to what our expectations are with the COVID-related disruptions. How many of us are expecting the government to make us whole for any financial losses we might incur as a result of restrictive regulations? Many people whose financial circumstances have not changed are still getting stimulus checks. For example, virtually no government workers have been furloughed, but they are still eligible for the money. And half of those unemployed will get more for not working than they did working. “About half of all US workers will earn more in unemployment benefits than they did before the...

View Details

Introduction

Both Climate Change and COVID models loudly claim to be based in scientific thinking, more specifically environmental science and medical science. The believers call the non-believers “deniers.” The non-believers call the believers sheep and big government dupes. I use the words believers and non-believers advisedly; people on both sides show a religious-like fervor when supporting their side, and slamming the other.

Today’s Key Question: How do you think through tough issues like these? What are your suggestions on how to serve others with COVID, climate change and other areas in our lives?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

We just looked at today’s question, let’s look at Today’s Key Point. It is always 100% up to us as individuals. Everything from exercise to relationships to how we are governed. Not 50%/50%, or 75%/25%–100%. Always. First of all, we are the only entity we can control. Second, to the extent that we say that another entity is responsible for what happens to us, we are saying that we are powerless to do anything. And who wants to go through life feeling powerless? And isn’t allowing ourselves to feel powerless the first step toward thinking like a victim? And victims can want everything while solving nothing.

The two sides on both COVID and https://revolution2-0.org/mit-established-science-and-climate-change-ep-195/ (Climate Change) have lined up quite predictably. One side, let’s call them The Bigs, lines up behind the beliefs that: 1. Climate change is a global, existential threat, well worthy of spending tens of trillions of dollars domestically alone to combat, while fundamentally uprooting how we currently live–changing our lives and culture forever. All requiring massive, forced changes from a government big enough to enforce the required changes, and 2. COVID represents a similar, but far smaller threat, still worthy of spending trillions of dollars, with less permanent disruption to our lives. This side cites science as their primary proof that massive, ferociously expensive and disruptive action is mandatory, and the sooner the better.

The other side, and we’ll call them the Smalls, seems to believe that any form of government control that restricts their personal freedoms violates their Constitutional rights. Both sides point to their own set of facts to make their cases. But, Will, aren’t facts, facts, and isn’t the truth the truth? Yes, but–but–that requires two things to be true:

Everyone has to be looking for the truth, not just information and data that support their agendas and preconceived notions and

Hard information that can be treated as evidence, similar to the rules for qualifying to be evidence in a courtroom, needs to be available for all to see. With COVID, very little of that is available. Hey, even the number of deaths is disputed. And with climate change, the same dire predictions of, “All is lost in 10 years without massive change.” have been around for decades.

So, what’s a mere mortal to do? At Revolution 2.0™, we do not line up with either the Bigs or the Smalls; let’s call ourselves the Revs. Here’s what we do:

We think and act to serve others.

We think for ourselves. We never rely solely on sources that all sound alike. We dig, compare and examine. We employ our own scientific method, not relying on others to spoon feed us. For example, we carefully observe, applying rigorous skepticism about what we see, given that our assumptions can distort how we interpret our observations. In other words, we challenge what others are telling us, and we challenge our own thoughts.

We take 100% responsibility for everything in our lives, and everything that goes on around us. It is never anyone else’s fault, nor is it their responsibility. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor pulling the US into WWII, we responded individually and as a nation, committed to the goal, the...

View Details

Introduction

The question about when and how to open America back up is not about the Constitution vs autocratic politicians. And it is not about supposed medical sanity vs COVID deniers. There are only these two questions here.

Today’s Key Point:

Can there be crises, COVID-19 or else, that legitimately prompt governments at the various levels to move to limit personal freedoms?

Are the various governments permitted under the Constitution to restrict those freedoms?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

I’ll start with my answers; yes to both. And not only are governments allowed to limit personal freedoms in crises, but they must–they have an affirmative obligation here. The key is whether or not the authorities at the different levels will want to keep the power they took temporarily, or keep it forever. A sniff of power can be intoxicating. As in Orwell’s book, 1984, a dystopian totalitarian warning, governments that want to seize and keep power must have an existential threat enemy they can point to. And if one does not exist, they will invent one–because they must in order to stay in power.

The question of whether issues like climate change and COVID-19 rise to the level of credible existential crises is quite legitimate. I have done podcasts on https://revolution2-0.org/mit-established-science-and-climate-change-ep-195/ (climate change) in the past, so I will leave that subject alone for now. Here we are talking about the novel coronavirus and re-opening America.

Most of what I see and hear in private and public conversations in the corona world focuses on either medical issues and life and death, or Constitutional freedoms–as if either conversation can be held without the other. It is important not to conflate those two issues. Issue 1, does COVID-19 post a threat sufficient to warrant involuntary limits on personal freedoms? Issue 2, does the Constitution allow government to restrict our personal freedoms?

It is important not to conflate the two questions. Open America protesters seem to be assuming the corona danger is mostly made up, and focus on only restoring their personal freedoms. Many of the demonstrators ignore social distancing, and face masks are quite rare. Here’s an idea, instead of simply waving oversized copies of the Constitution and placards talking about freedoms, how about mixing in some scientific and medical arguments about how this is a trumped up (pun intended) crisis in the first place. And “This is just the flu!” is a claim, not a sound argument.

Let’s take a look at the woman holding the “Give me liberty or give me COVID-19” sign in today’s episode image. She is trying to evoke the patriotic image of Patrick Henry’s famous, “Give me liberty or give me death.” A noble sentiment, and one that was not shared by at least the 50% of the colonists who were pro-British. But Henry was making the decision only for himself. COVID-19 is highly contagious, and if she gets it, likely others will as well. Her sign should read, “Give ME liberty or give me and OTHERS COVID 19.”

Conversely, those opposed to the Open America Now movement love to sling accusations like “COVID-denier” around, while hinting that any violence at a demonstration is Trump’s fault. If you have a case that opening America prematurely is dangerous, make it. Don’t just sling insults.

Note to both sides. Grow up. Make your case if you have one, but don’t rely on basically calling the other side fascists or 1984-like, or from the other perspective, saying that people you disagree with are just another flavor of deplorables.

And remember to keep the two questions separate, and not conflate them–out of either convenience or ignorance.

The Questions repeated:

Can there be crises, COVID-19 or else, that legitimately prompt governments at the various levels to move to limit personal freedoms?

Are the various governments permitted under...

View Details

Introduction

The National Football League has been around since 1936. Even after 84 years of in-depth college athlete drafting experience, players chosen with precious No. 1 picks can fail miserably, and others who were completely ignored in the selection process can wind up in the National Football League Hall of Fame.

What can we make of COVID predictions, predictions made with dramatically less confirmed data and shakier models than available prior to the annual NFL Draft?

Today’s Key point: What do we do with rapidly changing and often conflicting COVID prediction models? Because we must do something.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The National Football league is a multi-billion dollar business. The NFL draft is held each year, and is central to each team’s success–or failure. Scouts follow college players from their college Sophomore years (or earlier), have vast amounts of film on all the games played by each targeted player, and have copious amounts of detailed information from a group tryout called The Combine. Teams interview the players and their coaches. They get together for hours on many days to analyse the volumes of information at hand. Yet with these vast amounts of hard data, backed by decades of experience, the teams often get their predictions of who will succeed and who simply won’t make it quite wrong. Players chosen with precious No. 1 picks can fail miserably, and others completely ignored in the selection process are selected to join the NFL Hall of Fame.

Can we use COVID predictions models to make crucially important decisions about life and death for individuals, businesses and the economy? Unlike the vast amounts of confirmed information available in the NFL draft, there is currently very little reliable data, unproven prediction models, and models that can vary wildly in their predictions one from the other. Given the reality of the pandemic, we must do something–but what?

First and foremost, think about others; that should be our focus. No, this is not a “new normal”; focusing on others is the way things should always be–with or without a pandemic to prompt us. Let’s look at the various things we have been presented as helping to stop the spread of the novel coronavirus:

Face masks: The cloth ones. These masks should be worn by everyone who is in public and might come in contact with others. These masks do not protect us from the virus, but they are proven effective in stopping the possibly infected water droplets that come from us when we breathe, talk, cough or sneeze. Many people with the virus have no idea that they have it; being asymptomatic is no excuse for failing to wear a mask. And there is no constitutional right to infect others by not wearing a mask. And tell me about photos of protesters wanting to open the country back up–with not a single one wearing a mask, and little in the way of social distancing.

Washing your hands well for 20 seconds at a time: This protects you and others you come in contact with.

Don’t hang around sick people. This obviously protects you; seems everyone agrees here.

Social distancing: Protects us and others. Even if we don’t care about ourselves, we have no right to endanger others.

Leadership in a pandemic: Competence matters more than celebrity. In today’s corona world, the last thing we need are political leaders who are playing to the crowd, treating COVID-19 as yet another opportunity to score points with their base, and to attack the opposition. The novel coronavirus is the opposition, and a deadly one at that. Leadership must focus there. And the imprecise and wobbly corona information we have in front of us further emphasizes the need for selfless leadership. And leadership includes the media. We need to hear the truth, see steady, honest hands on the various wheels and levers, and have a good feeling that we are in the right hands. Note to Trump, Pelosi,...

View Details

Introduction

Paraphrasing the overworked “Think outside the box.” cliche.

Today’s key point: Everyone has a box, a box where our thinking, politics, beliefs, biases, etc., live. And fester. Unless we constantly work on getting outside of–and staying outside of–our boxes, we will stay in them, embracing others who are in the same or similar boxes, and dismissing or even hating those in other boxes.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Using the word box as the metaphor is useful. A stunning number of us have our thinking and beliefs taped up in a box, a box that is impervious to anything new getting in. But all metaphors break down at some point, this one breaks down because our boxes are made of a magic, one-way material. Nothing new can get in, but all sorts of things can come flying out. And those of us infected with in-box thinking have no idea that we are indeed afflicted with this disease. Quite the opposite; we believe that we have it all together, and the other poor sod is the one who doesn’t get it. With COVID, some people can be asymptomatic, but still have the disease. With the in-box thinking infected, the symptoms are there to be seen, but the infected person will vigorously deny being infected–or even having any symptoms in the first place.

Our thinking boxes start with the boxes where we live, where we work, where we worship and the boxes we go to in the way of who we visit, what we watch and listen to our various electronic boxes. In the absence of differing opinions from a wide variety of disparate sources, people will rely on the opinions of family and friends, co-workers and their selected news sources and social media. Outside of family, all the sources will be selected more for comfort and absence of frustration than political reasoning and diversity of thought. Not surprisingly, all of these sources will pretty much share the same opinions. Similar opinions from apparently different sources reinforce each other and can easily be seen as a valid consensus. And with some exceptions, families tend to lean one way or the other on significant issues, adding to the sameness. And even in the tightest families, those with “wrong” opinions can be ostracized. Over politics.

Remember the story about the blind men learning about their first elephant by feeling different parts of the animal? Those feeling the trunk thought it was a snake. Others feeling a leg thought it was a tree. Holding the ear, a fan; holding a leg, a tree trunk; groping the side, a wall; stroking the tail, a rope, and feeling the tusks, a spear. Each group based their opinions on a partial experience, believing their partial experiences to be the totality of what they were examining. That’s why each one of them got it wrong. The same thing is happening when we rely on people and sources who are focused on the same parts of our political, social and economic “elephant” to the exclusion of facts and opinions outside of our chosen experiences. Like the blind men analysing the elephant, we do not give any credence to the other beliefs, facts and experiences.

The difference is that the blind men were completely satisfied that the part they had represented the whole, while the vast majority of political, financial and social commentators, professional or civilian, on TV or at the dinner table, are aware of the other parts, the other positions and arguments; they simply dismiss them as inferior or hateful. The blind men were not curious enough to feel for other parts to determine if another view of what they were feeling might be valid. People with political opinions are aware of other views, but are still blind to them–they simply dismiss them–often with nothing more than an insult, as wrong or hateful.

And this will snowball. The nucleus of same opinions will attract others with the same views, and, over time, discourage those with different thoughts from speaking up. Like...

View Details

Introduction

“It is a lot harder to create income and wealth than it is to spend it.” -Will Luden. We all know that from our daily lives, e.g., which is harder; earning and saving money for vacation, or spending it while on vacation? And this observation about earning and spending lines up nicely with common sense.

The https://revolution2-0.org/killing-the-golden-goose-ep-44/ (Golden Goose) is our American capitalist economy, an economy that is by far the largest and most successful in the history of history. Hundreds of millions of people over 300 years worked long and hard to have created this robust income and growing wealth. COVID-19 is causing two massive spending-related responses, one more worrisome than the other:

The approved and planned spending bills have either sanctioned or contemplated everything from free money, including direct cash payments and indirect money through rent and mortgage deferrals, and suspensions of loan repayments, to almost everyone in the US, with a couple trillion or so for businesses.

The House is working hard to hold up COVID response money to push its agenda of medicare for all, free tuition at public colleges, and additional financial help for those it deems needy as time goes by.

It took hundreds of millions of hard working Americans 300+ years to create this wealth; at the hands of certain politicians and political groups, all of this achievement could start to crumble in a few short years.

Today’s Key Point: We cannot do all of the enacted and contemplated COVID-related spending, or even come close to that amount of spending, without killing the https://revolution2-0.org/killing-the-golden-goose-ep-44/ (Golden Goose).

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Fighting COVID has been likened to fighting a war. Let’s look at life in the US during WWII.

Service members did not sign up for a fixed time commitment; they signed up for the “duration of the war.”

Of those service members; 407K died, and 672K were wounded.

Civilians:

You needed a government-issued ration book for almost everything. And you had to register your tires with the authorities.

To get classification and rationing stamps, you had to appear before a local War Price and Rationing Board which reported to the feds. Each person in a household received a ration book, including babies and small children who qualified for canned milk not available to others. To receive a gasoline ration card, often restricted to 3 gallons a week, a person had to certify a need for gasoline and ownership of no more than five tires. All tires in excess of five per driver were confiscated by the government due to rubber shortages.

Sugar was the first consumer commodity rationed, with all sales halted in April of 1942 and resumed in May, with a ration of 1/2 pound per person per week, half of normal consumption. Bakeries, ice cream makers, and other commercial users received rations of about 70% of normal usage. Coffee was rationed nationally in November 1942, cut to 1 pound every five weeks, about half of normal consumption, in part because of German https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-boat (U-boat) attacks on shipping from Brazil.

As of March 1942, dog food could no longer be sold in tin cans, and manufacturers switched to dehydrated versions. Starting in April of 1942, anyone wishing to purchase a new https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothpaste_tube (toothpaste tube), then made from metal, had to turn in an empty one.

By June 1942 companies also stopped manufacturing metal office furniture, radios, television sets, phonographs, refrigerators, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and sewing machines for civilians.

Note that people still had to pay for what they wanted; having a valid coupon for, say, gas, in your ration book did not get you the gas. It simply allowed you to buy it. Today, in the COVID days, hoarders are the ones forcing rationing, and the government seems to...

View Details

Introduction

Today we are talking about the World of Change. Note that I did not say “New Normal.” Life is always changing; change is the only constant. There is nothing new about change, so I am going to pass on the “new” term New Normal. Change is normal; there is nothing new about that.

What is changing? Are you changing?

Today’s Key Point: The corona crisis is giving us the opportunity to live better, and to live in a way that helps others. Are we doing that? Are we even willing to do that?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

This is a perfect time to remind ourselves that the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are:

https://revolution2-0.org/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,

Be Your https://revolution2-0.org/am-i-my-brothers-keeper-2/ (Brother’s Keeper). The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s take some cues from the corona world and see how they apply to these basic principles:

Face Masks: Wearing a face mask is not for your protection; it protects the people around you. It cannot block incoming viruses, but it does a good job of stopping the possibly infected droplets that come out of our mouths when breathing, speaking, coughing or sneezing. In many societies, wearing a mask in public if at all sick is routine. Unlike the flu or a cold, no one knows for sure whether or not they have COVID-19; we must all assume that we might and act accordingly. If you want to help protect others, wear a mask when around them. If not, then don’t. But don’t shine me on with how the Constitution allows you not to wear one, and preach about you are not going to bow to big government liberals. Be your Brother’s Keeper. Wear a mask.

Social distancing: This tactic keeps you and those around you safer. As does wearing gloves. Seems these tactics hit both points.

Trump. Yes, President Trump: Is any part of how we are reacting to the pandemic and the numbers, recommendations and restrictions colored by our opinion of the President? If so, shame on us. Does anyone think that a single rational person judged major strategies and tactics in WWII in any part by how they viewed Franklin Roosevelt? Were their thoughts about things like the Europe First strategy, the invasions of Africa, Italy and France skewed by their like or dislike of FDR? Did a single thinking person blame President Roosevelt for us being unprepared for the Battle of the Bulge, the battle that took more American lives than any other battle in the war? Forget who we like or hate, it is all about the data and making logical conclusions from those data. We do ourselves and others a great harm if we indulge our personal likes and dislikes as we assess policies. Especially policies as important as those tied to the coronavirus.

To many of us, it seems that we are living out the movie “Groundhog Day”. Being in one place with the same people is getting to us, and we can all relate. But remember that in the movie, the protagonist, played by Bill Murray, makes huge personal progress–becoming a different person at the end. Are we taking advantage of the same opportunity?

Families. Infuriating, wonderful, irreplaceable. Loving, testing, often more like us than not. And infuriating in ways that allow us to get deeper into prayer or meditation, and to practice loving patience. And to grow up.

Personal development. If we are surrounded in an unexpected way by family, then this one is likely to be less important. But for many, we have more time to ourselves than before. How are we using it? Practicing music or a language? Reading good stuff? Watching uplifting things? Are we growing or are we sliding?

Living small. Are we finding ways to be content with and enjoy what we have at hand? Good for the soul, good for the planet, good for the...

View Details

Introduction

What should be the strategic goal that we want to achieve in educating our youth? Try this one on: The best pre K-12 education with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. And those dollars should go equally and freely to homeschooling as well as traditional public schools, charter schools and private schools. That’s what Revolution 2.0™ desires. What do you want?

Today’s Key Point: Home schools, charter and private schools, all make public schools stronger.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

My eldest son, when I was talking to him about how many of us have by necessity joined the homeschooling crowd, said that he was very recently admonished for having used the term “homeschooling.” The person correcting him said that since not everyone has a home, the proper term is “online education.” Forgetting the obvious, that if you don’t have a home it is unlikely that you can get online, homeschooling is a very appropriate term: it is schooling that is done at home. And by definition it is the option with the most parental input of the four schooling choices.

Parental involvement in a child’s education is critical; there is no substitute for it. And parental involvement is much misunderstood and sadly underestimated as an influencer in a student’s educational–and life–success or failure. Parents must be involved not only in checking homework and going to teacher conferences, but in the selection of how taxpayer dollars are allocated to their children’s education in the first place.

Repeating Today’s Key Point: Home schools, charter and private schools, all make public schools stronger.

“The caribou feeds the wolf, but it is the wolf who keeps the caribou strong.” Keewations (Inuit) proverb.

One of the signature environmental books of the 70’s was “Never Cry Wolf” by Farley Mowat (how’s that for a name?). A wonderful book with many intriguing, fun, and memorable anecdotes, with the core message being that wolves had been getting a bad rap. Until the publication of Mowat’s book, wolves were broadly seen as dangerous predators, with few–if any–redeeming characteristics, ignoring that they were a necessary part of the overall ecosystem. In his view-changing book, Mr. Mowat provides convincing proof that wolf packs make the caribou herds stronger. A truth that the Inuit had known for generations.

How could that be? Don’t wolves prey on caribou? Indeed they do, but Mowat proved that the wolves attacked and killed only the weak, diseased and injured caribou, leaving only the strong. In addition to examining what the wolves had eaten, he observed that even the healthiest wolf had a near impossible time felling a healthy caribou. This limitation caused the wolf to make the herds stronger by eliminating the weak. The weak were no longer available to reproduce and compete for scarce food, leaving the strong to eat and reproduce.

So, how do wolves and caribou relate to public schools?

In the same way, charter schools, home schools and private schools make public schools stronger. No sane parent would choose a charter school or take advantage of a private or homeschool voucher if the local school was strong, and producing good results for its students. They would opt out only from weak schools. And unlike the caribou, weak schools get a second chance. If parents start opting for other choices in significant numbers, the troubled school, public, private or otherwise, has time to improve and strengthen. Unlike a dead caribou. And if the school cannot or will not improve sufficiently, it will close and improve the overall quality of the herd. If this happens repeatedly and over time, there might be fewer public schools. But the remaining will be stronger. Even more importantly, the “herd”, public schools, private, home and charters, all serving the students, parents and the community, will be stronger.

Vouchers are another type of helpful wolf....

View Details

Introduction

In the new corona world, Americans are beginning to ask how to balance lives vs. living and livelihood. After all, we accept that we must balance that equation elsewhere–why not with the coronavirus? If we wanted to reduce the annual slaughter on our highways, 37K died in 2018, we would take the max highway speed back limit to 55 mph. With 30% of those deaths alcohol related, we could make the penalty for the first DUI a year’s license suspension, and the second a lifetime forfeiture. But we don’t. Cars killed 740 bicyclists that year, but bike lanes with barriers are virtually nonexistent. As a society, we frequently balance cost and convenience vs. lives.

Remember concepts like “No man is an island.” and Six Degrees of Separation?

Where do we draw the line between threatening the lives of others, and living the life we want?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

We do indeed make frequent and constant trade offs between cost and convenience on one hand, and lives on the other. The previous examples are just a few among many. No, we may not think about these tradeoffs in such stark terms, or, perhaps even think about them at all, but there they are regardless.

And we make decisions about how to handle ourselves in the face of these tradeoffs. We choose to drive on highways with speed limits well in excess of 55 mph. We drive at night knowing that more drunks are on the road after dark. Many of us ride our bikes on the roads. We choose to engage in those activities.

With the coronavirus, no one chose to be in an at-risk group. But there they are anyway. Does not having a choice about being in the at-risk COVID-19 group change where the balance point is between cost and convenience on one hand and life and death on the other? I would make the case that indeed it does. And we should take that into consideration every time we as individuals or as a society look at how long we suffer from economic hardship vs. the number of lives we can save. Economies recover; rigor mortis is forever.

I am not afraid to die; COVID-19 has not changed that. I would strongly prefer to live, but death holds no fear for me. I am terrified, absolutely terrified, of leaving this earth before I have finished my work with my family, a family in multiple states. And I have much work left to do. Happy work. Needed work. Closing my eyes for the last time will come to me sooner or later, as it will to everyone. Closing my eyes with a family member saying in body language or out loud, “Don’t go, not now, please, please don’t go!” is a whole different world. Add to that the thought of being in isolation for days or weeks prior, where I cannot comfort my family and other visitors, the terrible feelings mount.

I wash my hands frequently, and venture out of the house infrequently. I wipe the car down with disinfectant cloths when I return. I do not touch my face until after I have washed my hands upon my return. My handwashing–the first thing that I do–seems to last long enough to play Stairway to Heaven. I have ordered disposable gloves; when I retrieve packages from the front steps, I will don the gloves, remove the outer packaging over the trash and recycling bins, then toss the gloves.

My precautions help to protect my family, and anyone else I happen to come to be near.

Today’s Key Point: We are all in this together. Working or not. Spring Breaker or not. One of those who protest, “This is just the flu.” or someone who thinks a million will die in the US alone. We are all in this together. Quoting John Donne, “Any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

Many of us are taking similar precautions; some more, some less–others nothing. When we wash our hands, or don’t; when we keep our social distance, or when we don’t–we do it for everyone. Remember the

View Details

Introduction

How long did the sea of American flags that were proudly and defiantly displayed post 9/11 last?

Will the friendliness and kindness that is cropping up here and there in today’s corona world last? Or will the “Me first, forget you.” thinking seen in our politicians, the hoarders and the large groups of people who seem utterly unconcerned about their being a part of spreading COVID-19 be what prevails when we get through this?

Which part of our national character will appear and dominate? Which part of our individual characters will take over?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s start with a repeat of the truth that crises do not build character, crises merely reveal character. People who help others in a crisis, or those who choose to be selfish, did not become that way because of the events at hand; they were already that way. The event simply allowed their character to be revealed. So, how does the underlying character get created? Faith, family and friends come to mind. Plus some teachers and coaches. And great books for those who read. We are not going to develop character from video games, Netflix or osmosis.

Today’s Key Point: Event-driven responses have a short half-life. The surge of 9/11 “Never forget” lessons and patriotism have died. As have the never forget cries after Pearl Harbor. And, sadly, post the Holocaust. Only character is forever.

In October of 1989, October 17th, to be exact, I went to the now famous game 3 of the Bay Bridge World Series between the Oakland Athletics and the San Francisco Giants–two cities connected by the Bay Bridge. The game made (in)famous by a 7.0 earthquake. I took the bus to the stadium, old Candlestick. It was a raucous ride, filled to the brim with fans, some with their faces painted in their team’s colors. Beer coolers abounded–as did claims about who was going to win–and who was going down flaming in defeat.

At the stadium fans were excited; hey, we were not only at the World Series, but the World Series with our two local teams. Absolute heaven for a baseball fan. The game appeared to be off to a late start; the rumble that we all felt and heard was assumed to be from the fans stomping their feet as we waited. Slowly, it dawned on us that something more serious might be happening. My Sony Watchman TV (yes, they were a thing back then) showed nothing but test patterns for the local stations. We were unaware that the electricity in the stadium had been cut off, so we assumed the lack of announcements meant that there was nothing important to say. Some fans were standing and yelling “Play ball!” Then we saw the players go up into the stands to be with their families. About the time that the umpires went around picking up the bases, as a silent way to tell us that the game was cancelled, people who had portable radios were telling us that the rumble had been a major earthquake. A subdued crowd filed out to take their transportation home. The limousine people, folks who drove and those of us on public transit were all in the same boat: Quiet, thoughtful and nervous. The same bus with the same people had been transformed. Gone was the good natured yelling and ribbing; beer coolers remained closed. The driver stopped for a woman who was waving for us to stop for her, and took her off route to her home. We passed through neighborhoods that had lost power, and wondered about our homes.

The next day, some of us had power, others did not. Parts of the Marina district of San Francisco were on fire. A span of the Bay Bridge collapsed–with cars on it–and a portion of an overpass collapsed on top of the cars beneath it. Several people died. Traffic jams disappeared as people stayed home. Life changed–people were patient and polite. They looked for ways to reach out to each other. Middle fingers on the road were replaced with friendly waves.

For three days. Then the traffic and...

View Details

Introduction

What are we doing? As individuals, as communities, a nation–and a world?

“Never waste a good crisis.” is often quoted as an example of how the most cynical among us can take a disaster, and use it to advance their own careers–and to benefit those who share their political beliefs. Has anyone given thought about how we can use a crisis to everyone’s benefit?

This brings up today’s question: What are we doing with the corona crisis? Are we using it to advantage ourselves and to club our rivals over the head, or are we willing to dig in and find ways to use this crisis to make us better, stronger and more united than ever? Whichever goal we focus on is the one we will get. Whichever goal we feed.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

One of my favorite stories goes something like this:

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life: “A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy.

“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil–he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.”

He continued, “The other is good – he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you–and inside every other person, too.” The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf will win?”

The old Cherokee replied, “The one you feed.”

Exactly: Whichever one we feed. The same fight is constantly going on inside me. And you. Moment to moment, day by day, and issue by issue, we must decide which wolf to feed. How are we using the COVID-19 issue? Which wolf are we feeding with this crisis? Are we simply taking sides, preaching what suits us and fits our overall view of the world, or are we in that all-too-small group that is trying to not only make sense of the data and apply non agenda-based thinking, but to use this–yes, use this–to understand each other and pull us all together? For now, it seems that we are not only being infected, getting sick, and in some cases, dying, but we are using the pandemic to belittle anyone who disagrees with us. On just about anything.

Which wolf are we feeding? N.B. We don’t get to say that we are not feeding either wolf, that we are only trying to be “right.” And, after all, doesn’t the world need at least someone to be right?

No. The world does not need people to focus on being right. The world needs people to listen to each other, and to come together. My own personal story is filled with too many times that I have focused on being right rather than focusing on love. I lost the love when I was wrong, and I lost the love when I was right. It was not winning or losing that made the difference; it was the focus.

Which wolf was I feeding?

The “Team of Rivals” concept has been around at high levels in the US even since Abraham Lincoln’s presidency. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, and Prime Minister Winston Churchill, were strong leaders who are well known for putting together teams of rivals to successfully navigate their country through deep crises; WWII for Roosevelt and Churchill, and the Civil War with Lincoln. These teams of rivals included not only those with very different political and financial thinking, but former bitter rivals–and even those who had held their offices before them.

View Details

Introduction

Both are born of ignorance, fear and a desire to be one up on, to be superior to, our fellow human beings.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Most of us have seen photos and videos of people wrestling over packages of toilet paper–some even actually fighting over them. And all of us have seen stills and videos where racism shows it’s ugly head. Is there really a connection? If so, Will, what is it?

Let’s take a look at some of the facts and motivations behind these activities. On average, one person goes through two rolls, at most, of toilet paper in a month. That means that one 30-roll Costco bundle would last 15 months. To the best of my knowledge, no one has run out of TP. If they had, one or more news outlets would have featured this “human suffering.” So, why do people fight over something where there is no pressing need at all? Here is a list of the reasons:

Overnight TP went from being a joke product, an item that was occasionally used to decorate the homes of parents of teenagers, to a well-publicized, artificially scarce item. People who can’t compete for scarce items like luxury vacations and second homes, suddenly found an arena in which they could excel. “By golly, I may not be Michael Bloomberg, but at least I have 75 rolls of toilet paper and counting. Do you? Huh?”

Herd mentality. AKA mob thinking. Put fairly normal people in a crowd, and they will act differently. They will get happily more carried away in person at a football game than in the car while listening on the radio. Put them in a frenzied political rally, and they will angrily join the crowd in shouting slogans they would not yell out loud when reading the political section of a newspaper.

Belief that life is a https://revolution2-0.org/life-is-not-a-zero-sum-game-ep-138/ (zero sum game). This belief holds that for someone else to have more, you must have less. Conversely, for you to have more, someone else must have less. Apply this false belief to TP, and you will want to get yours before someone else takes it from you. That is true about a single pizza, but not about life. But even with pizza, there is virtually an unlimited supply. As with toilet paper. It’s the thinking that is wrong.

Ignorance and fear. That’s one heck of a combination. The less people educate themselves about COVID-19, the more fearful they will be. And the more likely they will be to take ignorant refuge in actions like hoarding toilet paper. Even if they have to take on other people to get it. And it is the individual’s responsibility to enlighten themselves so that their own ignorance is never an issue.

Now to apply these traits to racism:

“By golly, I may not be Michael Bloomberg, but at least I am better than these colored people.” Take careful note that belittling others does not make that person or groups any better. This reflects the belief that breaking up someone else’s furniture will make yours better. No one on earth would ever believe that about furniture, how on earth can they believe that when applied to people? This kind of dangerous thinking is what can make seemingly rational people take stupid, selfish and dangers actions. Like thinking and acting like a racist.

Herd mentality. AKA a coward’s mentality. Yes, a coward. How many KKK members would have burned crosses and lynched “undesirables” if they had to take those actions alone? There would have been no herd to pump each other up, no crowd to use hate as a way to cloud minds and use adrenaline for evil. And even if motivated internally by one’s own hate alone, would they go out solo to perpetrate their evil, knowing that they might be overwhelmed by a few of their intended victims? Oh, BTW, how many Antifa members would go out and do their violent thing either solo or without their masks (hoods)?

Belief that life is a zero sum game. Related to the broken furniture thinking. Burning someone else’s home makes yours better....

View Details

Introduction

The corona crisis has been called a test of our national character. I am calling it a test of our individual characters.

As we as individuals and families react to the coronavirus pandemic, are we thinking of ourselves, of others, or both?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Everyone can be infected; the serious consequences are concentrated on those over 50 years of age. If you take the recommended inconvenient precautions, you take care of yourself and others. If you do not, because of laziness, ignorance or selfishness, you endanger others.

Politicians are fond of using the phrase, “The most vulnerable among us.” meaning the poor, sick and needy–then announcing taxpayer-funded programs to help them. In these corona days, that phrase, the most vulnerable among us, means those at greatest risk from the virus. And we can all help them at no cost beyond personal inconvenience.

So, Will, do we have any individual responsibility to others not to spread the virus? Or can we just let others and the government take care of things as we go about doing what we want to do? Let’s consult the bible one this on–Mathew 25:

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Even if you don’t consult the bible for thoughts about how to handle yourself, doesn’t it just follow the rules of common decency to take care of others–even if you can’t do everything you want, when you want?

What should we make of the tens of thousands of spring breakers who are crowding beaches and bars, with no thought about how they might be spreading the virus a–virus that is likely harmless to them, but could be fatal to others?

And the coronavirus challenge with the, um, point, being to lick germy surfaces–they post the video online?

And hoarders. Profiteers. Oh, and the multitude of politicians and pundits who are using this crisis for their personal and party’s gain.

But let me shine a light on others–the wonderful others. Neighbors who offer grocery shopping and child care. The not-at-risk who take precautions so they won’t be a part of spreading this disease to those at risk. Healthcare workers who show up even at elevated risk to themselves. They are out there. Other workers who show up so that they can feed their families. They’d probably prefer to be home binge watching. Let’s find these heroes, and publicize them.

Will you help with that? Tell me about these people.

When I get asked the question, “Will, isn’t this being overblown?” I respond with a story. There was a man who had a splitting headache, so he took two aspirin before he went to bed. When he woke up, the headache was gone. His friend asked, “So, the aspirin worked?” “I don’t know”, he replied, “But the next time I have a headache, I will do the same thing.”

Blaise Pascal was a 17th Century French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Catholic theologian. Among other things, he is known for “Pascal’s Wager.” Here is his famous bet:

If you believe in God, it is a win or tie proposition. If there is a God and you die, you win; if there isn’t, it is a tie. If you don’t believe in God and you die, you lose; if there...

View Details

Introduction

We may pretend that either we don’t know which sort we are, or that we just know that we are in the good groups–but we all know the truth, whatever that is. One way to determine the truth is to take a look at the five people we spend the most time with, and ask the Giver or Taker and Producer or Depleter questions about them. And be honest; don’t try to skew the answers, knowing where this questioning is going. Once we have the answers about them, we have the answers about ourselves.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Very early in my Silicon Valley career, I became the department head of two combined departments in a publicly held software company, totalling about 45 people. The company was shuddering its way through layoffs, and the other department head had been sacked. In my third week in this position, I was given the order to lay off 40% of the combined department. I was told that it needed to be done at the close of business that Friday, and that the laid off personnel would be given severance packets. There were no other instructions.

Even though everyone was expecting a serious round of layoffs, I rejected the idea of telling the 20 people one-by-one starting Friday at 5, with the rumors about who was next spreading like wildfire after the second or third firing. I decided to put each group in separate meeting rooms, with those to be laid off in one room, and the others in another. I first went to the room with the survivors, made a quick announcement saying that they were safe, and that I would be back in a moment to answer questions. The second I walked into the room with those to be laid off, I knew that they knew. Each person had been looking around the room to see who else was there. And that’s all they needed to know to determine which group they were in. Before I made my announcement, before I even walked into the room, everyone there had already come to grips with what was happening to them.

All of us know which group we are in. All we have to do is look around.

Today’s Key Point: If we don’t like where we are, we can fix it. Okay, Will, I believe that. How?

Make a decision. There is real power in making a decision. Charles Lindbergh, one of the greatest aviation heroes of his time, made the decision that he was going to be the first to fly non-stop across the Atlantic. When he awoke the next morning, he was filled with aggressive doubts. I am a broke US Mail pilot, flying WWI vintage biplanes. There are well-funded organizations already underway with multi-engine aircraft with experienced crews already training to compete for the prestigious Orteig Award and $25K cash prize. (Fancy money then.) Am I nuts?

So, did he quit? Did he say that he would go forward if he was miraculously given a huge sum of money and a new Ford Trimotor aircraft? No. He settled down as soon as he remembered that he had made a decision to be the first. And in 1927, he was. When he landed in Paris, he was greeted by a crowd of 200K; in New York City, he was celebrated by 4M. The lesson here is the power of making a decision and sticking to it.

Lindberg’s decision was easy. Implementing it, making it happen, was hard. As it is with anything at all worthwhile in life. Life, correctly, is hard.

Now to specifics, first make a decision to be more of a giver, to be more of a producer. That part is simple. Implementing this decision will be hard. The rules of life are simple. Implementing them is hard.

This bears repeating: The rules of life are simple. Implementing them is hard.

We all learn more from the hard times than we do from the easy times. I don’t know anyone for whom that is not true. Do you? And with those hard times, we can grow and strengthen ourselves to lead stronger, happier and better lives. Yes, I did say “happier.” There is no conflict between hard and happy, is there?

We all know that to make a muscle stronger, we must work it, and...

View Details

Introduction

“Young people are not coming out to vote.” “Hillary Clinton did not inspire voting in the way that Obama did.” “In off-year elections, we expect to see reduced voting.” “We expect to see about 55% of eligible voters coming to the polls in this presidential election year.”

In round numbers, there are 330M people in the US, 230M of voting age, 150M registered voters and 130M who bothered to vote in the 2016 presidential election. Why so few?

It takes less time to vote than it does to do a load of laundry.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Caution: This is not a get-out-the-vote podcast; this is a get-out-the-well informed vote podcast. And by well informed, I mean thoughts and opinions that are grounded in facts, honest and in-depth analyses of contrasting and dissenting opinions–all formed in the crucible of non agenda-based reasoning. One of the principles we believe in here at Revolution 2.0™ is that with every right, in this case the right to vote after qualifying legally, comes an equal or greater responsibility. Being well informed by the definition I am using is the responsibility related to voting.

Remember the observation that it takes less time to vote than it does to do a load of laundry? And we vote every two years, with a fill-in election from time-to-time. Take the equivalent of the load of laundry time on a weekly basis, and devote it to understanding our shared American history, and today’s politics and finances. With an emphasis on the in-depth analyses of contrasting and dissenting opinions, and you will be a well-qualified voter. And in the top .01% of all the people who post on social media. That would make you one in a thousand.

At the official founding of our nation, with the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, only propertied white males could vote. This was the opposite of inclusiveness and diversity, but it had temporary advantages. These were the very men who had just gone through a revolution, an impossible revolution pitting a tiny country with an ill trained and poorly equipped military, against the the most powerful force the world had ever seen. Here’s a summary of our miraculous victory: We lost and we lost and we lost–and then we won. This country, our country, had risked everything and won. America and its fighters risked their lives, property and money–everything they had–to gain their–and our–freedom. They had, in the most expansive meaning of the term, “skin in the game.” You can believe that they had enough of themselves invested in their country, that they–each one–would do a deep dive into the candidates and issues before voting. A deep dive that would go far beyond what the vast majority of what people–even those who feel they are well informed voters–are willing to do today.

Why? The answer is simple; they knew how precious freedom was–they initially did not have it, then risked everything to get it. And they were not going to endanger that treasured freedom by being casual voters.

Very few people today are anywhere near that diligent when it comes to voting. Why? The answer is again simple; we take our freedoms for granted, never believing for a moment there is any connection between those precious–and rare–freedoms, and how well we inform ourselves before we participate in the political process. Since we do not realize what our freedoms are worth, what it costs to earn and maintain them, we assign little value to them. And they’re not worth protecting with something as easy as being well-informed. Note that we are not talking about taking up arms and fighting for our freedoms; we are talking about acquiring and analysing information.

All too many of our politicians, media and influencers are no longer building upon the breakthrough vision that was America in 1776, desperately fought for and defended many times, and given to us for growth

View Details

Introduction

I received my first bank loan when I had no credit history to speak of, no credit cards and no idea what a credit rating was. Oh, and no collateral. The banker, from National State Bank in Boulder, CO, came to my 2-bedroom cabin west of Boulder, saw a few loudspeakers I had built, interviewed me, and decided I was a good credit risk. Assuming that he wanted at least some form of security, I eagerly offered him the title to my ‘66 VW bus, which I had purchased used for $600 a few years prior. “No thanks.”, he said, “We are lending you the money personally.”

The banker was white, as am I. As was just about everyone in Boulder. Would he have lent me the money if I was black? Would that have tilted his view of my character and prospects? To avoid even having to address such questions, the lending industry has turned to an all-numbers approach to lending. Must that be the end of giving consideration to character, drive and potential in lending money, or in business decisions in general? In our diverse world, can we be trusted to make decisions based on things like trust and character?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

There was no credit check involved in my first loan. No loan portfolio filled with numbers about income, net worth, credit history, collateral or a business plan. The banker liked what he saw, and lent me the $5K I needed to get my business off the ground. And in 1971, that was real money. From that meager start, with a believing banker, my company grew to be the 2nd largest independent audio/video chain in the Rocky Mountains.

The banker used his subjective judgment, and made a ton of money for his bank over the years of doing business with my growing company. More importantly, an entrepreneur, me, was given an opportunity he would never have had if the bank had been forced to go purely by the numbers.

We have many other instances where loans are made without regard to numbers-based creditworthiness. Student loans come immediately to mind. The student–or a parent–can sign for as many and for as much as they’d like. No questions asked. About work history, credit history, wage prospects after graduating with that degree from that college, etc. Nothing. Sign and get the money. And there is no trust test here. In the end, the taxpayers will pick up a trillion plus dollar tab, either from mounting individual defaults, or government forgiveness.

Another example was exposed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. The Federal government had been putting pressure on lenders to make home mortgage loans to people who were simply unqualified. The lenders responded by making tens of thousands of bad loans–loans that could not be repaid. Wall Street added to the mess by consolidating these bad loans into bundles with other, better backed mortgages, and sold these bundles off as mainly good loans. When the bundled loan buyer realized he had been had, he looked for the “greater fool” and re-sold the package. Inevitably, this house of cards crashed, and the financial markets crashed with it, bringing on what was called the Great Recession of ‘08. (Does this remind anyone of Robet Louis Stevenson’s “The Bottle Imp?”) Again, there was no trust test here, and the taxpayers have already picked up this tab.

One of America’s favorite movies is, “It’s a Wonderful Life.” The protagonist, George Bailey, played by Jimmy Stewart, is the head of the Bailey Savings and Loan Company. Sacrificing his dreams for a larger life outside of the fictional small town of Bedford Falls, George dedicates himself to the Savings and Loan. And he makes that sacrifice because he is committed to fulfilling other people’s dreams, specifically the dream of owning their own homes. When Bailey’s S&L lends money, it is clear they know and trust the borrower. Trust. That’s the core of their lending philosophy. But it is clear that with the sole exception of the evil Mr. Potter,...

View Details

Introduction

America needs the Democrats to nominate Bernie Sanders as their candidate for President. Many other countries have tried socialism, some failing, others modifying it or retreating from it altogether. The only so-called successful democratic socialist countries are not socialist at all; they are free market countries with heavy income redistribution.

We must have a national debate about socialism now, and a presidential race is the best forum for that needed national discussion. If we decide to implement democratic socialism, we are going to either “Feel the Bern” in the positive way the slogan implies, or we are going to “Feel the Burn” indeed.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Here are the various Sanders’ positions the national discussion must touch:

“America is racist from top to bottom.” In general, the further left you go, the more you will find this belief. Do you believe that America is racist from top to bottom? Do we want a president who believes that? What might happen if Federal laws and policies were imposed based on this belief? In other words, do you see this belief as a positive or a negative?

At 46 years of age, the self-identified socialist Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Bernie Sanders, and his wife, Jane, chose to honeymoon in the former Soviet Union in 1989, three years before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the autocratic USSR. The same USSR that had enslaved its own citizens and much of Eastern Europe behind the “Iron Curtain” for decades. “Let’s take the strengths of both systems,” Sanders https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KCoR6UYs1k&feature=youtu.be (said) upon completing his Soviet honeymoon. “Let’s learn from each other.” First off, who would have chosen to spend 10 days in the failing, hardline communist USSR, much less pick it as a place to honeymoon? Everyone I know goes to fun places to relax and enjoy their surroundings and each other. Hawaii and the Caribbean come to mind. Heck, people who live in Russia even today do not honeymoon there if they can afford to get away. This had to be a decision driven by politics, not a desire for a fun-in-the-sun, relaxing honeymoon. Second, what’s to learn from the old Soviet Union that anyone would want to replicate? As he stood on Soviet soil, Sanders criticized the cost of housing and healthcare in the United States, while praising the lower prices — but not the quality — of that available in the Soviet Union. Then, at a banquet attended by about 100 people, Sanders blasted the way the United States had intervened in other countries. Is this the type of action and political philosophy we want in our government? We do get to choose.

Also in 1989, the Senator visited Cuba, “I did not see any homeless people. Cuba today not only has free healthcare, but very high quality healthcare. The people we met had an almost religious affection for Castro.” No surprise there. I am sure that we all realize that the dictatorship allowed Sanders to see only what they wanted him to see. Mr. Sanders has also praised the one-party Chinese Communist government for lifting a million people out of poverty. He neglected to mention that it was communism, e.g., the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, that helped to create the grinding poverty in the first place. And finally and grudgingly allowing some free market reforms is what dramatically improved the Chinese economy. Compared to non-communist, free-market countries like Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong, China still lags far behind. Again, the national debate needs to rub its nose in this conversation.

Consistent with his other views, the Senator denounced the bi-partisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as a hate group, when he refused an invitation to speak at this year’s AIPAC’s annual policy conference. Overall, Sanders continues to signal his commitment to undermining the pro-Israel lobby, replacing that stance with...

View Details

Introduction

American stock markets fell 15% in just a few days, one of the worst weeks in history for the markets. More cases of the virus are appearing in countries around the globe, many with no known connection to travel to infected countries or visits with people known to be infected.

Is this a repeat of the Spanish flu where millions were killed globally? Are we headed to a major recession, or even a repeat of the Great Depression of 1929?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s start out with the core of what is happening: The economic damage will be widespread and will take months to resolve. But it is the very steps that need to be taken to contain the virus that are causing the economic harm. For example, China, a source of much of the world’s finished goods as well as necessary components, correctly shut down entire factories and whole cities. The same with another example country, South Korea. And both countries represent strong consumer bases, and much consumer activity in both countries has been disrupted. Some purchases, like a car or a new smartphone, will be simply postponed. Other purchases, e.g. going out to eat or to a movie, are lost forever. No one is going to double or triple up on their entertainment once the concern about the coronavirus has passed.

The needed containment measures; quarantine, travel restrictions, factory and city shutdowns, appear to be working where they have been in force for a while. For example, China reports that the number of new cases is diminishing, and factories are slowly re-opening. In other areas, the second wave of the virus if you will, the US and Europe for example, these closures and quarantines may be just beginning. Schools could be closed; sporting events played with no crowds allowed. Air travel, already restricted by regulation and personal choice, could be further reduced. Near empty restaurants, sparsely visited tourist spots, hotels reducing rates in the hopes of attracting guests. Remember: All of these must-do containment measures will cause real economic damage. But better the economic hardships than more worldwide illness and death.

Let’s take a moment to put the virus-related stock market losses into perspective. The coronavirus-related 15% decline is reminiscent of what has happened in the recent past.

The Zika virus in 2015-6, prompted a 13% decline.

SARS (remember SARS?) in 2003, also triggered a 13% fall.

Other points to consider:

The US economy is fundamentally very sound, robust, in fact. There is no fear at all of something like the coronavirus revealing underlying weaknesses.

Central Banks, including the US Federal Reserve, have announced their intention to use monetary policy authority, specifically lowering interest rates, to stimulate the economy if need be during this downturn.

Today’s Key Point: The underlying weakness in the US, our country, America, is not the economy, it is not an inadequate response to various crises, including this one. The underlying weakness is that we politicize everything; sports, the Supreme Court, successes like a good economy, Thanksgiving, threats like potential pandemics–pretty much everything.

Here is my question for you. Could we come up with dramatically better ways to handle crises, like the current coronavirus crisis, if we all worked together, rather than taking this disaster as an opportunity to score political points? In WWII, political leaders and citizens of all ideologies forgot their differences to face–and defeat–the enemy. Why can’t we do that any more? And how is it that some of the very same leaders who claim often and loudly that the coronavirus represents a near-existential threat, are the ones who are sitting on their hands while claiming that others are whistling past the graveyard.

Shame on our leaders for not buckling down, forgetting their egos and party loyalties, and working together–night...

View Details

Introduction

Paraphrasing Marine Corps Colonel Jessup, played by Jack Nicholson, in “A Few Good Men.” as Jessup was being cross-examined in an important military court martial. The Colonel was making the case that his questioner, Lt. j.g. Kaffee, played by Tom Cruise, who was demanding the truth in this climactic scene, could not handle the truth if he heard it.

I am making the case that perennial activists, here in the US, in the Middle East and elsewhere, while demanding justice and peace, can’t handle peace. It simply does not fit into their plans.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The activists I am talking about are either professional activists, e.g., the leaders of Hamas in Gaza, or dedicated amateurs. These activists are not looking for solutions, resolutions or the peace that would come with the implementation of a solution; they want the rewards, money, fame, approval–all of the above–that comes with their continuing oh-so-public public activism.

I am not talking about people who volunteer, who run, contribute to and work individually, in groups and for non-profits. Those who quietly go about the business of actually making things better. They are my heroes.

Almost everywhere you look, things are getting better and better in our country, America. And the activists are getting louder, angrier and more physical. They are feeding the fires of racism, sexism, and you-name-it phobias in order to advance their own interests. The last thing they can stand is to solve the problems, and for the protested issues, their reasons for living, to go away. That explains why as problems become smaller and more contained, activists are even more vigorously beating the drums, shouting and pushing in the streets, and working a pliant media to make the problems appear larger and more menacing than ever. The invention of the term microaggression is a clear indication there not enough real aggressions to support the case the growing activist army needs to make to sustain itself.

Charges of racism are much in the news, more to hurl lethal accusations than to expose a real problem and fix it. “Checkmate” is the last thing that a winner says in a chess game, indicating that his opponent has lost. The term “Racist” is now being used in the same way. Calling someone a racist and having it stick is the political equivalent of Checkmate. Your opponent is now cancelled, is now out of the game.

As a case in point, let’s talk about race activists e.g., Black Lives Matter (BLM). Their anger at the murders of innocent young black men, until once focused exclusively on their claims about racism causing deaths of black men at the hands of white cops. When they found that in some cases it was black officers shooting black citizens, their color criticism changed from “white” to “blue.” In other words, they pivoted from racist cops being the issue to police in general being the problem. But their activism continues to ignore the 95+% of black deaths that are not caused by police. We’ll ignore, for now, the argument that the vast majority of that 5% are completely justified. We don’t need to make that point to make our case here.

I am deeply suspicious of BLM’s motives, and you should be, too. If they want to stop the murdering of blacks, why ignore 95% of where the murders are committed? Let’s look at an obvious parallel. Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) strikes predominantly African-Americans, with about 8% of the African-American population carrying the sickle cell trait. If an organization raised, say, $100M, to find a cure and spent 95% of its funds looking for causes for SCD outside of the African-American population, would you say they were dedicated to finding a cure? Or might they have another agenda? What might BLM’s real agenda be given that they ignore where 95% of the murders of black men occur? They simply want an excuse to attack and marginalize our law enforcement agencies, and will...

View Details

Introduction

Should America be socialist? Is America already socialist?

To answer either of those questions, we must first define socialism. What is it? What countries are socialist? For example, is Denmark socialist? If so, is it the same socialism as Venezuela? And what about “socialist” countries like Germany under the Nazis, “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” and the former USSR, “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”?

With the definitions in hand, we can have a useful discussion.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s look at the promised definitions:

Democratic Socialism: I believe that most people who use this term are not talking about the traditional definition of socialism where the government owns the means of production. What they mean is aggressive income and wealth redistribution vehicles like free healthcare, free college and free daycare–perhaps just for starters. They are not talking about the government owning and/or controlling entities like Ford and Facebook. Not yet, anyway. However, Senator Sanders, Representative Ocasio-Cortez and others are in favor of government ownership in many cases. Healthcare is an obvious example.

Communism: Traditional socialism with the addition of prohibiting any private property.

Capitalism: A system wherein people, individuals or groups, including corporations, own the means of production and engage in voluntary exchanges of money for goods and services.

Profit: Selling things, taking in income, for more than it costs to make them, drives everything; capitalism, democratic socialism, traditional socialism, communism, no matter what the system is. Here we are not talking about taxes or what you do with taxes; we are talking about how you make the money and wealth that is taxed in the first place. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it. That is done through generating profits. The gozindas have to exceed the gozoutas or nothing works in any system.

I also promised thoughts about specific countries:

Denmark. Bernie Sanders often uses Denmark as an example of democratic socialism. Denmark disagrees; their model is capitalism with heavy income redistribution. After seeing his country held up as an example in the 2016 US Democratic presidential debate, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen used an address at Harvard to explain the Nordic model to a US audience suddenly very interested in Denmark. “I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” Rasmussen said.

Cuba. Socialist/Communist dictatorship. Complete mess. The Castros have used their dictatorial powers in a way that many people are still driving the cars that were on the island after the 1959 revolution.

Venezuela. See above, but far worse. And who knew that was even possible?

WWII Germany. The Nazis, despite the name National Socialist German Workers’ Party were not socialists; they were an evil cult, preaching the superiority of certain genetic types, which gave them the right–the obligation–to eliminate other types and groups of humans.

USSR. The former Soviet Union. Communist by self-identification. Here are a couple vignettes that sum up the economic disaster that communism was in the USSR. When a worker was interviewed about this job, his summary was, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”. Here is another one; a shopper had stood in line for over an hour in the local government grocery store before he finally made it to the counter to make his...

View Details

Introduction

This phrase was famously written on a white board in Clinton campaign headquarters by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Carville (James Carville) in 1992. Carville was a strategist in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton (Bill Clinton)’s successful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election (1992 presidential campaign) against incumbent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush (George H. W. Bush).

Here is another take. “Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment…than there was four years ago?” Ronald Reagan asked the voters this question during his televised debate against the incumbent President Jimmy Carter in 1980.

At the core of any presidential election is the economy.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

So let’s talk about the economy. Barack Obama inherited a terrible economy from George The Younger when he took office in January of 2009. That is certainly clear. Obama presided over a steady–but tepid–recovery for 8 years. It was the slowest recovery from a major recession since the Great Depression which started in 1929. When Donald Trump was elected, despite many and dire predictions to the contrary, the stock market immediately took off–not bothering to wait for Trump to take office. Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman issued dire economic warnings prior to the 2016 election, predicting economic disaster if Trump were to be elected. Krugman doubled down when Trump was elected president, warning readers of the New York Times to brace themselves for a “global recession.” Right after Trump was elected, the New York Times asked its opinion writers to weigh in on what the election meant.”If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.” Krugman predicted.

Since the day Trump was inaugurated, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has gone up about 9,500 points, or nearly 50%.

The Prediction: In November 2016, Krugman wrote that, “We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight.”

The Reality: The overall economy under Trump rocketed upward, hitting growth numbers that many, including President Obama, said were impossible.

And, as is often the case, President Trump is his own worst enemy; in this case it is his tariffs. Many economists, including conservative economists, believe that the tariffs are hurting the economy, and hurting it in a significant way. And I agree with them.

But. But, Trump’s economy is strong enough to withstand the hurtful tariffs. Imagine what the economy would be like if Trump got out of his own way.

Let’s ask ourselves the, “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” question. Well, are you? Republicans are telling you that you are, and they have plenty of statistics to cite to support their position. Unemployment is at record lows. And that is true despite many previously disheartened workers returning to the pool of workers; millions of reinvigorated workers have returned to the looking-for-a-job rolls, and if the economy was not strong enough to absorb them, unemployment stats would be going up. But they are not. And, finally, wages, adjusted for inflation, are going up.

Democrats will tell you the opposite, that the economy is not working for the 99%; only the 1%. The worker is getting the shaft, while the billionaires are raking it in. We hear, “We need an economy that works for everyone.”

Well, at least for now, forget both parties. What is going on with you?

Today’s Key Point: Make up your own mind. You know best how things are for you. Everything from your current job to job prospects to wages to your standard of living. Pay attention to your feelings of confidence, or lack thereof, in the economy to keep going in the right direction. That’s your assessment. Yours. Not someone else’s. Not a political party...

View Details

Introduction

I was born a white male. That’s my Political Original Sin.

Original Sin in the Bible is depicted as the sin that we have all inherited from Adam and Eve in the Garden. Even God cannot rewrite history and erase what Adam and Eve did; according to the Bible, the only way that Original Sin can be erased is through salvation from Jesus Christ.

My Political Original Sin apparently cannot be erased; as a white male, I will always be guilty. And I didn’t even get an apple out of the deal.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Without going into theology, biblical original sin explains why we have a sinful nature, and what we can do about it. Belief in the only person, past or present, who has never sinned. All the rest of us sin; one example is the confession of the Apostle Paul, the man who wrote about half of the New Testament. “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.” The most prolific author in the New Testament called himself the greatest sinner of all. That’s easy to understand; all of us compare our inner selves to everyone else’s outer self. That makes for a humbling–and false–comparison. But at least he had a way out–salvation.

But for those of us born into political original sin, there is no way out. Much of today’s politics is based on creating victimhood and identifying victims. And if you are going to have victims, you need to point out who made them victims.

Pause for the truth: No one can be a victim without their permission. You can be victimized without giving permission, but you cannot be a victim without your consent. Here’s an example: Someone can cheat you blind, ruining you financially; you have been victimized. That’s on them. But if you are going to be a victim, think and live like one, that’s on you.

Okay, back to today’s political thinking. Much of the political apparatus needs victims, ideally permanent victims, to justify their political rhetoric and spending plans. Any argument in support of a class of people being permanent victims needs–must have–a permanent class of victim-making oppressors. What could be better than inventing political original sin? This “sin” must be tied to immutable characteristics–characteristics that the people nailed with this sin cannot change.

Once having done that, make sure that the “sinners” can’t get off the hook; no salvation for them, eh? BTW, there may be other congenital characteristics that qualify one for this type of original sin, for example having the ill grace to have been born into wealth, but we will focus on just being male and white. The white male original sin, we are told, always leads to real-world sins like racism and sexism. Political original sin leads to being racist, sexist, and other heinous actions and beliefs–I call those “ists”. And once an ist, always an ist.

If we claim that we don’t have any knowledge of being either racist or sexist, our accusers point to the jury of the world, saying, “See, this is a perfect example of unconscious racism and sexism.” The argument seems to go that if I don’t know that I am either of those things, that’s proof that I am.

And this doublethink quickly gets even more convoluted. If I identify “ist” behaviour in my past, and apologize, that is seen as proof that I was and still am an ist. And the apology will never be accepted, simply repeated as proof of my admitted transgressions, and never, ever forgiven or forgotten.

And what if I take the next step of not only denying any ist behavior, but show honest and consistent anti-ist behavior. That gets pounced on thusly, “See, that’s what they all say!” More proof that I am an ist.

And speaking of not being victims, we need to stand up against dangerous and false attacks like this–lest we become victims ourselves. How do we do that? Application and acceptance of reason will destroy my accusers’ entire

View Details

Introduction

We have all heard the useful saying, “Walk a mile in their shoes.” How many people who are for more–even severe–gun laws have walked a mile in a gun owners’ shoes? And vice versa; how many NRA members have walked a mile in a “gun-grabbers” shoes?

I have done both, and I’d like you to walk those two miles with me.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

In the military, I saw guns as tools. Decades later when I went to a friend’s home and saw a large glass-front, long gun case in his living room, I was taken aback. I did not know if he was some sort of nut case; hey, he and his wife had two young boys living with them. Later, a good friend of mine, a former Marine Captain, encouraged me to join the NRA. I had the same nervous, “Who is this guy?”, feeling.

I was not completely anti-gun, but living in Silicon Valley, I was not in gun-friendly territorty. Even then (After 30 years, I left to return to Colorado in 2008,), the overall attitude there was, at best, guns, yuch; at worst, guns are evil.

When I was 13 or so, I went out with some of my Dad’s friends to do some skeet shooting. You shot clay pigeons with shotguns as practice for duck hunting. Some do it just for the fun of it. After all, skeet shooting is one of the gun-centric Olympic sports. I thought it was fun, and was certainly different from anything I had done before.

My next experience with guns was in the Army. Guns were tools; no one was pro-gun, or anti-gun; we just learned to use them and take care of them. And for a valuable skill, how many people do you know who can take a rifle apart and put it back together again–blindfolded? Useful, perhaps, if your gun jams in the dark in a combat zone–but pretty useless anywhere else. But it did build discipline and confidence. As did the live fire training.

My next encounter with firearms was in the mid 60s, when a friend of mine needed to sell a Colt Trooper, a .357 Magnum revolver, along with a ton of accessories, cheaply. I did not need a gun, and certainly not one this powerful, but it was a good deal, and I was happy to help a friend. It was good 30 years before I ever touched it. But I kept it.

When my friend, the former Marine Captain, invited me to go to a local range with my two eldest sons, then about 13 and 15, I thought I would take my revolver along. I knew that it needed to be cleaned, at the very least. But how to do that? I had never been into a gun store, and was not quite sure what to expect. Was I going to be met with a bunch of gun nuts with rifles slung in front of them–at the ready? The very nice folks at Imbert and Smithers gun store in San Mateo, CA, took a fair amount of time to resurrect the firearm, gave me some tips, and charged me for nothing but the ammunition I bought. The four of us, my two sons, me and the Captain, had a fun and very, very safe time. Including blowing up some soda cans with a .357 magnum.

Some time after that, my wife and I were visiting friends, a young couple with kids in preschool, who ran a ranch in far Northern California. In their living room, they had a glass-front gun case with several long guns clearly visible. That made me nervous, and I wondered if they were some type of around the bend gun lovers. It did not get any better when he started talking about going deer hunting locally, then cutting the animal up and sharing it with his family. I was wondering if he was some sort of Neanderthal, and he was talking about being grateful for the fresh meat.

My thinking about guns changed radically when I moved to Colorado Springs. I made lots of new friends, many of whom hunt birds, deer, elk and bear. It was quite natural to them. And their guns were just tools. It was then that I made a connection between their hunting and mine. I have never hunted on land, but I have done a fair amount of spearfishing, both on SCUBA and breath hold. I prefer a pole spear, much shorter...

View Details

Introduction

January 28th, 2020, marked the liberation of the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz, where the Nazis killed 1.1 million, mostly Jews, but the Nazi butchers also targeted homosexuals, the mentally ill, the physically unfit, gypsies and others for starvation, torture and extermiation.

Six million Jews were killed by Hitler and his followers during their time in power. Stalin killed about 25 million of his countrymen in his quest to gain and keep power in Russia; Mao killed about 60 million Chinese in the same quest.

Five star General of the Armies, Dwight Eisenhower, commanded that Germans in locales near the various Nazi death camps be forced to march through the camps, and see the horror they tacitly supported by their silence. A silence they maintained despite years of the smell of burning flesh and trainload after trainload of thousands of people arriving each and every day–and no one leaving.

Now, let’s go on a forced march through the 85 million deaths under communism. Are you with me?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Contact

A few of the Jewish death camp survivors, wearing their striped prison uniforms, sat at a table in one of the barracks, ready to confront the German civilians with stories of what they had suffered at the hands of the Nazis. There were 4,000 Jews in the Buchenwald camp when the American liberators arrived, and most of them had previously been at Auschwitz or other camps in the east.

“We didn’t know.” This was what the German civilian population would say over and over again about the concentration camps in the coming months. The American army was determined that the ordinary German people should see the depths of depravity to which their Nazis leaders had sunk. Below is a photo of Germans being forced to see their neighborhood horrors for the first time.

Let me take on the role the Jewish survivors had by informing Revolution 20.™ readers and listeners of the horrors of communism, horrors that in sheer death count far outweigh, far out horrify, what the Nazis did. Moreover, the Nazi horrors ended in 1945; the Communist horrors continue.

I want the magnitude of the Communist atrocities to be as real for all of us as this photo taken at Buchenwald in 1945.

Most of us have heard “Never forget” when it comes to the Holocaust. And we must never forget; if we forget, a repeat of the Holocaust becomes just a tad bit more likely. And some are cruel enough to deny that it even happened at all. Holocaust deniers. Climate change deniers are disagreeing with predictions; Holocaust deniers are denying proven, well documented history.

And we must never forget what Stalin and Mao did, but first, we must know what they did. Joseph Stalin was the dictator who ruled Russia as the General Secretary of the Communist Party from the mid-20s to 1953. He killed 25M of his own people; 20M Russians and 5M Urkanians, to establish and maintain his power. Stalin was behind the totalitarian government that was responsible for mass repressions, ethnic cleansing, deportations, hundreds of thousands of executions, and famines. Along the way, he made a pact with the head Nazi, Adolph Hilter, in 1939, to carve up Poland, with each taking about half.

But he was outdone by another communist leader. Mao Zedong, known in China as Chairman Mao, slaughtered a good 60 million of his people in his work to seize and maintain power. He took power as the Chairman of the Communist Party of China in 1949 until his death in 1976. During his rule, Mao solidified his control entering the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War (Korean War) on the side of North Korea when it looked as if North Korea was about to be swallowed up by American troops, causing the deaths of several million Chinese. In 1957, Mao launched the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Campaign (Anti-Rightist Campaign), which persecuted at least 550,000 people, most of whom...

View Details

Introduction

Was the halftime performance at the 2020 Super Bowl consistent with the goals and philosophy of #Metoo?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Recurring question in today’s episode: Would you leave your car unlocked in a neighborhood that you did not know for certain was completely safe? And even then, would you? And if something was taken from your car, or even the car itself was stolen, would any part of you wish that you had locked the car, and taken the keys with you?

If you were robbed, of course the thief is responsible, and must be held accountable. Assuming he can be found. Even then, in the unlikely event that you are not out even one dollar in deductibles with your insurance, you have dealt with a pile of inconvenience and emotion. So lock your car, and take your keys, right? No one is blaming you for the robbery, but isn’t it completely logical to recognize that you made it easier if you did not lock your car and take your keys? And if you had done that, maybe nothing would have happened. Pause for emphasis: This is not victim blaming; this is pointing out that the victim might have influenced the odds.

Opinions seem to be split about the appropriateness of this year’s Super Bowl halftime performance. I have heard everything from “This was fun. My spouse and I both loved it.” to “This was entirely inappropriate for a prime-time, family TV show with a huge audience.” A fairly common attitude was, “If you don’t want your kids to watch it, then just don’t let them.” I am going to stay away from those arguments, and stick with the #Metoo question.

Let’s tie the, “Lock your car, take your keys” discussion, to today’s topic. If a man sexually harasses a woman, he must have it in his mind that she, all women, are there to be used by him. Objectifying women makes it much easier to take advantage of them. Watch (or re-watch) the 11-minute video, and tell me that women were not presented as objects from time-to-frequent time. A man making a point of repeatedly pointing to and tapping J-Lo’s butt front and center in the performance was only one example. Is that how you want men to treat women? If not, why is it okay to feature that in front of 115M people? Advertisers pay over $5M for a 30-second ad because they know how powerfully persuasive it is to present something to an audience of that size. Can anyone make the case that 30-second ads influence people, but an 11-minute performance with Shakira and J-Lo doesn’t?

I am making the case that if a woman gets her butt touched in an unwanted way, that the halftime show was like not locking your car and taking your keys. Seemingly inconsequential actions can have unwanted consequences. And once a guy gets rolling, it will likely not stop with unwanted touching. No. No. No. I am not making a direct link. I am saying there is a powerfully negative effect. Let’s Look at some personal history.

“Lock your car, take your keys. Don’t help start a kid on a life of crime.”

That was the beginning of an oft-played public service radio announcement I remember from my youth. Note the emphasis on the youth, not on saving the listener from having their car stolen. And I am certain that this announcement was not absolving car thieves of any crimes if they found keys that were left in an unlocked car. It was clearly pointing out that victims can bear some responsibility as well as the perpetrators. And I love it that the central point of this spot was to avoid tempting the would-be car thief. The implied–but secondary–point was about keeping your car from being stolen. Of course, people have every right to ignore this good advice, and if their car is stolen, the thief still needs to be caught and punished.

Much later in my life, when our middle son was in Junior High, he attended a Friday-Sunday co-ed school camping weekend. One of the female teacher counselors advised the girls, in front of both the boys

View Details

Introduction

…and worse, to listen to my critics.

In one of the most agonizing political decisions of my life, I voted for Trump in 2016. Agonizing because of the 17 Republican candidates in the Republican 2016 primaries, Trump was my 18th choice. He made despicable comments about Megyn Kelly’s period on National TV–then denied them. Also on TV, he called candidate Carly Fiorina “horse face.” Most unforgivable to this Vietnam Era Army Veteran was his demeaning comments about John McCain’s being shot down over North Vietnam, and his subsequent capture and years of torture at the hands of the enemy.

I would have rung doorbells for a Scott Walker/Carly Fiorina ticket. Ten or eleven of the other candidates would have made a world-class Cabinet. Yet the Republicans, in the words of my spirit animal, the late Charles Krauthammer, nominated a clown. I am officially registered as an Unaffiliated voter, and in 2016 I faced an unappetizing choice between Trump and Clinton.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

I am not going to take any part of this episode and make it into a lengthy critique of Hillary Clinton. Try to respect me and my hours per day of fact-finding and analysis, using multiple sources from all points on the political compass. After all, I do strive to be a common goals-oriented podcaster. That analysis, despite my low opinion of Trump, did not make my voting choice any less ugly, but it did make it clear. I could not vote for Hillary, and did not want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate.

In the 3+ years Trump has been in office, I do not have a better opinion of the man. I do favor many, certainly not all, of his policies, but my regard for him as a man is unchanged. In 2016, I was a Trump voter, not a Trump supporter. My wife is a strong Trump supporter. BTW, do you remember one of the many reasons that Democrats felt that Trump got away with winning was because the man in the house basically told the woman in the house how to vote? Whoever came up with that one has never met my wife.

Today’s Key Point: I am moving into the Trump support camp, and the anti-Trumpers are the driving force behind that movement. I am being told that because I voted for Trump, that I am worse than merely deplorable, I am despicable. And the more I am called deplorable, hateful, a racist, sexist, a xenophobe and an Islamophobe, the more I get my back up in my own defense. Tell me to shut the “F” up while drowning me in insults, and I want to buy a MAGA hat, put it on and dare you to knock it off my head. Is that the best part of me responding to a stream of insults? No. No, absolutely not. But I am completely done with walking away.

Okay, Will, how could it be that you feel driven to be more of a Trump supporter than merely a highly reluctant Trump voter? With apologies to Elizbeth Barrett Browning, let me count the ways:

I am constantly being told that lack of education is one of the reasons that the great unwashed (a quote from more than one analyst on election night in 2016) voted for Trump is due to a lack of education. I have an undergraduate degree in philosophy, and an MBA from Harvard; my wife had two Masters degrees from UNC.

I am also being told that I voted for Trump because I am white, and Trump appeals to racists. Was it racist when 90% of blacks voted for Obama in his two elections, while only 70% of whites voted for his opponents?

Decades-long friends, friends where I thought the ties of friendship were unbreakable, are turning their backs on me. Yet we blame the destructive and growing divide in our country on politicians and the media.

Free speech is under attack almost everywhere, and I am fed up, fed up to my gills with having to hide my 2016 ballot in order to maintain peace.

I have been voting in Presidential elections since 1964. Here is who I supported in each race:

1964: Barry Goldwater. AuH2O. I could see where Johnson was heading with

View Details

Introduction

We have all had to deal with it. iPad tipping consoles where the clear expectation is that we pay a full percentage tip for much less than full service. And unlike full service restaurants where the server is not looking us in the eye while we select their reward, we are eyeball-to-eyeball with the counter worker, who immediately sees the amount we have selected while we are still there. Aren’t we intentionally being guilt-tripped into overtipping? Is there a connection here with other dramatically increased expectations, like, for example, free college?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Here’s an easy first question, given that we are being asked for a tip amount before any service has been provided, is this a tip or simply an additional charge from the restaurant, entirely independent of the level of service; a way of increasing the worker’s wages with us as the direct payer? It really cannot be a tip, because a tip should be dependent upon the level of service, a service which in these cases has not yet been provided.

For a lot of the people I know, a 20% tip is pretty automatic for good service at a full service restaurant; order from the table, the food and beverages are brought to you, pay your server at the end, and leave. And you select your tip amount after all the service has been provided, and without the server looking at you, observing your decision. At the iPad food and beverage locations, you present your credit card, and in full view of the counter worker you select the tip amount in advance. Typically, the only one of the 3 full-service locations’ benefits are provided; no table ordering, likely yes to table delivery, and no table clean-up. Bus your own table. And have a nice day. And for table delivery the lowest “suggested” tip is often 15%. The lowest. Kinda like the employees are entitled to a 15% tip for only table delivery, and regardless of the level of service or friendliness.

There is a lot of understandable criticism of people who act as if they are entitled to money, goods or services, simply because, well, they are entitled to it. Yes, this is circular reasoning, but then entitled thinking is entirely circular. I am entitled because I am entitled. Is this new “tipping” another form of entitlement?

There is a lot of conversation about how younger folks, e.g., millennials and teenagers, are lazy, entitled and well, not all that ambitious. Maybe, but I have not seen much evidence one way or the other. What I have seen, is a push, a demand, for everyone to have more. And this “having more” is now being decoupled from study, hard work and achievement. Famously, Rene Descartes said, “Cogito Ergo Sum”, I think therefore I am, in his work “Meditations on First Philosophy”, in which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated in a philosophical treatise first published in Latin in 1641. The French translation was published in 1647. Among other things, Descartes breaks down the Aristotelian notion that all knowledge comes via the senses and that mental states must in some way resemble what they are about. In the 10th of the 10 meditations, Descartes turns Aristotle on his head by proving his existence purely by the act of his own thinking. “I think therefore I am.”

There is a new “therefore” that is creeping, no, roaring into our culture: “I am, therefore I am entitled.”

Does anyone remember when contest rules changed (a while ago) so that no purchase was necessary? Prior to that change in the law, some so-called contests were little more than a way to get people to make a purchase. So, the “No purchase necessary” contest was created. Are we starting to create a “No effort necessary” world? Wait, sadly that is not a ridiculous question, would that it was. In a world where leading presidential candidates are espousing healthcare as a human right. And housing. And food. And college. All human rights. In that world, in...

View Details

Introduction

Like Dr. Martin Luther King, I have a dream. I dream that we will recognize and glory in our inherent differences, strengths and weaknesses, using our strengths to shore up each other’s weaknesses. And use that combined and multiplied strength to help us come together, discovering that not-so-far-down we all want the same things, we all have the same bedrock, common goals.

That’s why I am committed to Revolution 2.0™.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

After a year of written blogs, I switched, 200 episodes ago, at a faithful 2 episodes a week, to a combined written blog and audio podcast. About 4 years prior to publishing my first written blog, I had written a few for practice that I thought were just stellar. As I prepared to “go pro” with a live blog site, I went back and reread those “stellar” blogs. They were terrible. So, I set myself to the task of learning how to write in a way that others could understand without an interactive conversation.

Then I discovered I had no idea how to put up a working, decent-looking blog site. And I did not know where to start. After some expensive false starts, I went live.

Then another “Ah-ha!” moment. More people listen than read, so I decided to switch to an audio podcast, with a written summary. But how do you do audio? What software do you use? What home office audio gear? How do I do editing and compression, and what is compression anyway? How do I get it on iTunes, and where else should it appear?

Well, after another round of expensive false starts, I got the audio podcast going, only to find that some followers wanted to read rather than listen, so I changed to the current format of a full written transcript of the audio podcast.

What’s next? Likely video–I am already deep into round 3 of expensive false starts. Not sure when the videos will start. But they will. Also next, constant improvement on what I am doing now. Constant.

The cover photo on today’s milestone episode number 200 shows part of my home office, facing the windows. It is a wonderful office, lots of space, a view, and the required technology. My frequent companion is Duc (“Duke”), my 11-year-old Standard Poodle. His favorite place is curled up under my desk.

It takes many hours to create and post each episode, and sometimes I regret that I have committed to two per week. Newspaper columnists limit themselves to one a week. Even my spirit animal, the late Charles Krauthammer, insisted that he wrote only one per week. But I am committed to getting the word out, to sharing Revolution 2.0’s, dream, it’s vision.

Earlier I referenced Dr. King’s dream when mentioning mine. Make no mistake, I am not in any way shape or form comparing myself to MLK. While we both have dreams and visions, he had dreams that drove him, as I have mine, he is the better man, certainly in his results. One of my Father’s favorite quotes was from Rudyard Kipling’s 1890 poem, ”Gunga Din”, when the English soldier narrator in India said the final, heartfelt lines about the native Gunga Din, “You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din!” Yes, go read the poem–after the episode…:).

As I work in my office with my assistant, Duc, under my desk, I know when I am being guided about what to write, and when I am not on the right track. When I am off track, I simply can’t get started. After enough attempts to make the topic at hand and my approach work, I will discover that this is not what I am to be writing about, and start over with another topic. Sometimes the topic works, but halfway through the episode, I find that I have revamped my approach as I rethink what I think I think. Real clarity can come from trying to share things with others in writing. Other times, the words flow–that’s when I know I am being guided, and that I am on the right track. Today is one of those days.

And then I wait for feedback. Do you remember the question, often asked in a...

View Details

Introduction

With all of the useful conversations about common sense, I am not a fan of using this concept as a way of influencing political discussions. Everyone thinks they have common sense. So appealing to someone to use common sense in order to change their positions is unlikely to be effective. Their view of what comprises common sense may be very different than yours.

Start with probing for common goals, taking care to avoid seeing agendas and tactics as overall goals. For example, if the discussion is about the use of force as part of foreign policy, a goal might be to serve the best interests of the US with the least expenditure to blood and treasure. Statements like “Bring all the troops home!” or “The UN has failed. America must be the world’s cop.” are both examples of conclusions and tactics, not overall goals.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

In part, Revolution 2.0™ is focused on seeking common goals. (How’s that for a party name?) I am registered as Unaffiliated in CO; there are more of those than either Republicans or Democrats here. Don’t most of us, regardless of party affiliation, share the same common, bedrock goals? I don’t mean desires that many share like wanting this party or this candidate to win (or the other party or person to lose), I mean the core, meaningful, underlying goals that most of us share. Find the common ground (yes, it exists), add statistically-significant facts, then apply non agenda-based reasoning to achieve the desired goals. It works. And if the discussion falls off track, go back to the common goals–the touchstone–to get back on track. Back to bedrock.

Let’s look at a few examples together:

Education Goal: Having the best pre-K thru 12 education with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Note, this does not presuppose one and only one way to get there. None of these goals do. A good starting approach here might be to allow free access to equally funded traditional public schools, charter schools and private schools via vouchers. Allow parents to make the right decision for their children, and allow competition to deliver the best product for the kids, parents and society.

Poverty Goal: Getting people out of poverty and into comfort in a way that they can eventually stay there on their own. And providing lifetime support for those who can’t provide for themselves.

Gender harmony and overall success goal: Pause for the truth. Men and women are not the same. And races are different. And herein lies enormous power. We can lean on and benefit greatly from the various strengths of the races and genders, using those positives to shore up the accompanying weaknesses. Learn from each other. Depend on each other’s strengths. In this way, the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. 1 + 1 + 1 = 15–or more. But only in this way. If we defy part of the fundamental genius of God and nature and insist the that all ethnicities and both genders are the same, the whole–all of us–can never be more than, well, a collection of people with much the same to offer. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3–at best.

Abortion/Pro Life/Pro Choice Goal: Given that all of us are truly pro life and pro choice in the original and powerful definitions of life and choice, how then do we have an honest debate about this critical issue? If we can decide where we stand on the two following questions, I think we’ll have it:

When does life begin?

When is it appropriate for the state to sanction the taking of a life?

Tax and money Goal: Setting tax and other economic policies to maximize the national economy,...

View Details

Introduction

In American history, 3 presidents have been impeached. What was the motivation?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The third US President ever to be impeached is Donald Trump, whose impeachment vote also adhered to party doctrine even more strictly than either the Johnson or Clinton votes.

The only President who was ever removed due to an impeachment process was Richard Nixon, who escaped sure impeachment and conviction by resigning. He escaped forced removal by removing himself.

The obvious question is whether impeaching a President is an honest, fact-finding procedure to determine guilt or innocence, or whether it is simply a political tool. The evidence seems clear; it is a political tool, used as a blunt instrument by both parties. It is impossible for me to believe that any fact-finding process, regardless of the century, 19th, 20th or 21st, and with very different articles of impeachment, aiming to mete out justice, would always, with every vote, be decided along party lines. I trust it is impossible for you to believe it, either.

Imagine for a moment that Democratic and Repulbican jurors in court trials had, over the decades and centuries, consistently voted for guilt or innocence along party lines in all sorts of cases; robbery, fraud, treason, and so on. Consistently, in all different crimes and in all different decades. Unimaginable; it would be a sad, illegal and continuing series of triumphs of politics over justice in our courts.

1t was 130 years between the first two impeachments; it was only 21 years until the third. I am predicting that it will be less than 20 years until we hear talk of a 4th.

So, Will, if impeachments, at least as seen to date, are purely political, does that make them wrong? In a word, yes. Clearly. Impeachments are being used as political weapons to reverse a previous election, or influence a coming election. The delicious irony is that the consensus among political observers is that Clinton’s impeachment helped him greatly with his favorability ratings, as it seems it might with Trump. Seems there might be Karma even in politics.

Recalls are another often misused tool, misused in the sense that if some voters do not like the outcome of an election, they will use the recall to force an election do-over, in the same way that impeachment is most often used as an election do-over. The Nixon impeachment process, which never came to a vote in the House, and clearly not in the Senate, was an appropriate use of the impeachment process as provided for in the Constitution. The three actual impeachments were not. Impeachments and recalls are reserved for egregious offenses like “high crimes and misdemeanors”, in the case of impeachment, and similarly serious offenses, mortal sins, if you will, at lower levels of elected office.

Try this on on for size. If you had a detested neighbor, someone who you simply couldn’t stand. He’s a loud person, is wrong about all of his political opinions with the lawn signs to prove it, and keeps complaining about your kids taking a shortcut across his lawn to and from the school bus stop. And his 90-lb dog likes to do his business on your lawn. Would you look around for some sort of crime to charge him with, a crime that would result in him being locked up, and out of your neighborhood? And then run around your area, recruiting people to be on your side? The end result would be that people who liked

View Details

Introduction

I recently watched an emotional and informative video, wherein media star Megyn Kelly interviewed 4 of her previous co-workers at Fox, 3 of whom, along with Kelly, had been sexually harassed at that network. And Kelly accused CBS, NBC, NPR, Hollywood, etc., of the same behavior.

My most potent takeaway from the video was the terrible choice these women had to make, the choice between the shame of going along, saying “Yes” to the harassment for the sake of their incomes and careers, and the pain of saying “No”, knowing that no was tantamount to a deadend career, and likely loss of near-term income.

My wife and I lived and worked in Silicon Valley until 2008 when we moved back to Colorado. California was a one-party state then, and is even more so now. And the much ballyhooed tolerance of that party does not extend to tolerance of different ideas. Even then, you could not take anti-currently embraced positions at work without risking ostracism and fearing that you were creating a career cul-de-sac. That was true with both the boss and the lunch room crowd. If you had deeply held moral and values-based positions on key topics that differed with the group, you needed to either shut up, or pretend to agree. Feel the shame of compromising yourself, or suffer the pain of paying for them.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

On the eve of the Presidential election in 2016, the widely held view was that Hillary Clinton was going to win walking away. After all, deplorables were at the core of Trump’s support, and there could not be that many of them. Could there? Question. What happened? What really happened in 2016? Answer. Nothing. And we’ll get to that.

If you want a reminder of how stunned, horrified, actually, the mainstream media and the candidate herself were after a decisive electoral victory by then President-elect Trump, go look at some post election videos. They show far more than deep disappointment with a consequential loss; the videos of newscasters and the candidate reflected the revelation of a tragedy of monstrous proportions, a tragedy that was completely and totally unexpected. The oft-shown video of a young woman desperately screaming “Nooooooooooooo!” at the news sums up the losing reaction.

After a time of weeping and a great gnashing of teeth, those on the losing side rallied to come up with an explanation for the unexplainable. A great number of Trump voters were, well, sexists, racist, xenophobes and Islamophobes. There were less educated, pissed-off, and, in their anger and ignorance, bought into Trump’s callously calculated message.

But Will, how does that explain the wildly inaccurate polls? The easy answer is that those polled were so embarrassed at their known-to-be-shameful reasons for voting Republican, that they were ashamed to reveal that part of themselves to pollsters, even though the pollsters were total strangers, and often those being polled were told that their responses would be anonymous. That explanation is pure nonsense.

The real reason is that most of the media had told them, repeatedly and in no uncertain terms, that they should be ashamed of voting Republican. “Voldemort Votes Republican”, or so claimed a bumper sticker I saw at the San Francisco airport in 2016. These voters were in no way ashamed of voting for their preferred candidate, but many of them did not want to take a chance of being judged even by an anonymous pollster, so they took the easy way out and lied. A Klingon Bird of Prey (greeting to Star Trek fans) cannot fire cloaked; it must uncloak before it can fire its weapons. In the same way, the Republican voters would have needed to uncloak before they could respond honestly, so many remained cloaked. And the secret ballot allowed them to remain cloaked. There might have been some slight shame in lying to the pollsters, but it seemed better than the perceived pain of being seen as, well, as deplorable.

So, back

View Details

Introduction

Not long ago, almost all Americans loved a success story. Hometown boy makes good. Little guy succeeds against all odds. But not so much any more, not so much at all.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Has anyone heard of Horatio Alger? Horatio Alger Jr. was an American writer in the 1800s who wrote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_adult_fiction (young adult) novels about poor lads and their rise from humble backgrounds to lives of middle-class security and comfort through hard work, determination, courage, and honesty. His writings were characterized by the “rags-to-riches” narrative, which had a formative effect on the United States at the time.

My Dad once told me, after observing a summer of my reading science fiction in early high school, “Truth is stranger than fiction.” as he handed me a copy of a book detailing true first ascent mountain climbs. I remember reading about K2, Annapurna, and, of course, Everest. And my Dad was right. Those stories were more riveting, more astounding, and more full of human courage and determination than anything written by Asimov or Heinlein.

The same is true in business and commerce. Here are a few examples:

Microsoft. Bill Gates and his friend, Paul Allen, dropped out of college in 1974 to start Microsoft on a shoestring.

Mattel. In 1959, a woman named Ruth Handler noticed that her daughter had more interest in playing with paper dolls that looked like adults, rather than dolls that looked like babies or children. She designed a plastic doll that had mature features, and brought it to the 1959 New York Toy Fair. The Barbie Doll was an instant hit with young girls. Mattel was born.

Disney. Post WWI, Walt Disney returned from France as part of the Red Cross (turned down by the Army–too young), and convinced a Kansas theater to show his cartoons. Disney was born.

Walmart. After a previous business failure, Sam Walton opened a single store with the vision of generating sales with low prices driven by low profit margins. Today Walmart is the largest US employer, with 2.2M (yes, million) employees.

Amazon. Jeff Bezos started by quitting his job, and starting selling books online in 1994. Today, Amazon employs 750,000 people, and offers wide product selection, reviews and door delivery to many millions around the world. The cover photo in this episode is Jeff Bezo, in his Amazon office in 1994.

How did it come about that at least three of these companies have engendered intense dislike, bordering on hatred?

Let’s start with the two companies that have only been met with relatively mild fussing: Mattel and Disney. Mattel is accused of pushing an ideal of femininity that is impossible to achieve. But no one seems to mind that I have no way of meeting the “ideal” as modeled by G.I. Joe. Disney is criticized for having screwed up George Lucas’ Star Wars. And tarting up the original G-rated Disney movies and cartoons.

Microsoft has more severe critics, accusing the computer giant of crushing competition. Gates and Allen started with almost nothing, and sold whatever they could to keep the doors open, starting with their first company, named Traf-O-Data, which sold a rudimentary computer to track and analyze automobile traffic data. They struggled, worked hard, took creative advantages of opportunities open to all, and succeeded wildly. Yet here is a meme representing Microsoft’s critics.

The most intense criticism–hatred–is reserved for Amazon and Walmart. The critics charge that neither pays its employees enough, and that both crush the little guy. Walmart was the first to be subject to this attack, but only because they succeeded before Amazon even got started.

Let’s take the accusations in reverse order: Neither Amazon nor Walmart have ever crushed anyone. Not a small business, not a Mom ‘n’ Pop, and nary a bookstore. The people who used to shop in those stores now choose to...

View Details

Introduction:

If you believe the science and scientists who gave you modern conveniences, including smartphones and microwave ovens, then you need to believe that climate change is real, near immediate, as in getting to carbon neutral in 30 years or so, and dire in its consequences if we don’t. The same scientists and the same science that gave us those modern tech tools, are saying that climate change is real and must be dealt with sooner rather than later. That is the core message that I received from today’s guest, Alexander Slocum, Walter M. May and A Hazel May Professor of Mechanical engineering at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

That is the subject of today’s episode.

Continuing:

Today’s blog is not a transcript of the call, but it contains the same facts and arguments written by Dr. Slocum.

“My goal: I wish I could get deeply faithful Christians (especially evangelicals) to read, think, pray… and I think they would see the light and push this forward…

Climate change, far left screams we are doomed, give up everything, far right howls God will save us, so what is a citizen to do?

Many believe human’s ability to look at the world around them and choose their path originates from the story of Adam and Eve. This raises the question if “God” could predict everything in advance, why was the snake allowed in the tree? Judging by history, humans have always been free to choose their own path, and it is by this that they will be judged, as evidenced by society’s laws and their enforcement. Indeed, societies formed and spread as Humans exercised dominion over the earth by means of their brains and opposable thumbs; however, as is now apparent, humans have flourished at the expense of the natural world of which many seem to forget they are also a part.

As we came from Nature, we are thus part of it; and just as if we do not take of ourselves we wither, so it shall be with our environment and hence ourselves. Nature itself actually could care less, for even after the great asteroid ended the reign of the dinosaurs and most life, Nature bounced back J. Balance is needed, but how is it best achieved?

God having created everything also knows about science and engineering (the internet could not exist without science). And science and engineering are run by the Natural Laws that God also created (and scientists and engineers discover and use). Laws such as discovered by Einstein and a host of other brilliant people that have given us the miraculous civilization in which we live. Chief among these laws is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states entropy always increases, and thus perpetual motion is impossible. This law thus means in order for something to happen, there must be a source of energy; and in our universe there is one fundamental source of energy from which all others evolve. That source is when two atoms of the simplest element, hydrogen, fuse to form a new atom, helium, that has a slightly lower mass than that of the two hydrogen atoms individually. What happened to the little bit of mass lost? It was turned into pure energy: “light” with all its brightness, warmth, and glory to spread out in all directions. This is E=mc2: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared.

People from every religion read by light, talk on cell phones, access the internet. Many travel weekly by car to visit places of worship to learn more about God’s words and some travel by air now and then to visit Holy places. And all of these modern marvels that make possible the spreading of God’s words and laws are made possible by the discovery and understanding of God’s Natural Laws.

Scientists and engineers have not only discovered many of God’s Natural Laws, they have learned that they can put them in a form that needs no discussion with God directly for clarification as they have mastered the fact that “mathematics is the language with which God has written...

View Details

Introduction

All Democratic leaders are against the Solemani execution, and all Republican leaders are for it. It seems like we are choosing sides prior to watching a football game. And both sides cite “evidence”, which, when examined alone, sounds convincing. Where is the truth that should be known by all, and where is the strategic thinking that must cross party lines? Come to think of it, where are the grown ups?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

How is it that everything has become political? The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, should be the most impartial. Can anyone make the case that the Supreme Court is not supremely political? Examples like questions of how to use competition to improve anything from healthcare to education drown in the deepening political quagmire. Participants line up behind what their chosen political party is claiming to be true. Neither party concentrates on using facts and non agenda-based reasoning to achieve the deeply needed results. Worse, there are only two viable parties. Two bitterly divided views of the world.

When I was in school, the gym teacher would often have the boys split themselves into two teams, “shirts” and “skins.” One group would take off their shirts, making teammate identification easy in this ad hoc team selection, and we’d have at it. There might be some bumping, loud words, and a genuine desire to go all in to win, but at the end of the game, it was all over. Everyone was wearing shirts again, with laughter and playful shoving restoring cohesion and friendship.

The teacher assigned us our opposing sides; we went at it with all the strength and skill that we could muster. When it was over, we were friends and schoolmates again. In our political thinking, in our political biases and mantras, many of us are influenced over a period of time to take up an unwavering faith in what we are being told by our chosen politicians, media, co-workers and neighbors. And in a very real sense we choose the politics of our fellow workers and neighbors. If we choose to work in, say, San Francisco, we will immerse ourselves in a very different political (and moral?) environment, than Cheyenne, Wyoming.

When it comes to the late General Solemani, here are the very different views of what is going on.

Those who disagree with the execution:

Solemani was Iran’s most popular General.

He was a true national hero.

The General used clever asymmetrical war tactics to successfully engage far larger and stronger imperialist America.

Millions in Iran and Iraq mourn his passing.

The Iranian government seeks, and will exact, righteous revenge.

Trump is flirting with–if not downright seeking–yet another endless Mideast war.

Trump is endangering Americans and America to distract us from his impeachment.

Now let’s hear from the other side:

Iran is the world’s leading exporter of terrorism.

Solemani was the main figure in exporting that terrorism to many countries around the world.

Solemani used civilians as shields in many of his terrorist attacks.

Trump has stayed his hand despite many and severe provocations, e.g., the recent Iranian downing of a US drone.

Trump has long been against foreign wars, having been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

Iran crossed even Trump’s tolerant line with recent the death of an American.

If there were a Mount Rushmore for butchers in the Middle East, Soleimani, despite stiff competition, would be on it.

Today’s key point: We Americans are using any excuse, in this case Solemani’s execution, to politically execute each other. And the continuing and escalating attacks from one side against the other, American vs. American, in the attempt to embarrass and silence the other, is far more dangerous to America than the killing of a foreign general. Whether that general be an evil international terrorist, or a national hero. Or both.

This is the...

View Details

Introduction

Bill Clinton’s North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), while controversial, was widely acclaimed when it was enacted 25 years ago. President Clinton declared. “First of all, NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement. In a fundamental sense, this debate about NAFTA is a debate about whether we will embrace these changes and create the jobs of tomorrow, or try to resist these changes, hoping we can preserve the economic structures of yesterday.” Very recently, President Trump declared, “It’s my great honor to announce that we have successfully completed negotiations on a brand new deal to terminate and replace NAFTA (with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement–USMCA)” Trump continued. “I have long contended that NAFTA was perhaps the worst trade deal ever made.”

Bill Clinton, globalist. (Kinda)

Barack Obama, global apologist.

Donald Trump, America First. (Pretty much)

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

President Trump, in his inaugural address, declared, “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it is going to be only America First.” Note from history. “America First” was the name of Charles Lindberg’s organization that bitterly fought America’s entry into WWII, including during the summer of 1940 when Germany was attempting to wrest control of the air over Britain prior to invading, perhaps adding Britain to its conquest of all of consequential Europe. Thereby winning WWII. Lindberg was the first person to fly non-stop across the Atlantic, winning the coveted $25K Orteig prize in 1927. But he got this one wrong. The sneak attack on Pearl Harbor brought America into the war; “America First” dissolved in shame.

Trump’s USMCA is an example of his America First vision. And it is also a great example of the saying, “Politics makes strange bedfellows.” Nancy Pelosi and the AFL-CIO are strong supporters. Yes, the same Nancy Pelosi who is pushing hard to remove Trump from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

Part of the core of what the USMCA does is increase wages and the price of cars. The new agreement gradually raises the bar of North American-made parts in their cars to be imported duty free from 62.5% to 75% by 2023. This will incentivize automakers to increase the amount of North American parts they use in their cars and light trucks. Additionally, to further support North American jobs, the deal contains new trade rules of origin to drive higher wages by requiring that 40-45 percent of auto content be made by workers earning at least $16 per hour. Result: American workers will be paid more; cars will cost more.

The House of Representatives approved the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement in an overwhelming 385-41 vote. Thirty-eight Democrats opposed it. The trade pact now heads to the Senate, which is expected to ratify it in 2020.

The new agreement is neither a major advance, nor a huge retreat. It is modestly different. It does reflect Trump’s win/lose, zero sum game view of the world. In other words, Trump believes that for one entity to win, the other must lose. He made that approach work for him in business, and, understandably, he is using that approach as our president when dealing with foreign governments and entities like NATO, the UN, the Paris Climate accords and the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). America First.

After WWII, the United States invested staggering sums of money in rebuilding Europe. In what was called the Marshall Plan, named for George Marshall, Army Chief of Staff during the war, and Secretary of State during the implementation of the plan. The Marshall Plan, officially known as the European Recovery Program, rebuilt a devastated Europe. Even the winners were in economic ruins. The win-win was that while we spent boatloads of money, we helped to restore the free world to...

View Details

Introduction

This is the central theme of partisan politics. And it’s getting worse. But there is an effective and powerful fix. I promise.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

We have quickly devolved from conservatives thinking that liberals are stupid to specific insults like “libtard” and derogatory general beliefs, e.g., liberals are nice–naive, but nice–and are willing to give away the farm–yours, preferably–in the vain attempt to right wrongs, and correct loosely defined social injustices.

Liberals are also raising the verbal stakes, upgrading the charges from uncaring to familiar ist-accusations like racist and sexist to newer, less familiar -phobe assertions like transphobe or xenophobe. Liberal J. K. Rowling was very recently accused of being a TERF. (I had to look that one up; Trans-exclusionary Raical Feminist.) Somewhere, likely in a rent-controlled apartment, with politically-correct posters and decorations, someone is making quite a name for itself coming up with these terms. TERF is likely only a temporary triumph, soon to be eclipsed with a new derogatory acronyms, perhaps including, FART: Former Activist (now) Rational Thinker.

Liberals are thought to be stupid, becuse when they see something that needs fixing, they want to rush in with taxpayer-funded assistance, and keep supplying more and more of that aid until the problem is permanently solved. There is more than enough evidence of inefficient spending and questionable results to show this approach to be naive, prompting some to accuse supporters of this process of being stupid.

Conservatives are thought to be mean and uncaring when they wave the “personal responsibility” flag, declaring that to be the way out of anything save, perhaps, an attack in force by a foreign power, or the need for a new police headquarters. Years ago, when I first used the term personal responsibility on social media, I was met with, “Racist much?” When I expressed confusion, I was told that personal responsibility was a dog whistle for racism. By using that term, I was, I was told, like an actual dog whistle, sending out a message that only my selected audience, in this case, fellow racists, could understand.

Let’s combine so-clled stupid, the rushing in with aid part, and “uncaring”, the personhal responsibility part. This correct–ideal–combination of rushing in to fix things and having the person or group in question take personal responsibility is at the core of the Revolution 2.0™ philosophy. Here’s a refresher:

The core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are:

https://revolution2-0.org/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,

When someone has experienced a medical emergency and is taken to a hospital, the first thing medical professionals do is assess and stabilize–halt the damage. The next steps include determining the need for any long-term treatments needed to get that person back on track for an independent, healthy and happy life. That’s how medical needs are met. And that’s the right approach elsewhere, perhaps everywhere. Rush in with aid to stabilize the patient, to right wrongs. Then teach personal responsibility to allow the patient to live happily and independently, and to be able to teach others to do the same.

Let’s go back to the familiar “Give a man a fish.” example to illustrate how we teach personal responsibility. After we have given the man a fish to stabilize the situation, motivate that man to fish for himself, and you feed him for a lifetime. Teach that man to be able to teach and motivate others, and you feed a nation.

Knowing how to fish is the how. Motivation is the why. No one will...

View Details

Introduction

“Dress however you please,” Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling posted on Twitter, Thursday, 19 December 19. “Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill.”

In response, Vanity Fair reports: “JK Rowling is a TERF” (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) was trending within hours, and the conversation continued throughout the day. It led a handful of parents to question on Twitter whether it was appropriate to keep reading Harry Potter to their children, and may affect the way the books and their creator are seen by progressive Americans.

From the Washington Post: “Rowling’s tweet triggered backlash almost immediately, attracting condemnation from individual users and organizations alike: ‘Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary. CC: JK Rowling,’ the Human Rights Campaign account tweeted. Replying to Rowling’s tweet, one fan wrote that she grew up reading the Harry Potter series as a trans child, and that the author’s decision ‘to support people that hate me’ brought tears to her eyes.’”

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

J. K. Rowling’s Twitter post is the very combination of courtesy and respect for others and acknowledgment of important science that I strive for in my life, and commend to others in their lives. How is it that others could disagree–and disagree so deeply and loudly?

The woman referred to in Rowling’s tweet is Maya Forstater, a tax expert who lost her job at a UK Poverty think tank after tweeting that trans women can’t change their biological sex. Basically adhering to the argument that has somehow become bitterly controversial: that men are not women, and women are not men. Forstater’s contract as a visiting fellow at the Washington- and London-based nonprofit Center for Global Development was not renewed, according to the Guardian, after they found her tweets to be exclusionary toward trans people. On Wednesday, Judge James Tayler at the Central London Employment Tribunal dismissed Forstater’s claims of wrongful termination, per the Guardian, calling her “absolutist in her view of sex” and her expressed beliefs “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

Struther Martin’s character in the excellent movie “Cool Hand Luke” set the tone for today’s episode. Martin, oh-so-fittingly–is the Captain in a brutal Southern chain gang prison. Luke, “Cool Hand”, Paul Newman’s character who is idolized by his fellow inmates for his independent spirit, has just been dragged in, beaten and broken. As Luke lies there, surrounded by his fellow prisoners, here is what the Captain says. “Run one time, get a set of chains. Run again, get two sets of chains. Won’t be no need for no 3rd set; cause you gonna get your mind right. And I do mean right. Take a good look at Luke here (completely broken and unmoving). Cool Hand Luke.”

A so-called think tank came up with this firing. Someone with the title of judge supported this termination, saying in part, that Forstater beliefs are, “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

The woke world is taking the steps needed to get Rowling’s mind right. Mind you, Rowling has a history of being on the left, including having made major donations to the British Labour party, and is a self-described anti-Trumper. The world of “I say it, therefore it is true.” will not let up until Rowling–and all of us–have our minds right–completely right, and in full alignment with current doctrine. Here’s another representative tweet in response to Rowling’s defense of the science that observes that sex is immutable: “What, exactly, is to be gained by using your platform to be cruel and exclusionary to one of the world’s most vulnerable populations?

N.B. There is no attempt to argue the science. The...

View Details

Introduction

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. But then again, so is much of our government.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

When I was a Freshman in college, a Sophomore came to me asking me to sign a chain letter. My first thought was, “Wow. A Sophomore is talking to me.” My second was, “What’s a chain letter?” I asked the question out loud, and his response was that it was a quick way for me to make $5. I was to give him $5, then get two others to give me $5 each, with me making a quick five spot. It was official in the sense that there was a chart, starting with him, of course, at the top, with two names under him, two names under each of those names, and so on. The chart made a perfect pyramid.

I gave him the $5, and never got a dime from anyone else. I paid for a lesson that I thought I would never need to apply again, but here we are.

That’s exactly how a Ponzi scheme works. Oh, Charles Ponzi did not work out of a college dorm, and he nailed people for millions at a time, but the principle is no different. Just as in a chain letter, early investors get their money out with a substantial profit. But those profits do not come from any profitable or productive activity; both the return of the original investment and the profits come from money paid in by later investors. Wealth is not created, it is simply transferred from later investors to earlier investors. And it is clear this house of cards must collapse in on itself.

That’s exactly how the Social Security pay-as-you-go system works. In your 401(k) plan, you pay in advance over time to accumulate funds to spend later in life. Properly funded public and corporate pension plans work that way as well. Social Security does not.

Today’s Key Point: Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, and pay-as-you-go is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. The difference between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that Ponzi schemes are illegal, and Social Security is mandatory. Given that Ponzi operated privately in the 1920’s, illegally, and without the participation mandate required by Social Security and still made huge amounts of money, perhaps someone like Ponzi, e.g., Bernie Madoff, should be considered for the position of US Commissioner of Social Security.

Making Social Security mandatory, an advantage that neither Messrs. Ponzi nor Madoff enjoyed with their schemes, delays but does not eliminate the possibility of collapse. When a Ponzi scheme runs out of new participants to support the earlier ones, it must collapse. In 1940 there were 160 participants for everyone receiving benefits; today there are about 3. The Treasury steps in with borrowed money to keep paying the beneficiaries. Social Security is a needed program, and can be fixed. A sliding scale for the retirement age is the best fix, but we have addressed that in earlier episodes, so we’ll move on with today’s topic.

Medicare and Medicaid are both pay-as-you-go programs, and, by definition, Ponzi schemes. As with Social Security, government endeavors to turn illegal and damaging into legal and virtuous by making things mandatory.

But let’s look at less obvious areas, remembering the definition of a Ponzi scheme being pay-as-you-go, as opposed to saving and investing for the future. What other areas of government are pay-as-you-go Ponzi schemes? Or we can turn the question around and ask if there are any government programs that are not pay-as-you go.

Let me give you an example from right here in Colorado dealing with neglected infrastructure. And I am guessing that you have examples from your geography as well. Highway I-25 is the main North/South Corridor running the length of Colorado on the Eastern side of the Rockies, the Front Range as it is called here. It runs from New Mexico to Wyoming, but we will keep this discussion limited to this area. The two most populous cities in Colorado are Denver and Colorado Springs, with rapidly growing...

View Details

Introduction

We have had multiple “existential threats” over the centuries, yet here we still are, alive and well, and listening to the dire warnings about yet another end-of-the-world threat.

Are we listening to a resurrected Chicken Little screeching about how The Sky is Falling, or is the threat for real this time?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

To the best of everyone’s knowledge, only one existential threat has ever visited our planet, and that was when the dinosaurs were wiped out. I’m with the group that blames asteroids. If for no other reason than asteroids are not a protected group, and have not hired lawyers.

More recently, various wars and their new technologies have been seen as life-on-earth-ending threats. In WWI, poison gas and machine guns were seen that way. In WWII, the airplane, perhaps especially long-range, high-capacity bombers, were seen as a dire threat. In both world wars, the major concern of those issuing the threats was the new technology’s ability to wipe out civilian populations on a widespread basis. And the atomic bomb, used almost 75 years ago, caused even more catastrophic predictions.

In 1963, post Korean War, and prior to Vietnam, Bob Dylan wrote and performed his haunting song, “Masters of War”. Let’s look at some of the lyrics:

“You’ve thrown the worst fear

That can ever be hurled

Fear to bring children

Into the world

For threatening my baby

Unborn and unnamed

You ain’t worth the blood

That runs in your veins”

From this then popular song, we can see that climate change worriers are far from the first to claim that a threat is so dire that not having children is the preferred path. “Fear to bring children into the world.” Do you suppose that any would-have-been parents went childless because of the anti-war viewpoint in Dylan’s song? “Masters of War” remained very popular throughout and past the Vietnam War. Anti-war sentiment and distrust of “the man” was at least as strong as today’s climate change furor and the distrust of anyone who disagrees.

Well before Dylan, Thomas Malthus, an English cleric and scholar, influential in the fields of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy (political economy) and demography in the late 1700s, wrote:

“That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,

That the superior power of population is repressed by moral restraint, vice and misery.”

In other words, Malthus was convinced that we were going to run out of food for the expanding population and starve. In 1800, there were 1 billion people; today we are close to 8 billion. And we have more food per person than ever.

In the same vein, in 1968, Paul R. Erlich, an American biologist, and the Bing Professor of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_study (Population Studies) in the Department of Biology at Stanford University, and president of Stanford’s Center for Conservation Biology, wrote “The Population Bomb.” Here’s a quote, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Does Erlich’s prediction of imminent death on a global scale have a familiar ring?

Ah, and let’s not forget the peak oil existential threat. More recent than the unfounded Erlich scare, the peak oil crowd was claiming that we were going to run out of oil; lights would go out, gas would go to $25 a gallon–disaster! The idea was that we knew about all the oil there was to know about, and with increasing use, we would run out–in about 10-12 years from then. And, by the way, America was going to become a nation subject to the whims of the oil-rich countries, because we would need to...

View Details

Introduction

From the Spanish Inquisition, and before, to today, True Believers have been attacking people, cancelling people is the new term. Cancelled physically by killing, or psychologically and financially by insults, false accusations and specious accusations of, well, simply not being pure enough, of not having always shown 100% consistency with current hard and fast true beliefs. No matter how often current orthodoxy may change, those who are True Believers in the orthodoxy preached by their chosen group are all in to the point where nothing else is at all acceptable.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The entire “You are with me or you are against me.” thought process is invading virtually every part of our lives. And dividing our country and our friends and families.

Here’s how to fix all of that. Start with a search for common goals. Do not start with a statement of how right you are.

Let’s take a look at some of our history and see if there are any lessons for today. WWI was a horrific affair, with tens of millions of dead, maimed and ruined lives. Often people ask how any war started, and sometimes there is a clear–if unsatisfactory–answer. WWII started in Europe when Germany attacked Poland, and later attacked Russia. Attacks led by True Believer Adolph Hitler and his Believer followers. It started in the Pacific when Japan attacked the US. Japan was led by True Believer General Hideki Tojo, Prime Minister during the war, and his Believer followers. The Allies, mainly the US, Russia, France and Britain, had clear and well justified reasons to fight the Axis; Germany, Italy and Japan. The Korean War started when the North attacked the South. The justification, to save South Korea and to contain communism, was less universally acclaimed, but still justified. The Korean and Chinese True Believers lit this fire.

Vietnam, also justified as necessary to contain communism, was simply an exercise in futility, and a monument to ambition and ignorance. But the “think tank” in Washington, to me exemplified by the lead “numbers man” Robert McNamara, a senior American business executive and Secretary of Defense, serving from 1961 to 1968 under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. McNamara was dead (pun intended) wrong about the war, and 58,000 Anericans paid the ultimate price for his beliefs. Ah, but he was a True Believer. He Truly Believed in supporting a corrupt Catholic government in Buddhist South Vietnam. He Truly Believed that by observing the greater numbers of the enemy killed vs the number of Americans killed, that we were willing. He seems to have forgotten that you win wars by taking–and holding–ground. But he was a numbers man. And a True Believer.

Now to WWI. Most of us learned that it started when Archduke Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated. A young Serbia Muslim, Gavrilo Princip, participated, along with 4 other Serbs and a Bosniak, in assassinating the heir-apparent to the Austrio-Hungarian empire. A series of threats, demands and insults created a clash of egos that exploded into WWI. It is not unlike a bar fight, where no one really knows how it started, but there is blood and bodies everywhere. Princip was a True Believer. Kaiser Wilhem, II of Germany, a major player, was a True Believer. As were many of the young men from both sides who were taught that God was on their side. Despite the death and destruction, despite new weapons of war; airplanes, gas and machine guns, virtually nothing was decided. But enough True Believers were left from both sides to help trigger WWII. (In a telling twist, Muslim Serbia sees Princip as a hero, Christian Bosnia sees him as a traitor.)

Communism, a far greater killer than Nazism, is fueled and expanded by True Believers. How else could any political/economic system, that has never worked anywhere, get away with killing 40 million people in Stalin’s Russia and 80 million in Mao’s

View Details

Introduction

Welcome to the second Revolution 2.0™ interview; part of a continuing series. The first interview was on a giveback subject, with Mathew Passy and https://revolution2-0.org/first-interview-causepods-org-real-life-brothers-keeper-example-ep-183/ (causepods). Today is another giveback subject, the annual https://events.arthritis.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=944 (525-mile, 8-day bicycle ride) raising money for the Arthritis Foundation: Riding for a cure. Sit back as Shannon Marang Cox, the Development Director for the ride, and “Champion of Yes” tells us why this is so needed, why it is such a deep commitment, and so much fun for the 250 riders and staff. Including yours truly–me.

That is the subject of today’s episode.

Continuing

Did you know that 300,000 kids in the US have debilitating arthritis? Along with 54 million adults, making Arthritis the leading cause of disability in the US. Shannon Marang Cox, the Development Director for the California Coast Classic, the annual, 525-mile bicycle ride from San Francisco to LA, knows. Let’s hear her talk about why it is important, how it helps, and why the 250 riders, of all sorts and ages, of all abilities, and on all sorts of contraptions, including regular bikes, recumbent trikes, and e-bikes do this fundraising ride. And they often do it again and again.

And you will hear from me about why I have done it several times, and why I have committed to doing it again in 2020. All 525 miles.

Click one of these links to https://events.arthritis.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=944 (learn more), support me as a https://events.arthritis.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.participant&participantID=145393 (rider) and/or https://events.arthritis.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.event&eventID=944 (register) as a rider.

For those listening, the main site is arthritis.org/californiacoastclassic

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me onhttp://twitter.com/willluden ( Twitter),https://www.facebook.com/will.luden ( Facebook), andhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/willluden?trk=hp-identity-photo/ ( LinkedIn). And you can subscribe on your favorite device throughhttps://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/results-with-reason/id1353135552?mt=2 ( Apple), https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cDovL3Jlc3VsdHN3aXRocmVhc29uLmNvbS9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv (Google), orhttps://www.stitcher.com/podcast/mathew-passy/results-with-reason?refid=stpr ( Stitcher).

If you liked today’s podcast, other podcasts or the http://www.revolution2-0.org (revolution2-0.org) site itself, comment, subscribe, and encourage others to subscribe with you. Each One Reach One will help spread the word about Revolution 2.0™.

Will Luden, coming to you from 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Introduction

“How do you feel when you wake up in the morning and you look outside the window and it’s raining again? How do you feel?”

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Okay, Will, is this a change of pace? Or what is this topic about? No, joy is part of what makes life worthwhile, part of what makes good times more fun. It makes the bad times far more tolerable, and prompts the type of clear thinking needed to get past the hard times. Joy is far more than merely, well, joyful, it is required for a good life. Required to fulfill the Revolution 2.0 principles and philosophy. And like sunscreen, it is best applied liberally and reapplied often.

Several years ago when I was preparing, training, for my first 525-mile, 8-day bicycle ride down the Coast of California as part of a group raising money for the Arthritis Foundation. I was riding in a group that included an experienced multiple-day bicycle event rider. We were talking while pedaling, and I expressed my nervousness about my upcoming 525-mile ride. He said to me, “Will, you are strong enough as a rider to make it all 8 days. The question is your butt and your mind.” “What?” I replied, “My butt and my mind?” “Yes, multiple days back-to-back on a bicycle seat can be hard to handle if you are not used to it.” Then he made a point by way of a joke saying, “The best way to train your bottom for something like that is to sit sideways on a split rail fence for about a week.” Then he got to his main point with a question. “Let’s say it is day 5 of 8, you are on a long uphill, the wind is in your face and it is beginning to rain. What are you going to say to yourself?” He let it hang in the air like a rhetorical question, and I got it. Was I going to stick my tongue out and enjoy the rain, or was I going to start feeling sorry for myself? Was I going to be thankful for the training I had done, my very competent bicycle, and the satisfying breakfast that was still partly with me, or was I going to let my mind go downhill while I pedaled uphill?

Here was my riding companion’s point: Complaining is a decision. Joy is a decision. Which choice would I make?

We all face decisions like this; how will we react when it is raining again? Or when our party or candidate loses? Or our favorite sports team? Does it take some sort of triumph, or at least very good news for us to be joyful? Or do we need alcohol or other drugs to conjure up joy?

Answer: The seeds of joy are everywhere. Like the wild flowers that do not appear in dry seasons, but appear in joyful (there’s that word) profusion when there is enough water that season, joy is latent, always there, waiting for us to water it with the decision to be joyful. Unlike wildflowers, we do not need a season of preparation to find joy; a momentary decision will do it. Here are some of the many advantages of being filled with joy:

It’s free.

It takes no preparation. Just a choice.

Joy can be found anywhere, including in the simplest of things.

A hug

A happy dog or purring cat

A light breeze

A child who wants to spend time with you

A spouse or partner you want to spend time with

Music

Seeing an old friend

When you are bored, and want to get over it

When you are angry or sad, and are ready to get over it.

We saw my riding friend, long distance cycling mentor’s advice; here’s mine. Everything; being bored, happy, angry, joyful–are all choices. Are we making the right ones?

Will, I am not buying that all of these moods are choices. C’mon, when you lose a friend or your dog dies, you are going to be sad–period. And if you get treated unfairly by, for example, law enforcement or your insurance company, you have a right to be mad. Yes?

Answer. Yes. Absolutely. But for how long, and what do you get out of it? Sadness is a legitimate emotion, and can be helpful. Righteous anger clearly has its place. Stay with your sadness as long as it is healthy and

View Details

Introduction

In 1841, Britain, by then a constitutional monarchy with democratic voting, seized Hong Hong from China’s Quing dynasty as part of Britain’s colonial expansion. In 1997, Britain returned Hong Kong to one-party rule China, as part of China’s expansion.

China, quite predictably, is working hard to break its 1997

promises of non-interference with freedom-loving, capitalist Hong Kong. Tens of thousands of Hong Kong protesters, the real Antifa, are struggling to resist absorption by Communist China. There are important lessons for us in America in the broken promises from China and in the pro-freedom struggle.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Despite what China promised in 1997, and has reiterated ever since, China is hell bent on swallowing freedom-loving Hong Kong, and making it a part of its one-party rule regime. If you think about it, China has never experienced anything like freedom. From the Emperors to Mao to today’s Communist Party, China and the Chinese have always been under autocratic rule. And they are not about to change. They will eventually swallow Hong Kong. In part because they planned on doing exactly that all along, and in part because they know that an island of freedom in a sea of greatly restricted freedoms is simply too dangerous to be allowed to stand. If you have a piece of cheese with mold on it, you need to cut the mold out before it spreads. To China’s rulers, freedom is the mold that needs to be removed, either surgically or by simply smashing it.

China infamously smashed a 1989 pro-freedom protest in mainland China in Tiananmen Square. The well publicized photo showing a confrontation between an individual citizen and the tanks that the rulers had called out to suppress the thousands of protesters is hard to forget–once you have seen it. Was the ruling Communist Party in China at all embarrassed? Not a bit of it. This was just a hiccup to them. Did the world’s free countries do anything but huff and posture? Barely a whimper.

And the Communist Party of China has the patience to out-wait everyone, to wait until all the storms blow over, and swallow freedom-loving Hong Kong in relative silence. Oh, there will be the obligatory huffing and puffing, but no one will do a thing. China will continue to slaughter Muslims, deny many basic freedoms to its own citizens, cheat in international dealings, swallow Hong Kong whole–and get away with it.

So, Will, I get all of this, but what is the lesson for us, for Americans? Answer. Hong Kong, long free, is being gobbled up by autocratic China. Worse, far worse, we Americans are eroding, carving up, our own freedoms. Like a snake eating its own tail.

We are allowing our freedoms to erode on a multitude of fronts. The demand for correct speech, PC speech, is one. Cancelling, basically declaring a PC violator to be a nonperson, in another. And cancelling is not at all benign; it often ruins careers and one’s ability to produce income along with destroying reputations.

Cancelling raises it ugly head everywhere from Hollywood to the Internet to campuses to charities. Kevin Hart, a black American stand-up comedian, actor, and producer, had been selected to host the 2018 Academy Awards, but in December of that year he stepped down as host in response to a backlash due to several alleged homophobic tweets from 2010 and 2011–7 and 8 years prior. Hart stated “If you don’t believe people change, grow as they get older, I don’t know what to tell you.” Hart issued an apology to the LGBTQ comnmunity and stepped down as the host. Hart later announced he was going to reconsider stepping down, after openly lesbian comedian Ellen DeGeneres, who has hosted the Academy Awards multiple times, expressed support for Hart to be the host and said she telephoned the Academy to ask if Hart would be able to reverse his decision if he wished and, according to DeGeneres, the Academy said he...

View Details

Introduction

Bloated bureaucracies are growing in size and impact, and vitally important to all of us. But as important as this subject is, it is never called out by name.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

So, Will, how do bloated bureaucracies affect me? Why should I care?

First, they are obviously expensive. If you are paying more people than necessary to create a desired result, that’s waste, that’s bloat, and that’s expensive. Let’s say that we, you and I, owned, say, a plumbing supply business, and needed to make a profit to meet our personal financial responsibilities and to maintain a growing company that served its employees, customers and the community. We would need to concentrate on having the majority of our personnel focused in the areas key to our business. For example, salespeople would be key for obvious reasons, as would those who deal with our vendors. They keep prices down, maintain timely deliveries and establish strong bonds so that if supplies become short, we get the product our customers need. The accounting and facilities functions, while needed, are not as important, and should get less time, energy and money.

Pause for a definition: I am not concerned with private companies that may have larger than needed bureaucracies. Competition will sort them out without my help. It is the direct government bureaucracies, e.g., the DMV and Medicare, and the indirect ones, e.g., government-granted monopolies like utilities, and quasi monopolies, e.g., pre K-12 education, that need watching and changing.

Private businesses have the profit incentive and competition to keep them in check. What’s to keep government bureaucracies in check? Answer. Nothing. Worse, there is often an incentive to grow the employee population for reasons entirely disassociated from the stated results the organization is on record as seeking. There is no better–or more dangerous–example than public unions. Negotiations work when they are arm’s length discussions between two parties which, while both desiring to preserve the relationship, have different and competing interests. The intelligent ones seek only win-win results. For example, when a business negotiates with a supplier, the business wants the lowest prices at the best terms, while the supplier will negotiate for higher prices, and terms that make their business easier to manage. Their interests in key areas like price and terms diverge sharply. If they can find a win for both sides, perhaps higher prices than the buyer wanted, but guaranteed delivery terms, a guarantee that the supplier might have initially resisted, they will have created a win-win, advantaging both enterprises.

When public unions negotiate with the very politicians that control their contracts, including pensions, there are no divergent interests; one hand washes the other. The unions, notably but not exclusively teachers unions, present their demands to the very politicians they fund and vote for. The obligated–and grateful–politicians accede to their demands with little in the way of a counter. Yes, that is also a win-win. The public unions and the politicians both win, but the taxpayers lose–every time. And win-win-lose is unacceptable. Or should be. BTW, some believe that public unions should be banned. I am not in that camp, or at least I am not where private competition could be provided to keep things in line. In pre K-12, in order to deliver the best education with the most efficient use of taxpayer funds, the clear solution is to provide liberal access to equally funded traditional public schools, charter schools and private schools via vouchers. With that in place, if the public schools wanted to continue their cozy relationships with the politicians who control their contacts, I’d be all for it. I would be delighted to allow competition to sort all of that out.

But Will, don’t teachers need to be paid more? Certainly you...

View Details

Introduction

Welcome to the first Revolution 2.0™ interview; the first of many. Today we are interviewing Mathew Passy in his serving others role with https://www.causepods.org/ (Causepods.org).

The two driving principles at Revolution 2.0™ are 1. Being Personally Responsible and 2. Being Your Brother’s Keeper. Mathew Passy, husband and father of young twins, meets part of his personal responsibilities as a top tier podcaster and a successful professional resource for other podcasters. When you listen to Revolution2.0 episodes, you benefit from his editing, other professional skills and constant training of yours truly.

Mr. Passy meets and exceeds the Brother’s Keeper principle with his non-profit Causepods.org. Causepods is a passion project of Mathew’s. (His for profit enterprise is https://www.thepodcastconsultant.com/ (The Podcast Consultant).) Causepods’ aim is to interview folks who are using podcasts to raise awareness for a good cause. Whether that’s a non-profit, charity, medical cause, social justice movement, or anyone looking to create a positive impact in the world, from the local level to the global population. Mathew shies away from the term Brother’s Keeper, but I see him as an exemplar of the very best of that term.

That is the subject of today’s episode.

Continuing

One unique feature to Causepods is that they are going to use this platform to raise money for a 501(c)3 non-profit of your choosing with online donations. All proceeds go straight to the charity.

If you think you’re a podcaster making a difference in the world, please take a few moments to fill out thehttps://bookme.name/thepodcastconsultant/lite/causecast-podcast-booking ( Causepods Form); they can’t wait to have you on Causepods.

Causepods Mission Raise awareness for the people who are using podcasts to better their community, society, or the world. Help others tap into the power of podcasting.

Be a Causepods Guest

If you think you’re a podcaster making a difference in the world, please followhttps://bookme.name/thepodcastconsultant/lite/causecast-podcast-booking ( this link) to schedule your recording and describe the cause-based podcasting you are committed to.

https://bookme.name/thepodcastconsultant/lite/causecast-podcast-booking (Sign up to be on Causepods)

Join the Group Need help producing a caused-based podcast? Join Causepod’s Facebook group where we’ll share resources and support each other to meet our goals and stay under budget.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2073354376260768/ (Join the Facebook Group)

Do you know of a cause that Causepods might support? Then go to causepods.org and fill out the simple form and good things will happen.

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the episodes with comments or questions about this episode or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me onhttp://twitter.com/willluden ( Twitter),https://www.facebook.com/will.luden ( Facebook), andhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/willluden?trk=hp-identity-photo/ ( LinkedIn). And you can subscribe on your favorite device throughhttps://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/results-with-reason/id1353135552?mt=2 ( Apple), https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cDovL3Jlc3VsdHN3aXRocmVhc29uLmNvbS9mZWVkL3BvZGNhc3Qv (Google), orhttps://www.stitcher.com/podcast/mathew-passy/results-with-reason?refid=stpr ( Stitcher).

Will Luden, coming to you from 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Introduction

First, stop the bleeding, then get the patient back to living on their own. This advice applies equally in medical and financial situations.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The hospital does not assume that the correct thing to do is to keep the patient in the facility, dependent upon the staff and equipment in place there. Hospitals are expensive and are designed for effective short-term care–not long-term–care. If necessary, the patient is referred out to less expensive, longer-term care facilities. The ultimate goal is to have the patient be able to live on their own, without any kind of medical support provided by others. This not only allows resources to be used by the next person in need, but it gives patients the freedom, the dignity and the joy that comes with unassisted living.

This is not how our society is trending when it comes to other areas where people may be hurting. For example, when people are suffering financially, the increasing tendency is not only to give assistance, but to give ever-increasing aid over extended periods of time. There is little, if any, thought given to stabilizing the financial situation–halting the damage–and helping that person to return to financial independence.

When we create long-term dependencies in order to address short-term solutions, we are not delivering a compassionate solution: We are handing down a life sentence. Likely for generations. The cruel irony here is that the very people and groups advocating for lifelong care, the life sentence, do so in the name of compassion.

Why is there a difference between how we as a society handle people with medical issues as opposed to people with financial challenges? The answer is in two parts:

The motivation of the person with the need and

The motivation of the mechanism that provides the relief.

Let’s take the individual’s motivation; the patient or the person in financial distress. No one wants to stay in a hospital. Bad food, terrible beds, and constant poking and prodding along with other interruptions. And no Netflix. But some people might very well want to stay in a financial “hospital”; live easy and live at home. On direct deposit or EBT. Be aware that some people will say they can’t succeed on their own, when they really mean they simply won’t or don’t want to.

This would be a good time for a quick review of Revolution 2.0™’s https://revolution2-0.org/cant-or-wont/ (Can’t vs. Won’t) chart. Note that in certain circumstances, permanent assistance is fully warranted–and desirable. But most certainly not in all cases as advocated by those who claim that assistance like food, housing and medical care are human rights. Reasonable access to those products and services should be made available to all. Reasonable access, not free for everyone.

What about the motivations of the workers administering the various financial assistance programs? The more money they give out, and the more people they give money to, the better their job security and chances for promotion. The requirements for jobs like these are not high; show up, be polite, fill out forms–repeat. The incentive is to give out more money to more people for longer periods of time. That’s intentionally easy to do, because there are no apparent boundaries the financial aid workers can see to limit the amount of money available to be handed out. Taxpayer money seems like an endless resource, and there is no profit motive to restrain behavior.

The same it not

View Details

Introduction

We should be allowing our principles to determine our agendas. All too often, in today’s backward way of thinking, we allow our agendas to determine our principles.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Principles can appropriately be described as core, fundamental beliefs. Google helps us with the following definition of a principle, “A fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.” Note the part where principles, “…serve as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour…”. Assuming that we know what our principles are, they should lead to how we conduct our lives, and determine our agendas, political and otherwise. Too often, we grab onto an agenda or a system of belief, and conjure up principles that tie to those agendas.

Our principles are the base for our entire lives. Clearly, they come first. Everything goes upside down and backwards when we agree with certain types of political or financial thinking, align with a political party or simply make it known to family, friends and co-workers where we stand in the world before we wrestle with the fundamentals, before we come to grips with the core thinking we believe represents the truth. The world conspires against us, the world pushes us to shape our positions, our agendas, before it challenges us to anchor our principles.

Let’s examine why that is the way the world works, at least for now. In school, the conversation from the front of the classroom, in the classroom and in and around the campus, rarely starts with core principles; when non-academic conversations begin, they center on what to believe–not how to find what you really believe. A clear extension of the strategy of teaching students what to think, not how to think. Perhaps a bit less so, the same thing happens at home. And at work. Conversations rarely center around principles, with principles being the overall strategy about how to live life. Conversations, speeches and debates start with tactics, with specifics, like whether Democrats are worse than the Republicans–or the other way around. In the political arena, most voters know where their preferred politicians stand on issues; few voters know what–if any–core principles they hold.

So let’s start with the principles that Revolution 2.0™ holds dear:

https://revolution2-0.org/gratitude-ep-180/ (Gratitude): Everything good starts with gratitude. Ingratitude makes for a grim and unproductive outlook on life, love and politics.

https://revolution2-0.org/we-all-need-a-moral-compass-ep-137/ (Moral Compass): The terms Moral compass and True North are interchangeable to me. I like the term moral compass because it means more to me, it anchors me better. A compass works because when used at all correctly, it points to a fixed point outside of both itself and the user, allowing the user to stay on track. And that is exactly how our moral compasses need to work.

https://revolution2-0.org/common-goals-ep-09/ (Common Goals): Don’t most of us share the same common, bedrock goals? I don’t mean desires that many share like wanting this party or this candidate to win (or the other party or person to lose), I mean the core, meaningful, underlying goals that most of us share. Find the common ground (yes, it exists), add statistically-significant facts, facts that apply broadly to the issue, then apply non agenda-based reasoning. It works. And if the discussion falls off track, go back to the common goals–the touchstone–to get back on track. Back to bedrock.

https://revolution2-0.org/my-rights-are-your-responsibility-ep-110/ (Rights and Responsibilities): With every right, comes an equal or greater responsibility. Every right. For example, with the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to make certain that your firearms will never, ever inappropriately harm another....

View Details

Introduction

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Without gratitude, there is an inescapable emptiness; not a yearning, but a feeling of being ungrounded. This makes for a fertile ground for resentful thoughts of unfairness or “Why me? Or worse, comparing ourselves to others.

If you immediately question what–if anything–you have to be grateful for, let’s take a peek at that.

Did you get up this morning?

When you did, did you have ready access to running water, maybe even hot and cold running water?

When you go to the store, grocery or whatever, do you have multiple choices in almost every category?

Oh, and did you have transportation to and from the store?

And did you wake up in the most prosperous, diverse and free country on earth?

I start my day 6 days a week with the same set of foam roll and ab exercises. Faithfully. It helps to set me up for the day in a very positive way, and it helps my body to be ready for everything from the stairs (it is about 40 steps from the lowest level in the house to the highest–we even have steps from the garage leading into the house), snow shoveling and, yes honey-dos. It also makes me happier and more confident.

A set of gratitude exercises, reminders, really, would do the same for my spirit. It would set me up for the day in a very positive way. I am letting you know, you as my accountability group, that I am starting today to make that a 7-day-a-week routine. A routine prayer, really.

We have all heard about the power of positive thinking. Basically, think good thoughts and good things happen. Gratitude is the necessary foundation for positive thinking.

The reverse is also true; complaining sets up a moment or a day in a very negative way. Let’s try an experiment together. First, complain about some things in your life; a spouse or partner, child or parent. A boss or co-worker. How you have too many bills, and not enough friends who care enough about you. A recent snide remark from an ungrateful child, or not being able to find anything in the newly rearranged grocery store. Are you with me? Now say some possible complaints out loud, for example, “Everyday I try to get Pat to stop squeezing the toothpaste in the middle. How hard can that be?” And another, “Drew was a jerk to me today at work. And after all I have done!” Did you say these things out loud? Now, try to have a clear and convincing positive thought. How’d that go? What did you feel like? Productive? Ready for anything? Maybe not.

Now let’s try thinking about Pat and Drew differently; same people, same situations, but our reactions and thoughts are different. “Pat brushes twice a day; I appreciate the fresh breath and the almost complete lack of cavities.” Or, “In the past, Drew has always been helpful on projects; wonder what’s wrong. I hope everything is OK.” How did that make you feel? How did that set up you for what might be next? Better?

OK, your turn. Going from water and electricity, to freedom and opportunity, add some things that you are grateful to have. Take your time. Write them down. Then tell people. And be sure to tell the...

View Details

Introduction

Is it an accident that states like California and New York are predominantly progressive, and states like Texas and Oklahoma are not?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Take a look at this electoral map; with four exceptions, all of the states in the contiguous 48 that voted in 2016 for either Clinton or Trump are in connected blocks. Of those four, Colorado and New Mexico share a border, and the other two, Minnesota and Illinois, are very nearly connected. Why?

Question: Did everyone of a like mind move to the same places, or is something else going on?

Answer: Something else. In the absence of differing opinions from a variety of sources, people will rely on the opinions of family and friends, co-workers and their favorite news sources and social media. Outside of family, all the sources will be selected more for comfort and absence of frustration than political reasoning and diversity. Not surprisingly, they will pretty much share the same opinions. Similar opinions from multiple sources that reinforce each other can easily be seen as a valid consensus. And with some notable exceptions (Uncles and Brothers-in Law?), families tend to lean one way or the other on significant issues, adding to the sameness.

Remember the story about the blind men learning about their first elephant by feeling different parts of the animal? The one feeling the trunk thought it was a snake. Another feeling a leg thought it was a tree. The one who had an ear was believed it was a fan. “I feel a wall” said the man with his hands on the elephant’s side. The man with the tail in his hands was convinced that it was a rope, and the last one who had the tusk, was sure that he had found a spear. Each man based his opinions on a partial experience, and each one of them got it wrong. The same thing is happening when we rely on people and sources who are focused on the same parts of our political, social and economic “elephant” to the exclusion of the other parts. Like the blind men analysing the elephant, they do not give any credence to the other parts. The difference is that the blind men were completely satisfied that the part they had represented the whole, while the vast majority of political, financial and social commentators are aware of the other parts, the other positions and arguments–they simply dismiss them as inferior or even hateful. In other words, the blind men were not curious enough to feel for other parts to determine if another view of what they were feeling might be valid. People with political convictions are aware of other views, they simply dismiss them, often with nothing more than an insult, as wrong or hateful.

And this will snowball. Espousing a certain set of opinions will attract others with the same views, and, over time, discourage those with other thoughts from speaking up. Like the snowball which when rolled attracts more of the same (snow), opinions on a roll attract more people with the same opinions. Pretty soon it will appear to those in the expanding consensus that the correct opinions and answers–on even the most controversial subjects–abortion, school choice, foreign involvement, healthcare, etc., are completely obvious and should be unanimous. At least among correct-thinking people. Those who disagree just don’t get it.

Pause for a key point here: The people who dismiss another’s opinion without any semblance of a rational discussion, might or might not be hateful in the way they think or act. But they are clearly being arrogant. The irony here–the deep irony–is that they are so unsure of their own facts and reasoning, so fundamentally uncertain of whether or not their beliefs will stand the test of reasonable disagreement, that they dismiss the other arguments, the other positions, as invalid, or even hateful, while tossing out nothing more than a few cliches or insults. So, Will, what’s the irony here? Answer. The...

View Details

Introduction

The raging fires and continuing power blackouts in California, the richest state in the world’s richest nation, are clearly tragic. Are they largely avoidable?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

California’s continuing wildfires and power blackouts have caught national and international attention. In just one example, more than 2 million https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/west/california (Californians) were recently left without power after the state’s largest utility, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)–which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year–preemptively shut down transmission lines in the fear that they might spark fires during periods of high autumn winds. Some small businesses lost tens of thousands of dollars, threatening the livelihood of the owners and their employees. People who are dependent on electricity-powered home-based, life-sustaining devices are in danger. Modern phones, e.g., the ones offered with bundled services, need power to work. Even some cell towers are inoperative when the power is off, and the cell phones themselves will eventually need to be recharged.

Power outages cause schools to close, and hospitals to run on emergency power. School homework does not get done (you can read by candlelight, but most schools require computers and Internet access for homework), and people working from home get very little accomplished.

The fires are burning tens of thousands of acres, and destroying thousands of people’s homes. Last year alone PG&E, California’s largest utility serving 16 million Californians, admitted to being the cause of the Camp Fire, which virtually destroyed Paradise, CA, a town of 26,000 people, and cost 85 lives. And drove PG&E into bankruptcy. My son and his family live in nearby Chico, where firefighters had to do a preventative backburn right up to the edge of his city.

Consumers https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/disasters/fires (blame) the state for poor forest management, including not cleaning up dead trees and brush, along with the utility companies for not updating their ossified equipment. The power companies, including PG&E, in turn fault the state for over-regulating utilities to the point they had no resources available to modernize their grids.

PG&E recently went on record as saying this would be the new normal for 10 years or so. California Governor Gavin Newsome has also gone on record, blaming PG&E, citing “dog-eat-dog” capitalism as the root cause. The city of San Jose is leading an effort to take over the investor-owned PG&E, and make it consumer-owned.

What’s the core issue? Answer: You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. In WWII, the FDR administration knew that we had to cut back at home in order to fund a winning effort in the war. Private cars were not available as the automobile factories switched to building military vehicles and airplanes. Everything was rationed, including tires. People were encouraged to save things like kitchen grease (it contains glycerin which is used in making explosives) and trade it with their local grocery store for extra ration coupons. There were constant rallies and other encouragements for citizens to buy war bonds. Rosie the Riveter went to work in the factory, while the men went to war.

President Johnson, a proponent of the Vietnam War, promised something very different; he claimed that we could prosecute the war in Vietnam with no sacrifices needed at home. He famously promised, “We can have guns and butter.” FDR knew better. Johnson should have known better. No entity, including affluent California, can have guns and butter. No entity can have its cake and eat it too.

If California wants to continue with green energy initiatives, which at least initially will cost large sums of money, and at the same time it wants to protect its citizens by upgrading its ancient and dangerous power grid, then its leaders

View Details

Introductio

All too frequently, there seems to be an inverse relationship between how strident a person is in expressing their opinions, and how much they know.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

I became a Broncos fan by an accident of history. My step-father, Charles (Chuck) Warner, bought season tickets in 1960; I have been in those seats on and off since then. I have added to that accidental affiliation by listening to the homeboy analysts and announcers, seeking out fellow Broncos fans, and believing everything evil, mean, wicked and nasty about their opponents, especially their main rivals. When a bad call goes against us, I yell, “We was robbed!” When a bad call goes our way, my reaction is, “That’s football.” I yell like a fan(atic) when the Broncos run onto the field, and boo when their rivals emerge. When a Broncos player does something good in the community, I see him as a hometown hero. I have no idea what other teams are doing in the community–nor do I care.

I have never done even 5 seconds of research on why the team was founded, how it compares to other teams in terms of social impact, community responsibility or how the Broncos ownership and management sees the role of the team in the community as compared to other teams. I am a fan. A fanatic. And I love it. I was lazy in the selection of my forever team, the Broncos, but that did not deter my from being downright passionate about “my team.” Hence, the term lazy passion. I have a lazy passion for the Broncos.

All of that seems like harmless fun to me. At worst. At best, it is a fun, healthy attachment that I share enthusiastically with my family. But.

But.

Isn’t that exactly how many of us–most of us–become attached to either a party or a political affiliation? It all starts with an accident of history; our family, where we went to school, the geography where we live. Then we add to that initial accident by creating reinforcement through the friends we choose, the news sources we seek out and headlines and cliches that we choose to believe and remember. No deep thought, no comparisons, no introspection, and no real challenges to our initial affiliation.

We cheer those who are “on our side” and boo all the others. Worse, some of us are beginning to even deny access to the field to the other teams. Haven’t we all heard, “Hate speech is not free speech.” What that really means is speech that I dislike, that I hate, should not be allowed. And the increasing use of threats like “By any means necessary” and “Political violence.” show that an increasing number of people want to substitute “correct speech” for the term “free speech.” Imagine for a moment the First Amendment protecting approved speech rather than free speech. And isn’t denying others free speech the same as not allowing the other football team to take the field? As I form that thought, it seems ridiculous on the face of it. And it is ridiculous. And it is no different than denying others the right to take the field with their thoughts and opinions. This shows how people who think and act like this have the same type of lazy passion for their causes as I have for my favorite football team.

What happened to, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” -Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing in Friends of Voltaire.

There are people, and how I applaud them, who gather pertinent facts, and apply non agenda-based reasoning before they take a position on a political or financial issue. And they are the ones who tend to be much less strident, much less demeaning of other viewpoints, and are far more willing to listen. Why is that?

Let me share one of my favorite stories, a story that may or may not be true, but has a lot of truth it. After a battle in WWI, a young shavetail, a 2nd Lieutenant, was having a post-battle reaction, shaking badly. He fumbled for a cigarette, and was looking for a match....

View Details

Introduction

“When you hear the truth, listen.” -Will Luden

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

For example, some yogurt containers have “Fruit at bottom.” printed on the outside. Isn’t that true for all of life? Isn’t the fruit that we want always at the bottom, where we have to work to get at it and enjoy it?

Scott Peck, writing in The Road Less Travelled, said essentially the same thing when he observed that life is hard. Life is hard, as it should be. That’s how we learn to lean into life, embracing the challenges, learning to be strong and persistent. And that’s how we learn enough about life and being strong in life to be able to help others. Ah, but we hear the siren call of, “If life is hard, that is proof that you are a victim. And victims deserve to be taken care of by the taxpayers.”

So, who is right, Mr. Peck and others who teach that life is hard as it should be, or the people who insist that if life is hard, something is wrong, and they promise to make it better for you?

“Fruit at bottom,” is an obvious yogurt container truth, and we can see how it translates to life in general. Life is hard, and the fruit is at the bottom. We know that is true for us in our lives. We need politicians who know and respect that truth as well. The “If life is hard, you are a victim; here is a ton of taxpayer money.” politicians will destroy us–if we give them a chance.

Let’s use another example. When returning a rental car at an airport, we drive over a row of one-way spikes, with a sign reading “Do not back up. Severe tire damage.” Isn’t that really good life advice? Keep our heads up, and keep moving. Hard or not, keep moving forward.

Let’s look at some bad pieces of often accepted so-called wisdom before we go back to genuine wisdom.

“Fake it until you make it.” We have all heard that one. The problem with this advice is that once you learn to fake things, it is hard to stop. Don’t fake anything, just don’t ever stop going forward. When asked for advice about succeeding, Winston Churchill responded, “I have nine words for you. Never give in. Never give in. Never give in.” He never said anything about faking anything. Note to politicians: Be yourself. How can voters make an informed decision if you are not true to yourself? Note to voters: Insist that politicians be real–regardless of whether or not you agree with their politics.

“If you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying.” I am putting this one on the table for the sole purpose of taking it off the table–forever. If you cheat and win, what have you won? Answer. Nothing. If you cheat and lose, you have less than nothing. Note to politicians: Stop cheating. All of you. Shame on you. Note to voters: Zero tolerance for cheating politicians. None.

Let me share some wisdom I have personally picked up along the way–not in grocery stores or rental car lots.

“Parents will always love their children more than their children love them.” And that is how it should be. Parents at their best pour themselves into their children; it is not a two-way street. The fruits of your parenting labors will not come back directly from your kids to you. The most you will see, the closest you can get to seeing your love returned, will be when your offspring treat others, perhaps your grandchildren, with the unconditional love that you gave them. Better yet, love unconditionally and then let go.

Leadership, including political leadership, if that has not become an oxymoron, is the same. Lead your people, lead with all of your integrity, all of your heart, and all of your strength. Without any expectation that you will get your level of leadership and devotion in return. Just like parents need to love unconditionally with no expectation of getting that level of love in return, politicians must lead unconditionally, without any expectation of getting that type of commitment in return. If you get it, great, but don’t expect it....

View Details

Hello again, this is your host Will Luden with Revolution 2.0™, the proud inheritors of the breakthrough thinking and dedication of Revolution 1.0 in 1776. Welcome.

Marx Had it Almost Right: Warren and Sanders Don’t (EP. 175)

Introduction

“From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” -Karl Marx, German political philosopher and founder of communism.

Oh, how attractive that quote is. For decades it bothered me that Marx’s famous communist prescription about how things ought to be simply did not work. Anywhere. Was it a fault in the human condition? Were we simply too selfish to be asked to work, and to give to others what they need? No, we very often vote to tax ourselves, which clearly means that we are willing to give up some of what we earn. And many of us give generously to charities, local schools, and people we know–either personally or online–who have hit unforeseeable hard times.

The problem lies not with us, but with Marx.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

This episode fits nicely with a lot of today’s political dialog, especially those making the case that so many things in life are to be provided free because things like education, food, housing and healthcare are “human rights.” Senators Warren and Sanders, candidates for the Presidency, are to the left of Marx. They do not mention performing up to your ability; things should be free because you are alive and human. And who knew that anyone, much less contenders for the most powerful position on earth, could be to the left of the founder of communism?

Let’s pause to remind ourselves of one of the principles we hold dear at Revolution 2.0™.

“For every right, there is an equal or greater responsibility.” Seems clear, yes? For example, your right to drive a car comes with the responsibility to drive safely. And your right to a free education comes with the responsibility to do your best, both for yourself and those who are paying for your schooling. And the right to free food, housing and healthcare comes only after we have done our best, worked hard over time, and simply cannot meet our needs despite our best efforts.

Marx was on the right track, but he fell tragically short of getting it right. Let’s add a few words–words that Mr. Marx might have had in mind, but did not include. “From each according to the best of his abilities, to each according to his needs–not wants.” Don’t those four words make a fundamental and game-changing difference? People who are able are asked not merely to show up and work, they are asked to do their best work. And not just show up and try. People who are in need would know that if doing their best cannot satisfy their needs, that while those needs can indeed be met by others, they cannot ask for their wants to be supplied. Only their needs.

Let’s introduce the https://revolution2-0.org/cant-or-wont/ (Can’t V. Won’t) concept with the below drawing.

If people cannot do something, like meet their own needs even after doing their best over time, that is entirely different from not being willing to do their best–while still relying on others to come through for them. In other words, they would be asking others to come through for them, while they did less than they were capable of on their own behalf. And as my sons might ask, “What’s up with that?”

Now let’s look at Needs vs. Wants.

Needs can include personal goods and services like nutritious food, serviceable clothing, adequate shelter, education that sets up students for success in the modern world, and competent healthcare, along with societal goods and services like roads, defense, and police protection and fire mitigation and response. Wants, goods and services that people want over and above what they need, start with things like potato chips and soda, entertainment, recreation, and smartphones. (I might be talked into including a talk/text flip phone in

View Details

Hello again, this is your host Will Luden with Revolution 2.0™, the proud inheritors of the breakthrough thinking and dedication of Revolution 1.0 in 1776. Welcome.

Defocus to Gain Focus (EP. 174)

Introduction

“An unexamined life is not worth living.” -Plato

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Surprised by this topic? Let me share why I picked it. You have heard the saying, “You don’t get strong in the gym, you get strong when you sleep at night.” You still have to do the hard work in the gym, but your recovery allows the muscles torn down by exercise to relax, repair and grow stronger. Let’s add one more layer to this analogy; the muscles repair best when recovery is aided by good nutrition.

In the same way, almost step by step, our minds, our ability to think, our ability to think more completely, precisely and insightfully, grows and becomes much more effective when it is allowed to rest, to defocus, after intense work. “The mind is a muscle.” -Yvonne Ranier, American choreographer and filmmaker. The steps are the same: 1. You work hard with your brain, reading and thinking, or in your work. For me it is researching and creating my blogs and podcasts. That’s the gym phase. 2. As with post gym periods, sleep helps. The mind processes when we sleep, even if we don’t dream. And we can recover from mental exercises while awake by letting our minds wander away from what we have been working on–what we have been concentrating on–trying ever so hard as we wrestle with our ideas, thoughts, and challenges. 3. Give our minds the nutrition they need by drinking deeply from good books and good people.

Frequently, I will come close to completing an episode, then put it out of my mind until the next morning. When I tackle it again in the AM, I am no longer surprised that I have new insights, and new ways of wording thoughts to make them clearer and more interesting. The mind at rest not only recovers, but processes in new and insightful ways.

I also create opportunities for active mental rest here in Colorado Springs, right in my backyard, my Walden Pond. Here is a winter photo of a small slice of what I see. And, yes, active rest is a thing.

My Walden pond is Peregrine Creek (my name for our beautiful, 75’, but artificial creek with three falls), that starts right out the back door. My Life In the Woods starts about 70 yards from the creek, with access right across the road behind our home to endless miles of wilderness hills and trails. Blodgett Peak dominates much of the scene, soaring to 9,500 feet. Immediately adjacent to the Peak are the Rampart Range and Pike Nat’l Forest. If I had the hoo-ha, and I don’t, I could walk to Utah and never see anyone.

My time connecting to Peregrine Creek and the wilderness starts yards from my home, which allows me the time and mental space to challenge what I think I think as I hike. To let my thoughts find themselves before I share them with you. Duc (“Duke”), my 80-lb. Standard Poodle, is my constant companion out there.

Out in the hills is where I let go of my oh-so-important (to me) thoughts. Perhaps more importantly, this is where I go to work on letting let go of my thoughts of self-importance. And it is here that I frequently find the truth, not so much in facts, but the truth in what is important.

“Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.”

― Henry David Thoreau, Walden (Life in the Woods).

Today’s Key Point. We all need to detach, to defocus from how we see others and the world. And do that regularly. And even when we are dead certain there is no time for anything but grinding away at the mission in front of us. In this detachment, this relaxing, will come perspective, calm, better thinking, strength, and the ability to forge ahead refreshed–ready for whatever may come our way. More specific to Revolution 2.0™ and political (and related) dialog, we all need to take time away from the...

View Details

Introduction

Are we reliving history? Are we recreating and reliving a part of Roman history that led to its downfall?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Does anyone remember the above phrase, Bread and Circuses, from high school history class? Or from a movie, perhaps “Gladiator”? When people refer to this today, they are criticizing ancient Rome for the way its Emperors, in the later stages of the Empire, used both free bread (and other food) and free entertainment to placate the large number of people who were otherwise poorly served by their government. They literally bought off “the masses” with free bread and entertainment at the Coliseum; entertainment that was called the circus.

The criticism points out that the Roman government paid for short-term satisfaction while intentionally ignoring the long-term needs and best interests of its citizens. Why would a government do that? Simple; it is cheap, easy, results in applause and adulation, and works long enough for those currently in power not to have to deal with the more difficult, long-term solutions. (Does anyone know how to translate “kicking the can down the road” into Latin?)

Juvenal, a Roman satirical poet somewhere around 100 AD, identifies the Latin, panem et circenses (bread and circuses) as being effective with large numbers of the populace who had forgotten (perhaps never had?) both pride in being Romans and the need for non self-serving political involvement.

Okay, we have to ask:

How did those large numbers of citizens end up losing both of those key characteristics?

How did they put themselves in a position where obvious bribes would work?

Did they get soft when life got easier as Rome prospered?

Did the government aid the softening with earlier, less grand versions of free bread and lavish, also free, entertainment?

As time went along, the government noticed that it had to do things like give away more bread to more people. And the circuses had to become more spectacular and more bloody. Bigger loaves of bread along with more types of more food, and more gory deaths to keep the masses in line. And to keep cheering the government.

History shows that as the Roman Empire grew softer, the enemies on her borders grew bolder. Rome eventually collapsed as much from the weight of its own indolence as from the might of her enemies.

Let’s come back from history to today.

Both the history part and the today part are important. If we do not understand and learn from history, we are going to make the same mistakes again and again. And if we stay focused on history and don’t apply the lessons learned to the world of today around us, it still won’t matter. “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Are there any parallels today? Are we on a similar slippery slope? Is our government buying off its citizens, with its own version of bread and entertainment?

Bread is as necessary to sustain life today as it was then. Entertainment, the Coliseum and Netflix, adds a lot to the quality of life–and to one’s ability to be productive if indulged in a disciplined way. What is the proper role of government in supplying those needs? And how do we know when government exceeds that proper role purely in pursuit of the support of the populace? Support, which in Rome was applause and cheering; today it is applause and voting.

Are we being humane and compassionate when we as citizens encourage our government to provide food and entertainment (and other more modern benefits–benefits the Romans could not have imagined) for our neighbors and fellow citizens? Are we being enablers? Are we being shortsighted and selfish if we want those very benefits at least as much for ourselves as for others?

At some point in our conversation, someone will point out that we and our government have an obligation to help “those who deserve it”

View Details

Introduction

Who really cares about the homeless? Not the government.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

The numbers of homeless are mounting, and not just in publicized magnet cities like Seattle, San Francisco and LA. I live in Colorado Springs, and it is an increasingly important topic here, and up I-25 in Denver–where it is even worse.

Let’s follow the Revolution 2.0™ deliberate solution-seeking process to address this issue:

What is the problem?

What is the desired goal, the common goal?

Who do we get there?

Why, despite growing amounts of cash being spent to address homelessness, do the numbers of homeless continue to grow, and grow rapidly? In LA alone, there are 35,000 homeless, a whopping 16% increase over last year. Seventy-five % of them live outdoors. We have all read or heard about the horrific and tragic stories of San Francisco, replete with dangerously aggressive beggars, open, hard-core drug use and large amounts of human waste on the streets.

The problem is that this is a very difficult issue, and politicians, and the electorate, us, the voters, don’t have the stomach for what needs to be done. Study and after study shows that drug addiction, mental health issues and look-away law enforcement are common elements in areas with large and growing homeless populations. Add in free food, free needle exchanges, and in a growing number of areas, showers and free drugs, and you no longer have the homeless, you have permanent street people. The streets are their home. They are not homeless, unhoused people, an assessment that clearly implies that with available housing, these unhoused people, with lots of support, could be on the road back to being housed, contributing citizens. A small percentage, likely in the 10% range, could be helped, rescued, this way. I am in full support of the “housing first” approach to the 10%, and wish godspeed to any person or entity engaged in this valuable work. These people genuinely care about the homeless. But that leaves you with the other 90%.

So what is the desired goal, a goal that we can all agree on? Try this one: Get everyone off the streets, using strategies and tactics that are effective and use taxpayer funds efficiently. Wait, Will, did you say everyone? Yes, well, just about everyone. Like unemployment, the number will always be somewhat above zero because of people moving in and out of jobs. The number of people on the street will never be zero because of people transitioning from homes to the street and back. But like unemployment, the reasonable expectation is that the number should be irreducibly low.

Okay, Will, how?

First, encourage the entities that are identifying and helping the 10% who want to and can be treated with a “housing first” approach.

Use a needed–and correct–tough love approach with the rest, requiring–requiring–them to go to the appropriate treatment, mental, drug, etc., to get any benefits from the taxpayers. After, say, multiple attempts over a three-month period, all publically funded benefits would be cutoff, and there would be limited–if any–access to hang out and sleep on public streets and lands. Anything from food and medicine to clean up would be removed. By the way, in San Francisco alone, the street people generate 6 tons of trash every day. Let me point out, emphasize, that every effort should be made to get people, in this tough love approach to get the treatment they need. Multiple attempts at persuasion, using social workers, successful “graduates” from treatment programs, friends and family if you can find them. Get resourceful, get creative; try over and over again. These are fellow humans. But at some point, we need to realize when this heartfelt process works–and when it does not. If all publically funded attempts at making this tough love approach fail, charitable assistance would, of course, be allowed, and encouraged...

View Details

Hello again, this is your host Will Luden with Revolution 2.0™. Welcome. Please do take the opportunity to learn more and subscribe at http://revolution2-0.org/ (revolution2-0.org)

Everyday Wisdom: Watering Flowers and Getting Results (EP. 171)

Introduction

Wisdom is all around us, waiting patiently for us to see it. For example, the sign at the rental car lot reads, “Do not back up; severe tire damage.” Good life advice.

I picked up the outside flower watering job from my wife this year, and I have been constantly amazed–shocked, actually–at how thirsty they are. And how they thrive when given daily, generous, waterings. Are we underestimating how much water, how much TLC, love, belief and attention, we all need? That’s today’s example of Everyday Wisdom.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

It is almost mid-October, and I continue to be rewarded with a profusion of beautiful colors and shapes of the flowers that I water. And when I skipped my watering chore, thinking that because the day was cool and overcast, they would lose just a little color and perkiness. For example, at the start of October, I skipped two days due to laziness, and due to my belief that the weather did not warrant watering. Many flowers died during that time, which I attributed to the season. The third day I gave all the beds a generous watering. On the fourth day, the profusion of color and life returned. Huh. So much for many of my beliefs about how the flowers needed to be watered only every other day in the heat of the summer, and less than that in the cool of the fall. They need water daily. And a lot of it. And I found that the rewards are greater than the effort.

And aren’t we human the same? Don’t we need, and need daily, copious amounts of love and attention, and don’t we wilt–just a little–when we don’t get it? And don’t we recover quickly when we get what we need?

Let me share some fun–and valuable–rules relating to today’s Everyday Wisdom.

Have you heard of the “hug rule?” It takes 4 hugs a day for survival, 8 hugs a day for maintenance, and 12 hugs a day for growth. And hugs can be verbal as well as physical. Engaging in both types of hugs is good for the soul.

And the “Rule of 4’s?” We humans can live 4 weeks without food, 4 days without water, 4 minutes without air and 4 seconds without hope.

Okay, ready for one more “rule?” It takes 10 “Atta-boys” to make up for one “You did what?”

Okay, Will, what is the point of this episode? Why aren’t you writing about something important? Something that is in the headlines? Forgive me, but what we are talking about today is indeed in the headlines. And is something very important. Have you heard about Ellen and George W.? Ellen DeGeneres and President Bush happened to be sitting next to each other in the owner’s suite at a Cowboy’s game, and a photo of them hit social media (or is it anti-social media?). In the same suite were Laura Bush, Jerry Jones, the owner, his daughter, Charlotte, and Ellen’s wife, Portia de Rossi. A Twitter storm hit Ellen with screaming criticism for consorting with the enemy. She defended herself beautifully on her TV show, with her core message being “Be kind to everyone.” And even after her we-all-need-to hear-it-message, Be Kind to Everyone, many of her critics are still at it, dumping hate on her for everything from hanging out with a mass murderer who hates gays, to accusing her of being in the same privileged class as President Bush, therefore worthy of scorn.

Be kind to everyone. Tell me that if all 300 million of us in America, or better yet, the 7 billion of us on earth, started doing that tomorrow, started being kind to each other tomorrow, that most of our problems, our core issues, healthcare, immigration, inequality issues, etc., would not be far easier to solve, and solved in a permanent way. Ellen’s critics seem to feel that the solutions we need, that we...

View Details

Introduction

There is a growing push for diversity, diversity defined by characteristics such as race, gender, and sexual preferences. The belief is that this type of diversity brings benefits in and of itself, with the more diversity the greater the benefits.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

All of us want all groups and all individuals, to have reasonable access to the educational and other tools that when grasped and utilized, will lead to a successful life. By successful, I don’t necessarily mean comfortable. I mean I want everyone to have access to the tools, the knowledge, that when added to consistent hard work will lead to financial, personal and emotional success. That will lead to the ability to teach, encourage and give a head start to future generations. (And if you don’t want that, you are in the wrong place.)

There is a mix of things that we need to have in place and working to get to our goal. School choice, i.e., ready access to an equally funded selection of traditional public schools, charter schools and private schools, needs to be in the mix. We, you I, sharing our time and expertise one-on-one and in groups, need to be in the mix. Where is diversity in this mix?

When we look at the possibility, depending upon your view, of a forced choice between diversity and excellence, https://revolution2-0.org/affirmative-action-ep-24/ (affirmative action) comes to mind. In the 80’s, I was listening to a talk show where the host and a caller disagreed. The host was an affirmative action supporter. The caller’s position was in two parts: 1. Affirmative action is unfair to the people who are not hired or not accepted in favor of affirmative action candidates and 2. Affirmative action does not solve any core problems, and creates endless needs for more and more affirmative action policies, with no end in sight. The caller wanted to end affirmative action, and replace it with a massive effort, focused on making kindergarten work for everybody, advancing this effort year-by-year, following the students up through the years, after 20 years or so, removing the need for affirmative action forever. The host responded by saying that it was unconscionable to “abandon” an entire generation. That was almost two generations ago, and we are still implementing and debating affirmative action. Look no further than the Harvard admissions dispute, where a federal judge just reaffirmed Harvard’s use of affirmative action to benefit blacks at the expense of Asians in the admission process. Expect that one to go to the Supreme Court.

If any hiring or acceptance, work or school, process is well thought out, and ranks candidates’ qualifications correctly, then it must follow that any affirmative action process that raises up lesser qualified candidates and lowers higher qualified candidates, reduces the overall qualification, the overall excellence, of the candidate pool. And it eventually lowers the excellence of the group which these candidates join. Oh, and if the selection process is not the right one, and does not correctly rank the qualifications, the excellence of the candidates, change it, and keep changing it until it does.

Pause for an important point. Let’s drop the misleading phrase “qualified” candidate, and substitute “best” candidate. Affirmative action supporters often propose that the selection process should determine a pool of qualified candidates, then allow the affirmative action process to rearrange that pool according to criteria like race and gender. The selection process needs to be precise enough to rank all candidates, not simply separate the pool of qualified candidates from those deemed unqualified.

Affirmative action, a major diversity tool, reduces excellence in both the pool of successful candidates and in the group these candidates are joining.

There are times when diversity for the sake of diversity is not only okay, but is highly desirable. Diversity of...

View Details

Introduction

Clinton was impeached, and now the Democrats are trying hard to justify articles of impeachment against Trump. I live and vote in Colorado, Colorado Springs to be specific, and we had two recent recall attempts.

Why?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

One of my favorite saying when it comes to democracy is, “This is a democracy, and you are going to keep voting until you get it right.” I have no idea who said this, so maybe I’ll take credit for it.

Impeachment and recalls should never be used as election re-dos. If you don’t like the incumbent, don’t vote for him the next time. If you hate her policies, don’t vote for her if she runs again. If you feel strongly enough, stand up and go campaign for their opponents.

Impeachment of a sitting US President calls for evidence of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” This ambiguous phrase has stirred controversy ever since it was first inserted in the Constitution in 1787. But it is clear enough that it eliminates using impeachment simply because the impeaching party can’t stand the current president.

It will be helpful if we take a quick relook at a summary of the Mueller Report:

Part 1. There was no collusion.

Part 1 (continued). No finding on obstruction.

Part 2. Trump is a jerk.

Part 2 (continued). Trump is a real jerk.

Being a jerk, if that is how you see Trump, is not an impeachable offense. Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied to Congress about his sexual relationship with then 22-year-old Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. To me, that also does not rise to the level of being a “high crime or misdemeanor.”

Colorado Republicans tried to recall Jared Polis, its recently-elected Governor. And in Colorado Springs, there was a recall attempt against Pete Lee, a State Senator. There was a case to be made for the Polis recall in that he surprised a lot of voters when after the election he came out in support of some very controversial measures when during his campaign it appeared that he was against them. There was no case for a recall of Pete Lee. Mr. Lee is a longtime progressive, and his reelection campaign was no different than his policies before or after his reelection.

We see something quite similar going on across the pond, in Britain, the home of our former brother and sister British subjects. In 2016, 52% of the British voters elected to leave the European Union (EU), a move called Brexit. Three years later, after a lot of anti-Brexit stalling, nothing has happened. It seems clear that the British Establishment, which is ardently anti-Brexit, wants to somehow force another vote, in the hopes that the result the next time will be to remain in the EU. If that happens, would someone in favor of Brexit call for yet another election, saying, “Hey, 2 out of 3 would be fair.”

“This is a democracy, and you are going to keep voting until you get it right.”

The move to recall Colorado State Senator Pete Lee was clearly an attempt to have another election, hoping for a different result. The recall was based on nothing more than some folks wanting him out of office because they don’t like him or his politics. Recalls must never be used simply to trigger another election, hoping for a different result.

Fun Fact: Clinton’s impeachment and acquittal was a contributing reason to his leaving office in 2001 with the highest end-of-office https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_rating (approval rating) of any U.S. president since World War II.

Pause for some process information: Impeachment is like an indictment; it sets the stage for a trial. The US House of Representatives can impeach a president with a simple majority. If the House votes for impeachment, then the Senate holds a trial, requiring a ⅔ majority to convict. In Clinton’s Senate trial, the final vote was generally along party lines, with no Democrats voting guilty, and only a handful of Republicans voting not guilty, resulting in acquittal....

View Details

Introduction

“By any means necessary.” New acronym, BAMN. This statement of intent has been associated with fringe groups like Antifa and white supremacy groups. We are now seeing it with everything from Supreme Court nominations to climate change claims to everyday politics. Here’s how current process works:

I’m right, so you are clearly all wrong.

You have no clue how important my beliefs, ends, are to everyone–everyone.

The ends justify the means, so our means will be

By any means necessary.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s start with the observation that the ends do not–do not–justify the means. Each end is a mean–a tool to get to another end, and so on forever. The means are ends in and of themselves. Ends and means are one in the same; it follows that the ends simply cannot justify the means.

Let’s hear from one of my favorites, John Wooden. “You never heard me mention winning. My idea is that you can lose when you outscore somebody in a game, and you can win when you’re outscored.” Wooden was a star basketball player in college and in the pros, and clearly the best college basketball coach of all time. He strongly believed that if you played your absolute best, there was no shame in losing. And if you did not play your best, there was no glory in winning. What matters is how you played the game. The end was not winning, the end was how you played the game. I doubt that

Coach Wooden could have gotten the words, “By any means necessary.” out of his mouth.

Let’s back up and take on the first of two points we brought up earlier. “I’m right, so you are clearly all wrong.” Said more completely, “I’m right because I am me, and you are wrong because you are not me.” People, including politicians, perhaps especially politicians, who continue to insist that they are right, are not resting their arguments–if indeed they even have any–on facts and logic. They are making the case that they are right because, well, they get it. And those who dare to disagree, or even fail to agree completely, simply don’t get it. That’s it; their positions, their policies, are as crude as that. For more on this subject, please go to, https://revolution2-0.org/you-can-be-right-or-you-change-the-world-ep-92/ (“You Can Be Right, Or You Can Change the World. (EP. 92)”)

Here’s more about point two from earlier in this podcast, “You have no clue how important my beliefs, my desired ends, are for everyone–everyone.” This is an extension of, “You just don’t get it.” And a dramatic extension, at that. This takes “I am right and you are wrong.” to “I care about the world, and you don’t.” People who question the claims of a climate crisis are climate change deniers. Deniers. Calling someone a denier of anything makes the underlying assumption that what is being denied is real and true. Calling someone a denier is a cheap sway of making your point without actually making a sustainable (pun intended) argument. People who believe that the earth is flat–and I have actually met some of them–are denying that the earth is round. These folks are actual deniers.

In exactly the same way, there are pro-life people who call the pro-choicers “baby killers.” Hurling that accusation does not further the discussion, and certainly does not win anyone over. Can you imagine anyone changing their position after being called a “denier” or a “baby killer?” What I can imagine people is becoming more dug in than ever.

We have been looking at examples of verbal BAMN–By Any Means Necessary. Toss aside any need for facts and logic–accuse and condemn until we get our way. Because, you know, our way is the right way. Following the ends justify the means trail, it is a small step from accusing and condemning to manipulating the facts and even outright lying. After all, the ends…

And how hard could it be, once caught up in not only the correctness of...

View Details

Introduction

The vast majority of the time, cries of racist, sexist, ableist and ageist and on and on are the Politically Correct accusations hurled at individuals and groups. The intention is to completely remove these accused entities from being allowed to have any legitimate part in the public discourse. To cancel them as the new terminology goes. And to do all of this without a legitimate set of facts, or anything that looks like a logical train of thought.

At Revolution 2.0™ the point is not to out-insult and out-shout the ist-yellers; the point is to use verbal judo when engaged in these conversations, or when talking or writing about this type of dialog. Judo, the “gentle art” uses the opponent’s’ size and strength against them. In judo, we watch the other person, get a feel for what they are doing and what they might do next. When they move against us, we use their momentum against them to “gently” move them to the floor. At Revolution 2.0, we do something very similar. We listen to what the other person is saying and decide how to use their enthusiasm, their initial thinking and reasoning, to move them to where we want them–to where we believe they need to be.

Unlike judo, we do not intend to defeat anyone; we lead. We do not react and reply in kind; we lead.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s look at some of the things that can very quickly escalate–requiring us to use our verbal judo skills, in these cases leading to long and loud accusations of racism:

Pointing out that 70% of blacks youths grow up in fatherless homes. That stat is often cited as a useful way of seeking a solution to the array of negative issues facing children of all races in homes without a dad.

Saying that the disproportionate number of blacks in prison is not due to racial bias in the judicial system; it is due to the disproportionate number of blacks committing crimes.

Arguing that despite its many flaws, including slavery, that the US is inherently an exceptional and good country.

Defending people as diverse as Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Martin Luther King and Robrt E. Lee as heroes despite their many flaws.

Saying that you are not a racist. To a growing number of people, that is proof that you are a racist.

And some similar examples with sexism:

Not “Believing all women.” No matter what they say. Try defending yourself by saying that you take everyone’s initial statements and claims at face value, regardless of gender, until proven false–and count the milliseconds until you suddenly become a sexist.

Point out that trans women are biologically men, and have a built-in, unfair advantage competing in most sports with biological women. You can even point out, correctly, that this is unfair to women.

Say that men and women are different.

Claim that you are not a sexist.

Let’s add two from the “phobe” category; xenophobe and homophobe:

If you want to know if you are a xenophobe, announce that you support having secure national borders. Even if you follow that with a statement that once the borders are secure, you would support things like DACA and a path to citizenship for those who are here illegally. Supporting secure national borders is prima facie proof that you are a xenophobe. And you probably want to put kids into cages.

Claim, if it is true for you, that your have many and good friends who are immigrants from south of the border. “Ha! Guilty! That’s what all xenophobes say!”

Here’s a reliable test for homophobia. Announce that you believe that no one can be compelled to use their artistic talents, an extension of protected first amendment rights, to do anything they simply do not wish to do.

Claim, once again if true for you, that you have good friends with seual orientations far different from yours. (See previous)

These above examples are all born in an already deep and growing embarrassment and dislike...

View Details

Hello again, this is your host Will Luden with Revolution 2.0™. Welcome. Learn more and subscribe at http://revolution2-0.org/ (revolution2-0.org)

Thinking Through Gun Control (EP. 166)

Introduction

As sane people, we all want to reduce gun violence. No sane individual or group wants to allow kids to die so they can have the right to own an AK-47. If you are one of those, stop reading, unsubscribe and turn yourself in. AK-47s are already illegal.

The perfect solution, admittedly unattainable, would be to have perfect foreknowledge of who would and who would not use guns illegally. Those who would never do anything wrong with a firearm would be allowed to buy and possess them, and the known-to-be gun criminals would be barred. Perfect. As with many issues, the perfect solution is unachievable, so let’s try to come as close as we can.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s think through gun control together, and as always at Revolutions 2-0™ with the overall goal of promoting thoughtful, productive discussions, completely replacing cliche-based so-discussions that rest on the three-legged stool of incomplete facts, preconceived notions and insults and accusations.

Let’s use the search for a common goal here as a way of us all getting on the same page. And–and–as a way of flushing out disguised goals. Some proponents of additional gun control really want to ban all guns, but they are not ready to promote that as policy just yet. In the 3rd Democratic debate, Beto O’Rourke came out with a full-throated call for a mandatory buyback, confiscation, of “assault weapons” and “weapons of war”, specifically AR-15s and AK-47s; the audience responded enthusiastically. These two firearms should never be mentioned in the same breath. The AK is indeed a fully automatic weapon of war. The AR is a semi-automatic rifle using detachable magazines. Let’s listen to Wikipedia:

“The AK-47 was designed to be a simple, reliable, fully automatic rifle that could be manufactured quickly and cheaply, using mass production methods that were state of the art in the Soviet Union during the late 1940s. The AK-47 uses a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas-operated_reloading#Long-stroke_piston (long stroke gas system) that is generally associated with great reliability in adverse conditions. The large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to cycle.” Wikipedia

“An AR-15 style rifle is a lightweight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_rifle (semi-automatic rifle) based on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15 (ArmaLite AR-15) design.” Wikipedia

Manufactured by Armalite Rifle, hence the designation AR. No military or self-respecting terrorist group uses semi-auto rifles. Including the US. It is not an assault rifle; it is certainly not a “weapon of war.”

I gave these clear and accurate definitions of the two firearms to make two points. 1. If we are going to talk about banning either the purchase or possession of currently legal products, we should at least know what we are talking about. 2. Let’s not dance around issues and prevaricate in order to get to where we want to go. For example, if we want to ban semi-automatic rifles, then stand up and say that. Don’t call an AR an assault weapon in order to get there. We can have an honest and open discussion about banning semi-automatic rifles. We do not need to mislead people in order for them to get to the correct solution. Trust people to make the right decisions when they have the correct information. In other words, think better of the people, the citizens, the voters who are ultimately responsible for the decisions.

Here is an example of a potentially productive common goal related to reducing gun violence: Keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable, while...

View Details

Introduction

“Never Forget” when voiced this time of year refers to the sneak attack on civilians on 9/11/01, killing almost 3,000 of us. The attackers targeted unarmed civilians. When I was our youngest son’s age, “Never Forget” admonished, equally loudly and passionately, for us to always remember the Pearl Harbor sneak attack–executed during pretend peace negotiations on behalf of the attacking Japanese–on our military base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on 12/7/41, killing a similar number. For others of that time, Never Forget referred to the Holocaust.

We have all but completely forgotten Pearl Harbor. The Holocaust was little known outside of the survivors and perpetrators until 15 years after WWII ended; it was the 1960 televised trial of Adolph Eichmann, the head of the SS who organized the Holocaust, that brought those lasting horrors to light internationally. Yet that memory also fades.

And Never Forget about 9/11 will also be forgotten.

Are these fading memories healing and beneficial, or are these dim memories red flags about what we have not learned from history, and are doomed to repeat?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Allow me to start this part of our time together with two questions:

Must these need-to-be-remembered events be enormous disasters, or can then include less momentous and uplifting actions?

Why are we advised to remember these events? Is it bedause we should be mentally clenching our fists, saying “Never Forget” because these SOBs are not going to get away with something like that again? Or are there more important, more universally applicable lessons we need to learn–and remember?

I’ll start with adding some other memories that we should know about in the first place, and should never forget after we understand them:

Charles Lindberg’s first solo crossing by airplane of the Atlantic in 1927. Inspired by the prestigious Orteig Award and $25K cash prize, fancy money then, several well-funded groups competed to be the first to fly across the ocean; more for the fame than the cash. Lindberg was flying WWI planes carrying US mail when he decided to compete and win. No money, no backers; he just made a decision. And he did it. The lesson here is the power of making a decision and sticking to it.

Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962: The Cuban Missile Crisis was a successful 13-day confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union prompted by the American discovery of Soviet ballistic missile deployment in Cuba. The lesson here is that from time-to-infrequent-time, America needs to put it all on the line to keep the peace and remain secure.

I want to share an informative eventful experience with you. In 1989 I was at the “Bay Bridge” World Series between the San Francisco Giants and the Oakland A’s. It was game 3, with the Giants having lost the first two. I took the bus up from San Mateo, CA where I lived at the time. The ride was loud, raucous and a ton of fun, compete with face-painted fans, beer coolers and shouted predictions of victory for one team or the other. I had a Sony Watchman portable TV in my lap in the stadium as the crowd awaited the start of the game. The players were taking the field; it was still daylight and the stadium lights were not yet turned on. Suddenly, there was a loud rumbling and shaking that went on for a long moment. No one had any idea that we had just been hit by the 7.0 Loma Prieta earthquake that would kill 63 people and injure more than 3,700. Some fans were yelling “Play ball!” and others were just confused. I looked at my TV and all the channels were showing the test pattern. Others observed that certain radio stations were off the air. Power to the stadium had been knocked out, so there were no announcements. It was not until the umps picked up the bases and the players went into the stands to be with their families that we figured out that an earthquake had hit, and the game was...

View Details

Introduction

The venerable Merriam-Webster dictionary offers the following definition for compassion: “Sympathetic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consciousness (consciousness) of others’ distress together with a desire to alleviate it.”

By alleviating it, we must–must–mean supplying the needed relief, stabilizing the patient in medical terms, along with helping the person, the patient again in medical terms, through motivation and training, to then live a full and independent life whenever at all possible. Promoting policies that would have any tendency to make people dependent upon either private charity or taxpayer largess is deeply wrong for that person, all the others like them, and all of society. And in the name of compassion, that is exactly what we are doing with increasing frequency and scope. And we are creating an ever-growing disaster.

That is the subject of today’s episode.

Continuing

Pause for key definitions:

Hand-outs. This approach to so-called compassion which provides continuing assistance without the motivation and training required for the person you are assisting to be able to–and want to–become an independent and contributing adult. This approach is lazy and long-term destructive. This is the very definition of mis-directed compassion.

Hand-ups. This much more difficult approach that includes–emphasizes–helping others to become an independent and contributing adult requires more of our personal time, and less taxpayer money. Remember, governments, no matter how much tax money they collect, are terrible at motivating. And long-term, this approach produces people who have good cause to be pleased with themselves and their contribution, and creates a healthy and growing society. Growing in the right way and in the right direction.

Today’ key point: We need hand-ups, not hand-outs. But the hand-ups require us, you and me–to get personally involved.

John Ray, in 1670, cited as a proverb “Hell is paved with good intentions.” Even earlier than that, it’s been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), as “Hell is full of good intentions or desires.”

“The road to personal, societal and national hell is paved with mis-directed compassion in the form of continuing hand-outs.” Will Luden, 2019

Question: What are our intentions?

Do politicians want effective and productive long-term solutions, or do they simply want to hold office long-term? Do any of them honestly believe that making everything from healthcare to education to food and housing (with more to follow quickly) free for life will create a hard-working and well equipped society? A society ready and able to take on the frequently serious issues facing us personally and as a whole?

Do we want to follow paths that will require us to do the work, the continuing hard work, to become our best at being productive and contributing citizens, or do we want reasons–excuses–to take easier paths?

Let’s draw some useful parallels here. Here are some commercial pitches we have all heard:

Diet: “It’s not your fault, it’s genetic. Take this pill daily, eat your normal diet, and you will lose weight. Millions already have. What are you waiting for?”

Exercise: “Skip the gym. In just minutes a day, do these few simple exercises and be amazed as you drop weight, gain muscle and feel better than you have in decades. And take our muscle-building supplements.”

Money (1). “We know what the credit card companies aren’t telling you. You don’t have to pay for the products and services you bought; call us and watch us reduce your obligations to something you can handle.”

Money (2). “Don’t let the IRS hound you for the money you owe. Call us and we can settle your debt to the government for pennies on the dollar.”

All of the companies behind these commercials are saying the same things: 1. Whatever it is, it is not...

View Details

Introduction

If given the same set of facts, people are going to have a much easier time having reasonable discussions and coming up with workable solutions to the known and enormous problems facing all of us.

But we are not all working from the same set of facts. Media, politicians and others with agendas they value more highly than the truth are insidiously successful in creating wildly different pockets, echo chambers, of opinions, insults and accusations masquerading as facts.

This is one of the most important issues of our day and is the subject of today’s 10 minute episode

Continuing

One of our responsibilities as citizens it to understand what the truth is, what constitutes a sufficiently comprehensive set of facts, before we start coming to conclusions. And even before we even start a discussion about coming to conclusions. The law asks for, “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” That should be our standard as well.

In order to come up with workable solutions to the problems we face today, there are three things, in order, that we must do:

Agree on common goals. People of goodwill can always find ways to settle on common goals, no matter how controversial the subject. The key part here is not elaborate analysis; the key part here is setting aside egos and agendas and focusing on what is truly best for everyone. For more, please link to https://revolution2-0.org/common-goals-ep-09/ (Common Goals (EP. 09)).

Assemble the facts. And follow the courtroom rules for separating what is a fact from what is merely a claim supporting a point of view.

Apply non agenda-based reasoning to the facts to reach the common goals.

And when this process falls off the track, as it will, go back and re-anchor in the common goals. And start again.

Key question: Where do you go for your facts, your sources of information? For the vast majority of us, we live in political echo chambers. If you are hearing much the same thing on the controversial topics of the day from friends, co-workers, news sources and social media, you are in an echo chamber. And you need to get out.

Others are living in different echo chambers. And the people in one echo chamber are absolutely certain that they are right, and the people in another echo chamber are dead wrong. Do you remember when the leader of one echo chamber called the people in the other “deplorables?” And the leader of the other echo chamber responded with “Lock her up?” And all the while, both sides at least pretend to lament the lack of intelligent arguments and dialog on the major issues. For more on echo chambers, please link to https://revolution2-0.org/do-you-live-in-an-echo-chamber-ep-112/ (Do You Live In An Echo Chamber? (EP. 112)).

Here is a list of sources I consult on a regular basis:

Fox News

CNN

MSNBC

BBC

Quilette

Colorado Springs Gazette (local paper)

Denver Post (up the road)

National Review

Ben Shapiro

CBS

Real Clear Politics

Twitter. Yes, Twitter. It is a rich source for opinions, from well-known people as well as trolls, who voice opinions far different from mine.

People, especially those who have different thoughts and views.

In the absence of differing opinions from a variety of sources, people will rely on the opinions of family and friends, co-workers and their favorite news sources and social media. Outside of family, all the sources will be selected more for comfort and absence of frustration than political reasoning and diversity. Not surprisingly, they will pretty much share the same opinions. Similar opinions from apparently different sources reinforce each other and can easily be seen as a valid consensus. And with some notable exceptions (Uncles and Brothers-in Law?), families tend to lean one way or the other on significant issues, adding to the sameness.

Remember the story about the blind men learning about their first elephant by feeling different parts of the animal? Those feeling the

View Details

Introduction

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand has sold about 7 million copies to date. Published in 1957, it just recently fell out of the top ten annual best sellers. Rand imagined an America wherein the state is taking control of everything, basically stealing it from the people who were personally responsible for building companies and making things happen, giving it all away to “the people” and doing it in the name of compassion. All while accruing enormous power for itself. As the nation crumbles under the weight of incompetence and mis-placed compassion, a secretive John Galt (Remember the “Who is John Galt? line?) has been assembling all of the world’s leading producers, waiting for the right moment to re-enter society and make things right. Galt represented the Atlas that shrugged.

At Revolution 2.0™, we completely agree about taking personal responsibility. And–and–we recognize that a fundamental part of our personal responsibility is to be our Brother’s Keeper. The core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are:

https://revolution2-0.org/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,

My answer to the question, “Who is John Galt?” is that we are, you and I are. And we act, make things right, not by going into hiding as Galt did, but by working with others, in the real world and out in the open, to be both personally responsible and to be our Brother’s Keepers. And we do each about 75% of the time. (Remember, life is not a zero sum game.)

That’s the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

One of our responsibilities as Americans, as humans, is being personally responsible for ourselves and those who depend upon us, and to be our Brother’s Keepers.

Importantly, here are two things we are not:

Personally responsible for just ourselves, building what we build, creating what we create, for our own benefit, in the belief that if everyone else did the same that all would be as it should be. And that others are on their own if they don’t make it. Our Atlas, us, must never shrug off our Brothers and Sisters.

Looking to the government to be our Brother’s Keepers. Infrastructure and defense are two of the things that government should do. Motivating and encouraging others to learn to be responsible, to want to be personally responsible and then, then to be their Brother’s Keepers, is our job. The key is to leave to government only those things it does uniquely well. The rest should be left to citizens in the form of businesses, non-profits, community organizations, individual initiative and the like. For a more in-depth look at the proper role of government, go to https://revolution2-0.org/size-of-government-ep-43/ (Size of Government (EP. 43).)

When it comes to just about anything in life, motivation is key. And government is the last entity on earth that can be at all effective at motivating. Teaching how to do something is necessary, but without motivation, motivation being the why, the knowing how part simply doesn’t matter. In fact, the teaching part is easier than motivating.

Most of us have heard the piece of wisdom pointing out that if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach that man to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime. Well, not so fast. In order for someone to want to fish for themselves, buying and maintaining the tackle, sometimes going out in the cold and rain, and occasionally spending most of the day and coming back with nothing, they must be motivated. Without motivation, they will still want the free fish.

Now, let’s add one more level to using fishing as a metaphor for feeding humanity. Teach a man to teach others to fish, and how to motivate them, and you feed a nation.

View Details

Introduction

There those who believe that our admittedly deeply flawed nation is the best, most prosperous and freest and nation on earth. Capable, as it often has, of rescuing other nations–other continents–from war and financial ruin. Martin Luther King was one of those believers. As am I.

And there are those who believe that America has been flawed to the point of being evil ever since 1619, the beginning of slavery in the US. Not 1607 with the founding of the first settlement. Not 1775 with the beginning of the Rebellion. 1619. And they believe that America is irredeemable, and must be ripped down, and rebuilt from the ground up.

That’s the subject of today’s 10 minute episode.

Continuing

One of our responsibilities as citizens it to understand enough of American and world history to make sense of the many political statements and claims being that are tossed at us every day. To start, let’s go back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Wait, Will, didn’t the Revolution end with Lord Cornwallis’ defeat in 1781? Why wait six years before having a constitution? We did have an original constitution, The Articles of Confederation, enacted in 1781. These Articles provided only the loosest form of confederation, with little or no central power. It was often correctly called a “league of friendship. No central military, no central taxing authority. Simply the 13 states calling themselves friends.

It soon became apparent that this loose confederation would not work; a tighter bond was needed. Rocked by the resulting economic difficulties and radical political movements under the powerless Articles, a Constitutional Convention was held in 1787, with the new Constitution being signed in September of that year. This is the same constitution that governs us today, along with its 27 amendments. Yes, the very same constitution that allowed for the continuation of slavery and the disenfranchisment of women and uppropertied men. The purpose of the new Constitution is found in the preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Today’s key point. There would have been no union if the abolitionists of the day and those supporting women’s suffrage had insisted on abolishing slavery and enfranchising women. Any number of the 11 slaveholding states, and likely all of them, would have simply blocked it on the slavery issue alone. And with no union, there would have been no centralized political, financial or military entity. What force, what political, financial and military force would have squared off against the slaveholding states? The 11 Southern states would not have needed to secede from the Union; there would have been no Union from which to secede in the first place. They could have just kept right on owning slaves. What entity would have opposed them? The ignorant irony of those who believe that America was–and is–evil because our Constituion origially allowed slavery, is that it was the creation of the Union in the Constitution they detest that was key to ending the horror of some humans owning others. The only way to end slavery was to have an opposing force so powerful that it could utterly destroy the financial and military might of the 11 states which were willing to fight to the death to preserve the terrible fiction that blacks were sub-human, and therefore subject to being bought and sold. Of the 620 thousand deaths in the Civil War, 360 thousand deaths were North soldiers. Only a very tight union would have been willing to suffer staggering loss of blood and treasure like that for any purpose. And that very union could not have been formed without initially allowing...

View Details

Introduction

Among many people, there is a belief that a Grand Unifying theory, a G. U. T., when once discovered, will be able to completely explain the universe in a way that eliminates any need for a belief in God.

I believe that the G. U. T. is God.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Part of our unique and exceptional role in America is to know why we believe what we believe about God–and to be able to communicate those thoughts clearly to others.

Stephen Hawking, internationally known theoretical physicist, cosmologist and author, takes this thinking one step further; he believes that the G. U. T. eliminates the need to study philosophy, that science by itself can explain everything. Is this the height of arrogance, or is Hawking onto something?

Søren Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher and theologian, is known partly for his thoughts about a “leap of faith,” a concept that claims that man can come only so close to believing in God by the use of his reasoning mind. After man has exhausted his intellectual resources in his attempt to find belief with only his mind, there remains a gap. A gap between reasoning and belief, a gap that can be closed only by faith. Hawking believes that when we fully engage our minds, that we will not discover God; we will discover there is no God.

When I go into a familiar room in the dark, I reach for the light switch, flip in on and fully expect the room to be lit. More specifically, I give it no thought. I simply get light. There is no part of my life where I spend any amount of time thinking about how light works, and wondering if my knowledge–or lack of it–will affect the transition from dark to light. I have acquired a working knowledge of how fluorescent lights, both tube and compact (light bulb size) work, partly to be able to repair them, and partly to decide where, if anywhere, to use them. The same with LED lights (my home is about 95% LEDs).

For a long time, light was thought to act like a wave. Along comes Einstein who said that it acted like a wave and a particle. And, like everything else Einstein claimed, he was proven correct. The wave and particle discussion is interesting, but it does not change how I deal with artificial lighting. I may do some research in order to add dimmers, change the type of light fixture or bulb, but basically I just hit the switch and get light. And if I spent the time, energy and money to have a leading-edge understanding of how light worked, I would still have to hit the switch, and I would get exactly the same type and amount of light.

Question. Am I the only one who has ever wondered why God, if He loves us and wants us to love Him, would not make it so obvious that He is real that no sane person could deny Him? Wouldn’t that make life a lot easier and better?

Answer. No.

Life cannot be lived with a secure series of absolute proofs. We need to develop trust, a high tolerance for ambiguity, and the ability to develop faith in things we cannot prove. Humans are not computers, destined to do nothing but process inputs in a relentlessly logical way. At their core, computers can do nothing but produce 1s and 0s, with the use of staggering numbers of transistors. There are about 3 billion transistors in your smartphone alone. In the quest to see if computers can think like humans, it has been observed that anything that a human mind can do–if it can be reproduced accurately by a mathematical statement–a computer can do. Let me know the formula for why I don’t like okra, and why I love my family and friends.

We need to have belief, faith, trust, hope, and so much more that does not rest on absolute proof in our lives. If fact, if there was a way to provide unimpeachable proof, then things like belief and hope would become antiquated notions. And trust and faith would become useless concepts in a world where everything was proveable. We’d live like computers, all...

View Details

Introduction

Yup, let’s jump right in. For this episode, everything will refer to fatal officer involved shootings.

All too many people and most of the media are acting as judge and jury, working to deepen our national divide for their benefit. Where are the people, where are the media, who seek the truth, believe in the basic rules of jurisprudence, including due process, and are willing to put the pursuit of truth over personal, party and identity group agendas?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

There is a lot of appropriate attention being paid to the people who have been shot, as well as their families. There is shock, grieving, anger, a powerful sense of loss, and many more emotions in every shooting. The well known five stages of grief; denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, clearly start with denial and anger.

I am guessing that the stages of grief are the same whether someone is shot in a gang war, or shot by law enforcement. I have to guess because gang war killings, though they dramatically exceed officer involved killings, are ignored by the national press. Is that because no one would care, because no one would buy a paper, watch a TV show or listen to a talk show where dealing with individual gang killings was the topic? Or because reporting on individual gang war killings would not advance certain agendas?

We do hear a lot, as we should, about the people who were killed, and what the killing did to their families, friends and communities. Let’s talk about the person with the badge, the firearm and the responsibility.

Most officer-involved killings involved clear or potential life-and-death decisions, unfolding in seconds or fractions of a second, all while waves of adrenalin are flowing. Many professions, especially those where vital decisions need to be made instantly, allow for development time with even the most promising professional newcomers. Many of us have heard about the most prized rookie quarterbacks in the NFL that, “The professional game is so much faster, things come at you so quickly. When he adjusts to that, he will be a great QB.” The same thing is true about surgeons with little experience. The patient’s life is often in their hands, and they are broken in gently, little by little, procedure by procedure, so they can get over the almost disabling nervousness would overcome anyone when they first hold a bearing human heart in their hands.

NFL QBs and surgeons get to practice, to find their sea legs, if you will, in very real situations. And that’s how they learn to handle events that would have panicked them earlier in their careers. Cops can train, and well they should. And often. But there is no way they can train in real life and death situations. Only personal experience can help here. Quarterbacks play every week in the season, frequently in situations where the play has collapsed and they are trying to escape without being destroyed by a defensive player who is being paid to do exactly that. The great ones not only escape, but create a big play at the same time. All that in seconds. No time to think. Training and experience are the keys. Surgeons can be in the operating room more than once a week, learning as they are allowed to do more and more with the anesthetized patients lying on the table in front of them.

Most cops will never fire their weapons, and a majority will never even draw them in anger. Yet we expect that somehow they will be able to handle themselves so perfectly that their actions will survive both leisurely and detailed 20-20 hindsight, and the wild ignorance on the part of those indulging in the hindsight analysis. We expect them to be able to process volumes of information, sort it all out, decide on the best plan then act on it. Often in the blink of an eye, with 2-3 seconds to think and act being a luxury. And get it all perfectly correct.

Pause for a question. You have a handgun at hand when an...

View Details

Introduction

We are offering all the wrong rewards in our ongoing process of nominating and hiring new leaders of the free world.

We offer poor pay, constant and stinging criticism, a frequently uncooperative Congress, and a Supreme Court that may undo any accomplishment. And enough lavish perks and ego strokes to make Nero happy.

That’s why we keep getting a grab bag assortment of candidates.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Let’s imagine for a moment that we owned a company enjoying revenues in the $10M per year range; The CEO of our company would make about $400K/year, exactly what we pay the President of the United States. And there would most likely be significant incentives for hitting desired targets on top of that. Our hypothetical company is well positioned in a growing market, with a history of innovation. We now need a new CEO; the current one is retiring, partly due to age, and partly for her health. She was a highly successful founding CEO, and now we need a great new CEO to stay profitable and continue to expand rapidly. As we write the job description, we need to remember that the candidate would expect that the job would come with investors who would cooperate and encourage. And jump in to help if needed and wanted. As we write the description of the desired candidate, we know the key is to emphasize the opportunities and the required skills that will attract the type of leader we need. We are going to get candidates who want what we are offering. If we offer strong compensation for robust, positive results, we will attract candidates who want that, and believe they can deliver. If we offer poor compensation, lavish perks, fame, and an uncooperative environment, we will get candidates who are willing to suffer the low compensation and difficult environment in return for the perks and the fame. But why on earth would any sane business owner offer the that? Why?

We, the voters, the owners of our American democracy, do it all the time. And it gets worse with each election. Imagine the kind of candidates we would get if we ran the following Help Wanted ad:

“CEO to run a company of 330,000,000 people, with a security force of 1,300,000. Your Board of Directors is split between two groups; one with 435 members, the other with 100. Both groups are divided between those who will like the CEO, and those who will detest the CEO. The HR department has 9 members who often overrule everyone else. Every four years the people get to vote on the CEO, and in between they vote on the Board. There is also a bureaucratic department of 2,000,000 employees, none of whom can be fired. Compensation is $400K annually, with good benefits, a pension plan, meal plan, housing and transportation. Must be good with people; half of the 330M people in the company will be out for your hide at any given moment. During the 18 month interview process, you will be subject to intense scrutiny, exhausting travel, and you and your family will be vilified. Apply to USA, an equal opportunity employer.

The US Presidency is arguably the toughest, and certainly the most consequential, job in the world. We need, “Men To Match My Mountains” a book by Irving Stone about the men who matched the challenge of opening the American West. On occasion, we have seen men who matched the then current challenges and were able to step up to the dreadful tasks demanded of the times. George Washington risked everything he owned, including his life, as a traitor to the British Crown, to be part of creating the breakthrough founding documents. He then led the ragtag army that defeated the most powerful military the world had ever seen. Similarly, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, to list a few, rose to the occasion when crises loomed and they steered us through to the other side. Here’s a compliment to George Washington from an entirely unlikely quarter. Washington was held in such...

View Details

Introduction

Perhaps you have heard of the concept of 6 degrees of separation. This view holds that we are all six, or fewer, social connections away from each other.

A core belief here at Revolution 2.0™ is that if we are more than 2 degrees of separation away from actively participating in researching and implementing the solutions to the mounting issues our society, our nation faces, that we not doing all that we can to make a difference. And, no, being smarter or more strident than others on social media does not count. Neither does hanging out and agreeing with people you already agree with count. Even individual voting by itself does not do all that much to drive change. Voting every 2 years is a responsibility, assuming that you are a well researched, https://revolution2-0.org/americas-unqualified-voters-ep-89/ (well informed voter). But still not likely to move the needle to any significant degree.

It takes finding common goals, doing the deep research into all sides of the issues to look for the most pertinent facts, then applying non agenda-based reasoning to those facts to achieve those common goals in order to move our country forward. We need to do this ourselves as the main thing we do politically. Then work with others. Working with others is 1 degree of separation. And work with those people to influence yet another set of participants, for example, politicians, school boards, bureaucracies, organized groups, etc. That’s 2 degrees of separation.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.

Continuing

Part of our unique and exceptional role in America is to know what we are talking about and to act on that knowledge. Know your stuff, then act on it. Knowing your stuff without acting is empty; acting without knowing is dangerous.

Question. So, Will, how do we get involved? How do we participate in a way that makes change? By that I mean change for the better, Will. Answer. How do you get anything done? Here are the steps.

Decide. Is this, whatever it is, something you really want to do? Get fit? Get involved? Improve your financial condition? Create change?

Commit. Or not. Don’t commit until you are ready to dig into and stay with whatever it is. BTW, that’s the problem with New Year’s Resolutions. First, these resolutions are often made well in advance, violating one of the basic rules of creating change, i.e., start immediately. Second these resolutions are also seen as easily breakable, reinforcing the dangerous notion that it is okay to break commitments that we have made.

Make a plan. If you don’t know the specifics that are part of any good plan, then make a plan to know the specifics. For example, if you don’t have enough information to set a date for an important step, then set a date by which you will be able to set that date. Make sense?

At Revolution 2.0™, we start the process by finding the https://revolution2-0.org/common-goals-ep-09/ (common goals) related to to the myriad and divisive issues facing all of us, then looking for the related facts. Courts call facts like these evidence, so perhaps we should have some court-like standards for judging what is a fact and what isn’t. For example, is the, “Hands up, don’t shoot.” mantra based in fact, or is it simply an incendiary rallying cry? The same goes for, “Lock her up.” Both positions assume that the facts supporting the two positions are known and valid. Remember, just because we saw something on TV, the Internet, or heard it from someone we know does not mean that there is any truth to it at all. Increasingly sources are either biased or, well, completely full of it. We have to dig for the facts, dig for the truth. And dig into multiple and diverse sources. Then we need to apply those now determined facts using non agenda-based reasoning to achieve the common goals.

None of this needs to take a major amount of additional time; much of it is simply a matter of thinking differently. And we are certainly not...

View Details

Introduction

Now, let’s add one more level to using fishing as a metaphor for feeding humanity. Teach a man to teach others to fish, and how to motivate them, and you feed a nation.

Knowing how to fish is the how. Motivation is the why.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

America is a unique and exceptional nation. Part of the equally unique and exceptional role we need to play in it is to understand what we need to do to help others to be personally responsible. Acting on that understanding is part of our personal responsibility to be our https://revolution2-0.org/am-i-my-brothers-keeper-2/ (Brother’s Keepers).

More and more prominent politicians are volunteering to give out free fish in return for votes. And these are expensive fish; healthcare, housing, a universal basic income (free money)–and the list grows as many of them continue to work to outbid each other. The debate moderators should be replaced by an auctioneer. They are even pushing to give away the fishing training, i.e., higher education. All of them are missing the motivation piece.

And this needed motivation is coming under more and more attack as people are being told that they deserve things simply because they are human. “Here’s your free fish, human person. Don’t forget to come back tomorrow for more.” Not that long ago, people were motivated to provide for themselves and those dependent upon them because there was no other choice. Nobody was handing out much of anything. Today, we have choices. The choices that others lay out for us are not good choices, like which kind of fish do we prefer, and how best to catch them. They talk only about terrible choices, like wanting free fish or to go fishing instead.

Pause to help the politicians with their message. “Reasonable access to healthcare and the other necessities of life is your right. And along with that right comes the responsibility to do your absolute best, not just show up and try. If you have sufficient need, we will tax others to give you the correct level of either temporary or permanent support.” There. Fixed it.

Let’s go back to the fishing example. It is clear that by fishing we mean taking personal responsibility. And by teaching, we mean everything from parental instruction to academic education to vocational schools. But this classic, oft-used fishing example misses the mark, because it leaves out motivation. Remember: teaching is the how, motivation is the why. No one will do the how until they know the why.

In the media, political debates and in our general discourse, how often do you hear the subject of motivation come up? Every parent has said, at least once, referring to at least one of their children, “He’s so talented. But there is no motivation!” Good parents will struggle to motivate their kids, with examples, rewards and consequences, introduction to possible mentors–anything that might work. Good teachers will also work hard to motivate their students. And great employers will do the same with their employees.

Politicians run from any suggestion that their voter be held personally responsible, to be motivated to fend for themselves; not nearly enough people would vote for a candidate like that. Imagine “I want to give it to you free because you are human.” squaring off in a debate with, “If it is at all possible, I want you to fend for yourself, and to be your Brother’s Keeper.” The first candidate makes the taxpayers responsible for you...

View Details

Introduction

Q. Is healthcare a human right? A. No. Reasonable access to healthcare is a human right.

Q. What about housing, food, clothing, employment and income, and so on? A. Same answer.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

America is a unique and exceptional nation. Part of the equally unique and exceptional role we need to play in it is to understand the right and wrong–and the cost–of the political arguments swirling around us..

“Human right” vs. “Reasonable access” is at the very core of what we are talking about here. If these things are indeed human rights, then everyone, all 7.5 billion of us humans in the world would be entitled to them. And even the most extravagant spender of US taxpayer money would admit that we cannot afford to supply those benefits to all of those around the world who are not now receiving them. So I suppose the “human right” phrase is more virtue signalling than a real position. It looks like we are talking about those who manage to be here in the US, with or without documents, legally or illegally.

Pause for a key definition: Illegal vs. Undocumented. If I am a qualified driver and am driving without my paperwork with me, I am undocumented. If I am not a qualified driver and am driving anyway, I am illegal. Being pulled over and asked for my paperwork does not have any effect on my status; it merely exposes it.

The unalienable rights, granted to us by our creator, are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Healthcare is not an unalienable right, to be granted to everyone regardless of effort level on their part.

Let’s suppose that certain political types get their way over time and things like healthcare, food, housing, etc. are made free after being declared to be human rights. Why would anyone work? What would the motivation be? Can anyone make the case that the people voting for more and more free things–including a universal basic income–would be in any way motivated to work? If people are voting for free things and they are getting them, there would be little motivation to do anything but vote for more free things.

Separately, does anyone believe that the politicians supporting making more and more things free would in any way motivate their supporters to work for their money, rather than simpy vote for them for their money? Let’s hear from three justifiably famous and wise voices:

“A democracy can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.” –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville (Alexis de Tocqueville)

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end.” –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton (Alexander Hamilton)

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin (Benjamin Franklin)

This wisdom is as old as the world’s oldest democracy, America. Yes, America is the world’s oldest democracy. How much longer will we be able to make that claim?

Returning specifically to healthcare, the goal should be to come up with a way to allow reasonable access to affordable, quality healthcare. Note the podcast title question is not, “Should everyone have access to healthcare?” The answer to that question is a loud and hearty “Yes. Absolutely!”. For those who feel that healthcare is a right, remember that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare than without food. And lack of housing and clothing can easily lead to health problems, as well as a poor quality lifestyle and an unsuccessful life overall. The “healthcare is a human right” argument can quickly lead to the conclusion that food, clothing and shelter are also rights.

Okay, Will, what does “reasonable access” mean. Let’s start by returning to a chart I created and have referenced before, the Can’t vs....

View Details

Introduction

Our–emphasis on our–national debt is skyrocketing. We are currently at $22 trillion, adding about $1 trillion a year. This is a bipartisan attack on our economic infrastructure.

Profits are increasingly under attack, with at least two of the leading Democratic presidential contenders claiming that healthcare industry profits “rip billions from healthcare”, effectively stealing money from the people who need it the most.

Put these two facts together, and this underlying economic philosophy is “Profits are bad, debt is good.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

We live in a unique and exceptional nation; part of the equally unique and exceptional role we all play in our country is to understand how American healthcare should work, and to hold our politicians to that strategy.

My wife, Marcia, and I recently went car shopping. She had been wanting a Toyota Avalon for a few years now, and as her much used 2008 Subaru Outback needed more and more repairs, it seemed like a good time. After a few test drives and a few days of back-and-forth negotiating, we struck what appeared to be a good deal. When we got the right balance of trade-in value and new car price, we paid up and left with the car. And Marcia is still chirping.

At no point did we concern ourselves with what kind of profits Toyota was making, or even how the dealer fared. We cared about the value we were receiving for the money we were spending. And we do want both the manufacturer and the dealer to make a profit and stay in business. In part to be around to service Marcia and her new car, and in part to continue to provide jobs, competition in the vehicle marketplace, and add their pieces to the economy.

Why would it be any different with healthcare? Why is making a profit a bad thing? Don’t we want hospitals, physician’s offices, Urgent Care and the local doc-in-the-box to be financially healthy so they can be around to provide continuing care? Or is it that we think that the government can run healthcare so efficiently that healthcare will cost less with the government running it than with private business running it? If that is the argument, where is the evidence? The VA? The Post Office?

If you scratch at the “profit-is-bad therefore we should insist that Medicare For All (MFA) be the one and only healthcare plan allowed” argument, making employer-based plans illegal, you get two things under your fingernails:

Medicare For All needs the relatively healthy workers and their families who are currently being covered under their employers so that MFA won’t be an even bigger financial disaster than it would be without them. Obamacare also needed the younger and healthier, hence the need to fine them if they did not choose to have coverage.

The MFA people want government to run just about everything.

I was on private health insurance, save for my time in the Army, until a few years ago when I went on Medicare. This is highly anecdotal, but I will tie my experience to the larger picture in a moment. Over my years on Medicare, I have:

Seen certain of my physicians limiting Medicare patients to a few hours, one or two days a week.

Seen that some prospective healthcare providers won’t even take my information until they have a “Medicare patient opening.”

Been told that my access to drugs is limited because I am on Medicare.

Gone through a decline in the experience level of my providers. Where I once would routinely consult with a physician if I had an issue, I was reduced to seeing physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners. Now I am screened by medical assistants before I am allowed to consult with a PA or NP.

Seen the Medicare-driven paperwork rise dramatically.

Side Note: I was in the workforce for 60 years; my Medicare and Social Security are fully paid for. In fact, more than paid for. I expect more for my hard work.

Here’s the promised tie to to my...

View Details

Introduction

There is very little presidential about the candidates, and virtually no real debating. Insults, attacks and posturing, yes; debating, no. Note that I did not title this podcast the Democratic Presidential Debates; the Republicans are just as guilty. Hey, 2016 was not all that long ago.

When https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy (John F. Kennedy) successfully ran for President in 1960, his slogan was “A Time For Greatness.”

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

We live in a unique and exceptional country; part of the equally unique and exceptional role we all play in the US is to understand how to identify and solve problems, instead of making ourselves or our fellow believers right, and everyone else wrong.

When I was a kid, I used to hear my Dad, a Republican, and my Step-mom, a Democrat, talk about politics. Dad, a quiet and thoughtful man, said that he voted a “straight ticket.” Even at a young age, that confused me. How could my thoughtful Dad vote only for Republicans? Weren’t there at least a few Democrats somewhere on the ballot who were better than their Republican opponents? I had no idea at the time, but I was hearing the “party over person” argument. I heard that position most recently and passionately from Mike Rosen, a Denver-based KOA talk show host.

My Father introduced me to the “straight ticket” concept during the 1952 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower (Dwight Eisenhower)/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevenson_II (Adlai Stevenson) election. I remember that “Ike” Eisenhower was a war hero; his campaign sported the “I Like Ike” campaign buttons.

I also remember a political cartoon from that time showing a man purposely striding off to his polling place while answering the question, “You are off to vote. Where is your wife?” “My wife and I support different parties. Instead of cancelling out each other’s vote, we vote in alternate elections.” There is more than one lesson here. First, he thought enough of his civic responsibilities to actually go somewhere to vote. Back then, mailed ballots, called absentee ballots, were only for people who were unable to get to the voting location, e.g., they were ill or on vacation. And they had to prove it to get a mailed ballot.

The man in the cartoon, purposely anonymous, a sort of everyman, had nothing unpleasant to say about either his wife or the persons or party she supported. They had found their own resolution to their political disagreement, and then went about their business.

The cartoon was entirely reflective of the political tone of the times. There were indeed serious issues; Republicans attacked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman (Harry S. Truman)‘s handling of the Korean War and the larger Cold War, and claimed that Soviet spies had infiltrated the U.S. government. Democrats faulted Eisenhower for failing to condemn Republican https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy (Senator Joe McCarthy) and other anti-Communist Republicans who they claim had engaged in unscrupulous attacks. Stevenson tried to separate himself from the unpopular previous Democratic administration, instead campaigning on the popularity of the New Deal and lingering fears of another Great Depression under a Republican administration.

Stevenson had his own button. Supporters could, and did, wear either button without risking angry comments, or, perhaps, even a physical confrontation. Volunteers or staffers would set up on street corners, like Girl Scouts at cookie time, and give away hundreds of buttons with “thanks” from supporters, and nothing from those of a different mind. No one yelled out “Racist!” or “Lock her up!”, or overturned the tables. It is much to our shame that nothing like that is possible today. Yes, our shame. We’re in charge here, aren’t we? If not, who is?

Stevenson lost twice to Eisenhower, in ‘52 and ‘56. He ran for the Democratic...

View Details

Introduction

Hard core activists want attention, applause from sympathizers, the ability to claim the moral high ground through a bullhorn, and a place in society that grants them a type of street gang respect. And all this without the inconvenience and anonymity of having to support themselves with, well, a real job. The last thing they want to do is actually solve the problems they are pretending to address.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

We live in a unique and exceptional country; part of the equally unique and exceptional role that we play in the US is to understand who is actually trying to solve problems, as opposed to the people who prop up the problems to their advantage.

Almost everywhere you look, things are getting better and better in our country, America. And the activists are getting louder, angrier and more physical. They are feeding the fires of racism, sexism, and you-name-it phobia in order to advance their own interests. The last thing they can stand is to solve the problem, and for the protested issue, their reason for living, to go away. That explains why as problems become smaller and more contained, activists are more vigorously beating the drums, shouting and pushing in the streets, and working a pliant media to make the problem appear larger and more menacing than ever.

Pause for definitions. I am not talking about people who volunteer, who run, contribute to and work for non-profits. And the many others who quietly go about the business of actually making things better. They are my heroes.

Charges of racism are much in the news, more to hurl lethal accusations than to expose a real problem and fix it. “Checkmate” is the last thing that a winner might say in a chess game, indicating that his opponent has lost. The term “Racist” is now being used in the same way. Calling someone a racist and having it stick is the political equivalent of Checkmate. Your opponent is now out of the game.

Specifically, let’s talk about race activists e.g., https://blacklivesmatter.com/ (Black Lives Matter) (BLM). Their anger at the murders of innocent young black men until recently focused exclusively on their claims about racism causing deaths of black men at the hands of white cops. When they found that in some cases it was black officers shooting black citizens, their color criticism changed from “white” to “blue.” In other words, they pivoted from racist cops being the issue to police in general being the problem. But their activism continues to ignore the 95+% of black deaths that are not caused by police. We’ll ignore for now the argument that the vast majority of that 5% are completely justified. We don’t need to make that case to make our point here.

All lives matter, and that statement does not in any way imply that some lives are worth more than others. It takes a twisted view of the world to claim that all lives matter means that black, brown or Asian lives somehow matter less.

Pause for a question. When did Asians and Indians cease to be people of color?

Here’s a representative piece of American WWII, “The

View Details

Introduction

If the goal is to have lasting peace in the Middle East, with as much economic success and freedom as possible for both Israelis and Palestinians, a one-state solution is likely to be the best way to achieve those goals.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

We live in a unique and exceptional country; part of the equally unique and exceptional role that we play here is to understand what is going on beyond our borders, and to hold our politicians accountable for doing the right things internationally as well as domestically. The Middle East has been in turmoil since the beginning of recorded history. Let’s take a look at what has been happening in recent decades.

The many and powerful forces arrayed against Israel, with the relatively recent exception of Egypt, don’t want peace with their enemy, Israel. Their long held position has been to refuse to recognize Israel’s existence, and to repeatedly call for its extinction. Their commitment is to drive every Israeli, man, woman and child, into the Mediterranean. The problem, to Hamas, the recognized terror group that runs the Gaza strip, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, PLO, the should-be-recognized terror group in charge of the West Bank, is not that Israel is not cooperating with them in the way it should. To them, Hamas and the PLO, the problem is that Israel exists at all. The people who lead and are paid by these terrorist groups would have nothing to do if there was peace. They would lose their coveted place in the “resistance” and have to go get a job. Simple truth: https://revolution2-0.org/activists-dont-want-peace/ (Activists Don’t Want Peace). And that’s true in more places than the Middle East. Egypt, a far larger, more diverse and successful country than either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, was not filled with terrorist leaders and high-ranking followers who needed to avoid peace at all costs to maintain their positions in their society. Egptian leaders knew the benefits of peace, and were confident enough in themselves to make it happen. They signed a separate peace deal with Israel in 1979. And have honored it.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. And there are precious few democracies in Muslim countries around the world. Arabs in Israel have more freedoms and have far better standards of living than the average person living in either Arab countries or Iran (Iranians are Persians, not Arabs). What is the benefit of having a two-state solution where Israel would continue to be successful and free, and a combined Gaza and West Bank would be ruled by the terrorist coalition of Hamas and the PLO? While their citizens continued to live in poverty.

The claim that the Israelis “made the desert bloom” has a solid foundation. With no oil, and having been attacked by multiple countries, with the announced intention of annihilating them in 1948, 1967 and again in 1973, Israel has literally made the desert bloom. Everything from massive desalination plants providing vitally needed water to the creation of a thriving tech industry, Israel has made its tiny part of the world bloom. All while needing to have the largest standing military per capita in the world. Remember, Israel, the defender, needs to win every war, every time, or be eliminated. As counterpoint, when Hamas took over the Gaza Strip after Israeli...

View Details

Introduction

Parents play an increasingly vital role in today’s more and more complex and dangerous society. At the same time, many are abdicating their responsibility to the state in the form of teachers, law enforcement, and fundamentals including food and healthcare.

Parents are primarily responsible for everything in their children’s lives.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

Your role, our unique and exceptional roles in our shared unique and exceptional nation, includes being there for our children, and doing the hard work–the consistent hard work over many years–of raising them. Parents are primarily responsible for everything in their children’s lives. Logistical things like food, clothing, healthcare and transportation. Eduction. Moral development. Physical development. Learning the basics of how to succeed as a person and in the world.

In order to meet this responsibility, parents need to:

Be there. I know that may seem obvious, but with all the missing parents the point, sadly, needs to be made.

Be aware that education is their responsibility. That teachers are coaches are immensely valuable, but the parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s education and mental discipline development.

Be aware that while law enforcement is obviously necessary, they are primarily responsible for developing their children’s respect for authority.

Be aware that employers can teach many things that parents can’t, but the parents are the key to instilling a strong work ethic.

Be willing to sacrifice in order to meet these responsibilities.

Much has been said and written about the obligations parents have in a child’s early years. Feeding, diapers, late nights, trundling the offspring everywhere you go. Not finishing a sentence. Spending your money on more things than you thought possible. Losing closeness with your spouse. All of this is hard, and at the same time it looks like some sort of exercise, a monumental exercise that can last for several years, perhaps, but an exercise that you can get through, and then it ends. Not so, by the way.

The harder part, yes there is a harder part, is modeling the correct behavior. Let’s start with reading. Reading is critical; not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers. If you want your child to be a reader, you must be one. Have books in the home. Read them. Read to your child, and let them read to you as they develop. Quote from books. Share life lessons you have learned from books. No, not videos–books. Make books come alive, make them fun, make them valuable.

Modeling also includes a strong work ethic, valuing useful education, understanding and demonstrating how money works, and respecting authority. Pause for the obvious: in order to model anything, you must first know how to do it, and then be willing to make it a priority.

Let’s start with understanding and modeling how money works. As with all of life, following a few simple rules will change everything. And, as with all of life, the rules are easy to understand, and very hard to actually follow. It’s that motivation and discipline thing. Here are the rules: 1. Make more than you spend. 2. Spend less than you earn. 3. Never finance anything that depreciates. And, no, the first two rules are not the same.

Let’s pause for a moment for an example of simple to understand, but hard to do. People do know what to do even in difficult situations. The reason they don’t is not lack of knowledge, but lack of sufficient motivation to do the hard tasks that likely lie in front of them. A friend, the most long-term successful health and life coach I know, provides a great example. When I approached Don about losing weight, he asked two questions. The first was, “Will, if you are at McDonald’s, which is the better choice, a Big Mac with fries and a Coke, or a salad?” “Well, the salad, of course.” “Okay”, Don, continued, “If...

View Details

Introduction

Having an easy life is not a human right; quite the opposite, it is a dysfunctional way to live. And structuring government policy to make things as easy as possible for people is simply wrong. Wrong for the taxpayers, yes, but more deeply and terribly wrong for those afflicted with an easy life.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

Your role, our role, includes knowing how to live so that we can learn and grow, and help others to grow. There is no learning or growing that comes from easy; learning and growing come from facing hard times and hard things, and succeeding. And only in that way.

This evil, yes the evil thought process life must be made easy thought process that is being perpetuated in exchange for votes is as follows:

If life is at all hard for you, that is proof that you are a victim.

Victims need to be fully taken care of with money from other people. You know, the 1% and the corporations.

The “other people” who are being tapped for the money are the very ones who made you a victim in the first place.

Don’t feel any need to stop accepting the money; this is yours by right–you are owed this.

I call this line of thinking evil because it traps people into small, dependent lives, lives where there is very little triumph and joy. These people cannot be developed in the crucible of life so they can contribute to others. All of this in exchange for votes. What else but evil can you call that?

We all learn more from the hard times than we do from the easy times. I don’t know anyone for whom that is not true. Do you? And with that hard times learning, we can grow and strengthen ourselves to lead stronger, happier and better lives. Yes, I did say “happier.” There is no conflict between hard and happy.

We all know that to make a muscle stronger, we must work it, and the harder we work it, the stronger it becomes. Our minds are like muscles; we must work them to make them stronger, and the harder we work them, the stronger they become.

It is only when we push ourselves, mentally and/or physically, that we improve, get stronger, and further prepare ourselves for leading contributing, independent lives. The corollary is also true: When we don’t challenge ourselves, nothing gets better. If fact, things get worse. These physical and mental muscles will atrophy. And we get more than a touch lazy in the process.

Life is bad enough when we don’t challenge ourselves, when we don’t take responsibility for getting through the hard times. We are hurting ourselves and those around us. As bad as that is, it is far worse when powerful voices in leadership tell us that if things are hard, that not only is it proof that things are unfair, but that someone else is responsible for getting us through the hard bits. Why is it their responsibility? Because, we are told, they are the ones who made it hard for us in the first place. That’s the reason that identity politics were dreamt up in the first place, and are so often in the news. The idea is to relieve certain groups, those victimized by other groups, of responsibility while placing the blame and the responsibility on the groups who are said to have created the victims in the first place. This is called intersectionality. I call it identity group wars. Wars where only politicians win, and everyone else loses.

Remember the part about how we learn much more from our hard times than we do from the easy ones? The only thing that we learn from someone else easing our hard times by being forced to provide money, housing or more, is that voting for things is a lot easier than working for them. But if we do that, we have been robbed of the learning, the joy, of

View Details

Introduction

We have a massive and inexcusable crisis at our Southern border. But the crisis is merely a symptom; the disease is in DC–and in us.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

Your role, our role, includes knowing what is happening in our immigration system, how to fix it, and what our role is in fixing it. Yes, we all have a role to play here.

Our government, both sides of the aisle, is failing us. The immigration solution is simple to understand, and very implementable. Personal and party gain are what is keeping our elected representatives from doing even the basics of their job with immigration. They feel, with some cause, that attacking and insulting will get them what they want; to be elected and to keep being reelected. If we want more from our elected representatives, we, we the people, we the voters, need to lead.

To get to what our role is here, we need to ask one–one– simple question, hoping for a simple, truthful answer; “Do we want open borders?” We have open borders between states. Travel is unrestricted; one can become a citizen of a different state by merely showing up and staying. We are one nation, with free movement among the states, and free access to the benefits, including a variety of taxpayer-supported services, the various states offer. And voting; more states, like my home state of Colorado, offer same-day voter registration. Is that what we want for our country? Do we want to offer the same type of free, instant access to taxpayer-funded benefits and voting–in other words instant, full citizenship privileges and benefits–to residents of other countries that we allow residents of other states?

If the answer is yes, then we must have the courage to say it clearly and out loud. “The simple truth is, I want open borders. National boundaries should mean no more than state boundaries.” We could stop spinning our wheels in disingenuous arguments about the effectiveness of walls and who is and who isn’t being fair and inclusive. And we could stop wringing our hands about terminology like “undocumented” vs. “illegal”–everyone would be legal. Declaring the simple truth “I want open borders” would take the debate to a very different–and honest–level. Right where it needs to be.

Pause to define undocumented vs. illegal by example. If I am a qualified driver and am driving without my paperwork with me, I am undocumented. If I am not a qualified driver and am driving anyway, I am illegal. Being pulled over and asked for my paperwork does not have any effect on my status; it merely exposes it.

I don’t want open borders. No nation can exist for any length of time like that. And I don’t want to be the State of America in the United Nations of the World. What I do want is a secure, prosperous, welcoming America; an America that can continue to be attractive and lead the way for the rest of the world. Here’s how we do that–5 easy steps:

Secure our borders. Stop using the term “wall.” We don’t need a wall everywhere; technology, manpower and natural boundaries can be very effective.

Insist that employers use E-verify prior to hiring.

Use technology to track those who overstay their visas; by most accounts most of those who are here illegally have overstayed their visas.

Create a path to citizenship for illegals. Put them behind those who came here legally and followed the time-consuming legal process. And no path to voting; that’s a bridge too far for anyone who snuck in. Yes, this is amnesty. But with secure borders–finally–it will be the last amnesty. Repeat amnesty is nothing more than a painful—and dishonest—way of creating open...

View Details

Introduction

We need economic and financial sustainability.

Sustainability is a concept much in the news these days. Sustainable fishing, energy and wood products, to name a few. We were told, without complete consensus among scientists, that we have 12 years, now a bit less than that, to live on earth without experiencing a complete climate disaster–announced to be an existential threat–a threat to our very existence. Unless, we are told, we immediately find radically different and sustainable ways to live.

What about economic and financial stability? All of the Green New Deal remedies start in the trillions of dollars. Add in the cost of social new deals like Medicare for All, All being defined as everyone currently residing in the US along with free college and many more trillions in spending are proposed. And that’s with a current federal budget of less than $5 trillion. How can that be financially sustainable? How is that not a clear and convincing threat to life as we know it?

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast

Continuing

Your role, our role, includes knowing the debt and deficit numbers, how they are likely to grow, and what they mean for us, for America. And for our children and grandchildren.

As of today, the 330M people in the US owe $22 trillion, money we have borrowed to keep going. That’s $67K owed by every man, woman or child in our country. If you add in what the federal government has promised in things like government worker pensions, Medicare and Social security, we are over $90 trillion in debt.

Pause for definitions: The deficit is the difference between what the feds receive in taxes, and what they spend. The deficit is covered by borrowing. Just like a credit card; if you spend more than you make, you need to borrow to make things work. The debt is the total amount the feds, that’s the taxpayers, owe. Again like a credit card, the debt is the total amount owed, while the deficit is the amount you just borrowed. The total debt is accumulated deficits. Our national debt is $22 trillion, with an average annual deficit of $1 trillion. At the risk of making your eyes roll back in your head, let’s bring up another comparison between the feds and a person or family. Fair? The annual federal budget is about $4.7 trillion. An annual deficit of $1 trillion, means that our government is borrowing over 20% of its budget each and every year. If a household spent the US annual average, $60K a year, it would have to borrow $12K, 20%, each and every year to match the feds in borrowing compared to budget. How long could a household sustain, there’s that word again, that percentage of borrowing before it collapsed? After 10 years, the household would owe $120K, and that’s not counting interest, which could easily double that amount. With no end in sight. Here’s a better question; how long can we, the US, sustain that kind of borrowing?

We cannot and should not tax our way out of this mess. We do not have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. Said differently our https://revolution2-0.org/killing-the-golden-goose-ep-44/ (golden goose) is healthy and producing ever more golden eggs. If we continue to threaten the national golden goose by increasing taxes and regulations, we will kill the American goose.

For those of you who were actually paying attention in school, and not reading Aesop’s fables, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop (Aesop) wrote of a farmer who had a magical goose; one that would lay golden eggs every day. The farmer lived quite well selling the gold, but he got impatient; in his ignorance of how things worked, he cut the goose open to get all the eggs at once. Isn’t our society doing the...

View Details

Introduction

We need to stop using labels to either define ourselves or to categorize others. Labels like left, right, progressive and conservative are mindless substitutes for actual thought and productive discussion. Cliches like “Lock her up.”, “Trump the dictator.” “Baby killer.” and “You are against women’s rights.” are also not arguments as much as empty-headed claims that anyone who disagrees is an idiot or worse. Kinda makes me yearn for the return of the 20-second sound bite. By comparison, that was real discourse.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

I believe that America is a unique and exceptional place, and that you have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in it. Today’s podcast, and there are two a week, Tuesday and Friday each and every week, goes into more depth about how to fill that role. My last podcast had specific ideas about self-talk. Today it is about no labels and common goals.

A Revolution 2.0™ subscriber, G. O. in Denver, was agreeing with this no label position by observing that Revolution 2.0 espouses looking at policies rather than politics. Exactly. We have a bingo. Don’t ask me what label I am. That will lead to you assuming what I believe on a variety of issues–likely to be wrong, easily having mis-guessed my thinking based on a label. Labels like: Conservative. Liberal. Republican. Libertarian. Moderate. Democrat. Progressive. Independent. Fiscal conservative. Social liberal. Those are the benign descriptors that people apply to themselves.

Now let’s look at the labels that are often applied to others: “Libtard”, “Trumpist”, and, “You’re a Fascist,” “No, you’re a fascist.” These labels cannot possibly identify, educate and inform; they are simply insults. And we often hurl these “labels” at each other.

We have weaponized labels.

Stop.

Restart.

Think and speak about issues, not labels.

I started my political life thinking that I was a Democrat. After all, they are the ones who want to help people. Right? Then I thought I was a Republican. They are the responsible ones. Yes? I really thought that I knew who I was politically when I heard Jimmy Carter say that he was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Ah. Perfect.

For many years, I was happy with describing myself the way then candidate and later President Carter described himself. But as the political landscape has become dysfunctionally more polarized, the original definitions of Mr. Carter’s terms have become obsolete. “Fiscal conservative” no longer means simply handling taxpayer money efficiently and having tax and regulatory policies that support robust, responsible economic growth. For many, it is coming to mean that you are at least somewhat suspicious of the Federal Reserve, support a return to the gold standard, and want a retreat to the original Federal Income Tax rate of 2%. Similarly, “social liberal” used to mean, at least to me, live and let live when it came to lifestyles. Now, it seems to be morphing into meaning “anything goes.” And not only simple tolerance for the “anything” that’s going; we have growing numbers of groups demanding elaborate accomodations for, well, just about anyone who declares themselves to be different. So now what do I do? How do I describe myself politically? Can I find a home? Let’s create a new home by dropping labels and talking about issues and common goals.

I describe myself as a man seeking common goals. (How’s that for a party name?) Don’t most of us share the same common, bedrock goals? I don’t mean desires that many share like wanting this party or this candidate to win (or the other party or person to lose), I mean the core, meaningful, underlying goals that most of us share. Find the common ground (yes, it exists), add statistically-significant facts, facts that clearly apply to the issue, then apply non agenda-based reasoning to those facts to get to the common goals. It works. And if the discussion falls

View Details

Introduction

I believe that America is a unique and exceptional place, and that you have an equally unique and exceptional role to play in it.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcas

Continuing

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Revolution 1.0) was the Founders’ Love Letter to America. Revolution 2.0™ is mine.

Dr. Martin Luther King called the Declaration’s breakthrough vision for a new nation “a promissory note”. I have called that vision a “statement of direction.” Whatever the descriptor, let these words sink in: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Constitution took the promises of the Declaration and gave us a set of rules, a path, to becoming a constitutional republic, with government having limited, enumerated powers. This path has led to the US being the world’s oldest free nation.

We are called to continue along this path. With all that has been done to continuously fulfill the promise of the Declaration, much has been left to us. So, with this calling, what should we do? “How then shall we live?” (Luke 22:31-38)

Today’s Action Item: Start with changing ourselves. Specifically, always think in terms of common goals when talking to yourself. No more who’s right and who’s wrong, winning or losing, this political label vs. that label. Common goals. Always and only. We change everything by–and only by–changing ourselves.

“When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world.

I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation.

When I found I couldn’t change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn’t change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family.

Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family.

My family and I could have made an impact on our town.

Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.”

Written by an unknown Monk around 1100 A.D.

The calling is not as much to rid the nation of vestigial prejudices or evening things out with more income redistribution as it is to not return to the days when we were ruled by King George III. No, today’s threat is not a one-person monarchy; it is something much worse. An entrenched, career-based, ruling-class government, surrounded and defended by millions of bureaucrats whose very livelihoods depend upon a government growing in size, scope and power. All bought and paid for with taxpayer dollars; dollars exchanged for the promise of riskless ease. We will be more comfortable than King George’s subjects, but we will be subjects nonetheless.

Let’s hear a voice from Revolution 1.0 in 1776. “It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.” –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry (Patrick Henry) in his famous “Give me liberty or give me death.” Revolution speech.

Paraphrasing, are ease and lack of risk “so dear” as to be purchased at the cost of increasingly limited freedoms, including mounting restrictions on what we can do and say–perhaps even think–without being subject to embarrassment, censure or worse? Ask anyone in a once-free, but no longer free country. Pick one. Italy under Mussolini? Spain under...

View Details

Introduction

Subsidized self reliance is an oxymoron, a self-cancelling phrase. Like civil war, or jumbo shrimp. In yet another triumph of https://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/subjects/literature/in-orwells-1984-what-isdoublethink (doublethink) (from Orwell’s 1984), over reason and integrity, it is being sold as being humane and compassionate. It is precisely the opposite.

That is the subject of today’s 10-minute blog/podcast.

Continuing

It has long been true that if allowed one false premise to build upon, then just about anything can be “proved” to be true. For example, when the prevailing belief was that the earth was flat, it was easy to “prove” that a ship going a distance in any direction would fall off the edge of the world. More recently, when 1930s Germany promoted the false belief that Jews, homoexuals, gypsies, etc., were not people, it allowed those who accepted that thinking to treat the people in these groups in horribly inhumane ways. With apologies to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell (Bertrand Russell), here’s a fun example:

Someone once challenged Bertrand Russell to prove that, “If 1=2 (the allowed false premise) then you, Russell are the Pope. Russell replied, “Either the Pope and I are one person or we are two people. If 1=2 then in either case we are one person. Therefore, I am the Pope.”

Allowing the false premise of subsidized self reliance to stand will lead to claiming that subsidizing people will make them self reliant. In other words, if I just keep giving you new a fish every day, you will eventually learn how to fish. And more importantly, you will be motivated by all the free fish to provide your own fish after a time of being giving them for free. (The people esposing this way of thinking are silent on just how long the free fish have to be given out before, like spontaneous combustion, learning and motivation flare up.)

Pause for a definition. The kind of subsidies we are talking about here are the long term and extended giveaways like “Healthcare is a human right” and free college with the forgiveness of current student debt. As in $1.5 T for trillion in student debt. One third of our annual federal budget. That’s more than all of the outstanding credit card debt. Hey, why not pay that off for everyone as well? We are not talking about the temporary subsidies that have correctly existed for many decades, like good public schools (when they were good), merit-based scholarships and efficient public transportation–where that exists. All subsidized, and all good investments, designed to give the individual what they need when they need it. And allow and encourage them to wean themselves from the subsidies. Eventually to contribute to subsidizing others either through appropriate taxation or personal charity.

Let’s take a quick re-look at a drawing that deals with the issue of what is a good, effective and compassionate subsidy and, well, what isn’t. This https://revolution2-0.org/cant-or-wont/ (Can’t v. Won’t) drawing is a useful guide.

“Can’t” and “won’t” are completely different. Much of how we see and deal with ourselves, family and society depends upon how we define those two terms, those two states of mind, and how we apply those definitions in our lives.

For example, we all want to help people who can’t and don’t want to help those who won’t.

As we go forward together with these podcasts, this can’t or won’t distinction will become more important as we begin to outline a complete political, personal and financial philosophy. A way of looking at, living in and contributing to the world around us.

This definition, this distinction, is a good example of the many places in our lives where there is a lot of grey, but we need to make–and act on–firm choices. And just having an honest, non agenda-driven discussion will be hugely beneficial. And advance everyone’s thinking in useful directions.

Today’s...

View Details

Introduction

Yes, hate speech, barring encouragement to physically harm others, is free speech. Otherwise, why have a First Amendment at all?

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire (-Voltaire) French Historian and Philosopher, and ardent defender of freedom of speech, and religion, 1694-1778. That justifiably famous saying should be the gold standard.

Hate speech is speech you hate, or perhaps just disagree with. The solution is not to either shout it down or ban it should you have the power. The best response is to show the speaker up as a fool, to destroy the speaker’s argument. That will gain you converts. Shouting down or banning will gain the speech and the speaker you hate followers.

Does anybody remember the phrase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banned_in_Boston (Banned in Boston)? Once puritanical, in Boston the city officials took it upon themselves to ban anything that they found to be salacious, inappropriate, or offensive. Until well past the middle of the 20th Century, the “Banned in Boston” label was slapped on anything the “officials” did not want seen or heard. And the very people who were selling those “unsavory” books and movies used the tag Banned in Boston to boost sales. And it worked.

The difference is that today’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritans (Puritans), those who also want to squelch speech they disagree with, are not only sending a warning, they are working to disallow certain speech in the first place. Today’s anti-free speech mobs are not content with merely warning about speech they dislike; they want to ban it altogether. No word, no picture they dislike should ever see the light of day. Let’s remember it was the early Puritans who brought us the Salem Witch trials. Outrageous and false accusations led to ruined–and ended–lives in those times. Today’s Puritans, once again trotting out false accusations and outrageous claims, use economic boycotts and mob violence to block invited speakers, intimidate politicians and rout dissenters on social media. Ending, by design, with ruined lives and careers whenever today’s Puritans can pull that off.

Let’s take a look at what is in the First Amendment:

“Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

As I count, there are five parts to this amendment. 1. Against establishing a state religion. 2. Freedom of speech. 3. Freedom of the press. 4. Right to peaceably assemble and 5. Right to petition government to redress grievances. We seem to take 1, 3, 4 and 5 quite seriously. Even to the point where a case where a cross on public property went to the Supreme Court as a potential violation of the establishment clause, no. 1. And some of the Justices actually thought it was. Crosses. Like in public cemeteries. Freedom of the press is much in the news, and is vigorously defended. And looking at the many and large protests, we see that 4 and 5 are broadly interpreted and defended as well.

So, what’s up with the attack on freedom of speech? A. This attack is part of the dangerous “https://revolution2-0.org/do-the-ends-justify-the-means-ep-69/ (The ends justify the means)” thinking. In this case, this would mean, “It is wrong to deny free speech to others, the same free speech that I value and defend for myself, but the wrong is justified if I can eliminate hateful utterances in others.” That eliminates rational, independent thinking about right and wrong, and makes whoever has the might automatically right. Many of the same people who defend the argument that all cultures are equal, including ones that promote practices like...

View Details

Introduction

The term “loyal opposition” was born in the parliamentary government system, meaning that those out of power, while still having many disagreements with the party in power, were still loyal to their country and the need for the government to get things done for the citizens they–all sides–serve. In any governmental system, including ours here in the US, opposition, if it is loyal, can be a huge plus. If the opposition is disloyal, it can be an equally huge minus.

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Both Republican President Lincoln and Democratic President Roosevelt were justifiably well known for using a “Team of Rivals” as their Cabinets and senior advisors. Churchill did the same when he became Britain’s Prime Minister in 1940. He appointed the most two senior members of the opposition Labour Party to his 5-man war ministry. One of the two was Neville Chamberlain, then Prime Minister when disgraced himself by capitulating to Hitler with his infamous, “We shall have peace in our time” claim after giving Czechoslovakia to ‘ol Adolph in exchange for a piece of paper promising peace. Hitler attacked, starting WWII a few months later. These American Presidents and the British Prime Minister knew they could rely on their opposition to be loyal to their countries and meet their countries’ needs–despite their political differences.

Lincoln, Roosevelt and Churchill chose the team of rivals approach because it best served their nations. It had to be much harder to have dissenting voices in their inner circles, but all ideas were heard–to everyone’s advantage. And the citizens in the countries had to be comforted by seeing that their leaders were working together for their benefit. As World War II approached, Democrat Roosevelt appointed new individuals to key positions. Frank Knox, the 1936 Republican vice presidential nominee, became Secretary of the Navy while former Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson, another Republican, became Secretary of War–key positions, especially in wartime. Both men performed admirably under Roosevelt, and as part of a Democrat/Republican Team of Rivals.

President Lincoln’s cabinet included all of his major rivals for the Republican nomination for President in 1860—William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, Simon Cameron and Edward Bates. Some of these men had been effectively promised positions as part of the negotiations that led to Mr. Lincoln’s nomination at the Republican national convention in May 1860. Many of them objected to the inclusion of each other in the cabinet. There were worries about both geographic distribution and balance between former members of the Whig and Democratic Parties. But it worked, and worked well.

Politicians today are too busy accusing each other, including competing members of their own party, of everything from being idiots to being traitors, that they are unable to take advantage of individual strengths, regardless of party, as part of successful teams that deliver for America. In the US, most politicians seem to have taken an oath to be the disloyal opposition. Quite the opposite of a team of rivals, the current approach is to make anyone who disagrees with them the enemy. The actual enemy. “Resist.” Either by openly resisting any and all action by the other party, or by supporting those who walk around openly and angrily resisting.

Politicians know the advantages of a team of rivals approach, but those advantages accrue mainly to the country and its citizens–not to them and their party. So that’s out. We voters are also guilty. We have allowed ourselves to be so deeply influenced by the us-vs-them approach to life in general and politics in particular, that we keep voting for “My team is the only team” politicians. On both sides. And the media actively support this dysfunctional way of doing business.

When we talk about teams of rivals, when we talk about...

View Details

Introduction

Career politicians serve themselves. Citizen politicians serve the citizens. The country’s successful founding depended on, and anticipated the continuation of, citizen politicians to serve the country. Today we have career politicians who serve themselves.

We must return to the days of citizen politicians by voting in term limits. Career politicians will fight us tooth and nail. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Passed by Congress in 1947, and ratified by the states on February 27, 1951, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution (Twenty-Second Amendment) limits an elected president to two terms in office, a total of eight years. (There is an exception, but it is minor and does not matter much.) We have term limits with the presidency, the highest level of our government. Many state and local governments have term limits for some offices as well. It is past time for the US to have term limits for Congress.

Geroge Washington term limited himself–twice. His republican (note the small “r”) values gave him a distaste for career rule, even for himself. He gave up power at the end of the revolutionary war when he resigned his military commission, and again at the end of his second term as president when he refused pleas to seek a third term. He set a standard for American presidents that lasted until FDR, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who ran for and was elected to four terms. King George III, king of England during Washington’s time, and clearly not term limited, asked his American painter, Benjamin West, what George Washington would do after winning independence. West replied, “They say he will return to his farm.”

“If he does that,” the incredulous monarch replied, “he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Washington had served his country extraordinarily well both militarily and politically; I argue better than anyone before or since. Yet he walked away from those pleading with him to stay in power. And I agree with King George that this final step of walking away from power and adulation made Washington a truly great man. And as hard as power and adoration are to attain, walking away from them at the height of both must be all that much more difficult.

Yet today we have politicians on both sides of the aisle scheming and plotting to raise more and more campaign money and to out promise each other about what they will give to the voters–if only they will vote for them. Today’s politicians are shameless in their drive to attain and keep power. If Washington was the “greatest man” because he walked away from both military and political power, what does that make our current pack of politicians where many will say and do anything to cling to and increase their power?

Career politicians serve themselves; citizen politicians serve the citizens.

Here’s a specific suggestion about Congressional term limits: one term for Senators (6 years) and three terms for Representatives (three, two-year terms). If the limits are slightly higher, no matter. But we must demand limits. And if you are incensed, as am I, about the power that lobbyists gain from contributing cash to multiple campaigns for the same politician, know that term limits will cause lobbyists to lose a lot of their power. Lobbyists who wine and dine candidates, along with contributing to many of their campaigns over the decades, build up real power and influence with that office holder. Politicians need money–and lots of it–to stay in power. Lobbyists have the money to help them do exactly that. It does not take a lot of thought to know with certainty that politicians will use at least some of their long-held power to make the helpfully generous lobbyists happy. If the best a lobbyist can do is to contribute to six years in power for someone in Congress, as opposed to, say, 30 or 40 years, their power is greatly reduced. The decades-long...

View Details

Introduction

Laying out and following a sure path to a successful life is simple, hard, and oh-so-well well worth it. Politicians and government are preaching, promising and rewarding the opposite. For their benefit, and to our detriment.

This deliberate and self-serving reversal of how things need to be is the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

The rules for succeeding in life are simple. If you merely do the basics; finish high school, hold a full-time job and don’t have kids until you are married, you will escape poverty and be self-supporting. Add further education focused on a vocation, anything from welding to brain surgery, and greater success will be yours. Work hard over time, start early investing 10% of your earnings in your future and don’t finance anything that depreciates and it gets even better. The rules are indeed simple.

But these simple rules are hard to follow. Hard work by definition is hard. Investing rather than spending can also be challenging. Getting a real education, digging into your studies when others are larking around, can be difficult. Delaying gratification instead of buying things you want–really want–can be hard, very hard.

But doing all of it, pursuing all parts of a successful life, is more than well worth it.

However. However, politicians, government, gets all of it backwards. Government’s rules are highly complex, not simple. Their rules, 80K pages of tax law and the tens of thousands of overly complex rules and regulations that govern all of us, are just a part of the damaging complexity. And instead of hard, many politicians are trying to outdo each other in the effort to trade making life unhelpfully easy in exchange for votes. If they are as successful as they’d like to be, life will be less and less worth it because less and less of what we have will have been truly earned. And the joy, the deep satisfaction part of the reward for that which has been truly earned, will muted by the growing governmental oversight that comes with the unnecessary complexity. As well as the discouragement that would come from seeing more and more people being handed–partly with the money you earned–what you have worked for years to realize.

The rules for a successful life are clearly simple to understand. Luck does play a hand; my favorite definition of luck is, “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” This quote, attributed to Roman philosopher Seneca, reminds us that we make our own luck. Thomas Edison put a simple to define, but hard, task in front of himself: invent the light bulb. He failed over a thousand times before he finally came up with an electric bulb that worked. Was he lucky that he finally found the right way to make one? Was he unlucky that it took a thousand attempt. Or does his amount of luck or lack thereof mean nothing because he was going to keep at it until he succeeded?

My favorite emerging singer in the late ‘50s was Harry Bellafonte. As a high school student, I was intrigued by the origins of American folk music, including English sea chanties, negro spirituals and prison songs, cowboy tunes, early American songs and folk music from other countries. Bellafonte’s clear, lilting voice, giving life to folk music from well south of our borders charmed and excited me. Only the most popular of his songs are around today, but my favorites, ones no longer being played, were more deeply rooted in the cultures he sang about. And far more soulful. By 1959 or so he was being identified as an “overnight sensation.” I thought that was a compliment–becoming so famous so fast. The lesson came when I heard him say, “It took me 20 years to become an overnight sensation.” The simple to define task of becoming a singer took 20 years of hard work. And then more work after his discovery. And that’s the way it needs to be. And benefits everyone.

The rules for success are simple and easy to comprehend; it...

View Details

Introduction

Quoting my 18-year-old son, Joshua, after his third day of digging ditches, burying conduit and wires for a https://www.centurylink.com/home/?pid=P_C:T1:US_NATIONAL:42943488AP:CLRkeyword=keyword%257D&matchtype=e&utm_source=google&kbid=00000&campaign=G_Q_Brand_Footprint_T1&gclsrc=aw.ds&&gclsrc=aw.ds&userguid=f021beaf-dd31-4160-9a7c-edef3fcbb707&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7pivt-7k4gIVlcpkCh3IDgZgEAAYASAAEgIZ5PD_BwE (CenturyLink) contractor this summer prior to attending college in the fall. He was recapping part of his day with me saying, “Dad, I spent $11 at McDonald’s for food. I had to break a $20. I hated it. It was always okay when you or Mom got me food there. Tomorrow, I am taking a lunch. Money you earn is harder to spend than money you get free, you know?”

Yes, son, I know. But not everyone does. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Joshua was passing along a few important lessons–lessons that our politicians and many others need to learn:

Attaching work to the money you have adds both value to the cash earned, and dignity to the person who earned it.

Attaching the payer, in this case an 18-year-old, to the product or service being purchased, causes the consumer of the product or service to carefully consider the value received for the money spent.

Add points 1 and 2 together, and you have a person who knows the value of money, and spends it only when receiving real value.

Back to point 1. Attaching work to the money you have. Unearned money does not confer https://revolution2-0.org/source-of-human-dignity-money-praise-ep-127/ (dignity). There is an increasing amount of conversation–and action–around the subject of providing everything from free housing, free higher education and healthcare to a universal income (free money) so that the recipients can “live in dignity.” Is having money a source of dignity? Henry VIII had vast wealth, and was by no measure dignified. Louis XIV, the wealthiest man on earth at the time, was an arrogant, out-of-touch, absolute dictator. Gandhi was, quite literally, dirt poor, yet projected a quiet and powerful dignity. As did Mother Teresa. And who would make the argument that Mark Cuban is more dignified than https://newsok.com/article/1973624/70-hour-a-week-janitor-finds-his-real-work-begins-in-church (Luther Harris)?

Now to point 2, having the consumer of the product or service have some skin in the game when it comes to paying. How many people do you know who would make as careful a decision spending someone else’s money as they might when spending their own? When people go to the grocery store, most are paying with their own money, and shop carefully. For example, when I buy meat, most of the time it is hamburger; if beef was free, I’d go home with nothing but filets and porterhouses. Others would add in t-bones and ribeyes. Very few would choose chuck roasts and burger if all meat was free. But when you butcher a cow, you get many lesser cuts of meat than filets, t-bones, ribeyes and porterhouses. With the consumer not self-regulating, not rationing their expenditures, the grocery store will have to do the rationing for them. Perhaps a WWII-type ration book; you get only so many t-bones for every lb of hamburger. And you would likely get only so much meat in the first place. Or the store could grind up the whole cow and make all of it into burger so that everyone gets the same thing.

If that sounds like something that will never happen, let’s look at free healthcare. Not that long ago, no one thought that free healthcare would ever be in the national conversation, but here we are. And like the free meat example, if consumers, the users of the service, do not self-regulate because they have some connection to what medical services cost, some sort of skin in the game, the government will have to ration healthcare for them. Either consumers self-regulate in a market-based...

View Details

Introduction

In politics and life, we are all-too-often taught that we live in a world with a fixed amount of resources, a pie for example, and that if we want some it must come from someone else’s portion, leaving them with less. Even worse, we are told that if someone else, Jeff Bezos at Amazon or Sam Walton’s heirs at Walmart want more, that it must come from us, leaving us with less.

That deliberately false and dangerous thinking is the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

There are parts of life where the resources, the prizes, are a fixed size. If you want yours, then someone else gets shorted. But those are the exceptions, not the way life is designed to be lived. Sports is an example of an exception. If you win, get the pie if you will, the other person or team must lose. That’s called a Zero Sum Game. Overall, this means that if you are going to win, someone else must lose. Like in sports or gambling. If you or your team is going to win, for example, a basketball game, the other person or team must lose. You go +1, they go -1; the sum of the two is zero. Same with gambling: if you are going to win $100, someone else needs to lose $100. Again, a zero sum game.

Unlike sports or poker, life is not a Zero Sum Game. If we have a good job and get a raise, the amount of the raise does not come from our spouse. It adds to the wealth in our family. The pie just got bigger. And that’s the secret. Depending upon how we run our personal lives, and how we handle our politics, all of the pies, personal, governmental and global, can either get a whole lot bigger–or kinda stay the same size, eventually, perhaps, even shrink. Even without being eaten.

With https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism (capitalism), the pie has a strong tendency to get bigger; there’s more for everyone. The question that always comes up is whether the expanding pie is distributed fairly. Okay, Will, what does “fairly” mean? Does it mean that everyone gets the same rewards? Does it mean that you get only what you earn? Or does there need to be a governmental policy that mandates a certain level of redistribution of capitalist profits? That’s what we have now, and that’s called taxes. And we redistribute those in a variety of ways. All societies that tax also redistribute wealth and income. Some do it more than others. The only question is how much and to whom.

Capitalism is the best wealth producing engine the world has ever seen. And we must have a https://revolution2-0.org/we-all-need-a-moral-compass-ep-137/ (moral compass) to steer it. All economic systems are amoral at best, and need a human-driven moral compass. How capitalist-driven income and wealth are redistributed is clearly important, but not the subject of today’s blog/podcast. By the way, the Scandanavian countries are capitalist economies, with heavy taxes, including on the middle classes, and heavy redistribution. Those countries are not socialist.

Today’s Key Point: Politicians and other sources are telling us two self-serving, dangerous lies: 1. If Sam Walton’s company, Walmart, which he started on a shoestring, makes money, they got it from you. 2. If you want to improve your life, money must come to you from the “1%” via taxes for you to have a fair shot. These lies are yet another way to pit us against each other to their advantage. This kind of class warfare, along with identity politics and intersectionality (teaming up certain identity groups against others) are designed to force us to choose sides. And the ones pushing these dangerous lies are betting that more people will buy into their falsehoods and vote for them than not.

Let’s take lie 1 first. On the rare times that I shop at Walmart, I get a fair deal. And as the saying goes, “A fair exchange is no robbery.” The same thing is true when I use electronics to buy from Amazon. I get a fair deal, so I buy. Walmart and Amazon both win when I buy, as do I.

Onto no lie 2. I don’t need to go...

View Details

Introduction

Some people call it your True North. No matter; the questions are

Do you have one?

If you have one, what is it?

Why is that your True North/Moral Compass?

Do you follow it?

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Having a moral compass is a recurring theme for those of us at Revolution 2.0™. I refer to its importance frequently in my semi-weekly blog/podcast, so it is entirely appropriate for us to return to the subject from time-to time. The last time was over a year ago.

Teachers, whether more well-known masters like Confucius and Buddha, or somewhat lesser lights like Rumi and Lao Tsu, qualify as external and, if taken seriously, powerful. As do more modern leaders like Rick Warren or Tony Robbins. Philosophers such as Aristotle can also be a solid foundation for a true north. Look no further than his https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics (Nicomachean Ethics) for support for this claim.

Are there some examples of wrong places to seek help to form and maintain your true north? Well, Snapple bottle caps are one example (no laughing here–I have seen worse). And Satan worship would be out. Better the Snapple cap.

Even harder than developing a true north is staying true to it. You will be besieged by teachings and cliches like, “You have to get along to go along.” and “If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t trying.” Perhaps the most diabolically tempting is, “Just this once. You will have plenty of time to correct things later.” The “just this once” part is bad enough; there really are slippery slopes out there. And “later” is always now. Always.

How do I make

View Details

Introduction

Don’t blame the other party, whether we are using the word party to mean political party, or simply another entity, like another person. The responsibility is always with us, never “them.”

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Let’s begin today’s discussion with a couple of don’ts:

Don’t blame the other political party. If you want to make progress, and don’t we all, make your party into what the country needs. Criticizing the other party will result only in them criticizing you and your party. This shouting contest will get louder and louder, and nothing will improve save the volume and intensity of the mutual accusations.

Don’t blame the other person, whoever they may be. Be 100% responsible for what goes on between you two. Or for what happens in a group that you are in. When the others do the same thing, and they should, good stuff will happen.

What we see and hear all of the time, on the radio, TV, social media and just about everywhere, is a constant flow, a flood to the point of being a tirade, of criticism of the “other party.” With Democrats and Republicans, the other party is obvious. With most of the media, the other party is the Republicans. Most radio talk shows see Democrats as the other party. As does Fox News.

And when everyone is heavily criticizing both the policies and the people in the Republican and Democratic parties, then maybe we should believe them–about both parties. Imagine for a moment a divorced couple where you knew both of them. Now picture every conversation you have with them, post their decision to divorce, in person or electronically, being thick with criticism of the other’s thinking, behavior, personality and character. “My ex is a complete scumbag. Let me tell you what he said about me yesterday.” “She is dragging my name through the mud with all of our friends. And you would not believe what she has her lawyer is doing!” They are not only laying into someone you might like, but you are being forced to choose sides. You are put in a position where you either have to take a side, pick one friend and abandon the other, or walk away and wash your hands of both of them. That’s exactly what is happening politically, when personal attacks and scathing criticisms from both political parties are flooding our senses and numbing our brains.

We wish our battling friends would find useful and productive ways to go forward together, despite being in different homes. Especially–especially–if they have mutual and continuing responsibilities like children. And how we would all benefit if the political parties would grow up and find useful and productive ways to go forward together, despite being in different parties, while meeting their mutual and continuing responsibility to our nation.

But we can’t expect anything of our politicians that is not true of us as citizens and voters. Remember, if we want better candidates and office holders, we need to be better citizens and voters. We can all start, individually and collectively, by refusing to participate in the mutually destructive war of words, and concentrate on making ourselves and our chosen political allies into what we believe the country needs. In other words, don’t tear down the other guy’s house; make ours into what we want. Despite what we may feel emotionally from time-to-time, tearing down someone else’s house does not make ours any better. There may be an angry, momentary pleasure that comes from having the better home, but overall the neighborhood is worse off with your home unimproved, and the other torn apart. As our country is worse off when we tear each other apart. We all lose; the country we love loses.

Build. The answer is build and improve. We can’t change or make anyone else better; we can do that only with ourselves. We can’t improve the other guy’s house, but we can improve ours. We can’t make the other party party better by attacking them, but

View Details

Introduction

Character is 75% of life and leadership. Competence is the other 75%. And no, assessments of life and leadership do not have to add up to 100%. In fact, they rarely should.

Note that I did not ask, “Does character count?”

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

When I was in grade school, we were given citizenship grades as well as academic grades. Citizenship, how you handled yourself in school and dealt with others, was how our teachers communicated their view of our character to our parents, as well as letting them know how we were doing academically

The first time I heard the question about character mattering was when then President Bill Clinton got caught lying to his family, his administration, Congress and the nation about one of his affairs. The answer to the question “Does character count?” when applied to Bill Clinton was answered pretty much long party lines. That was not a huge surprise, but I did give some thought to the question of whether all Democrats thought infidelity and lying were okay, and if all Republicans disagreed. (I will get back to that in a bit.) I was listening to a talk show on that subject when the debate was first raging and a caller likened being the president to being a plumber. His point was that when he hires a plumber, he does care in the slightest about the plumber’s personal life. He just wants a good job at a fair price. In other words, character counts for nothing, only competence counts.

Let’s ask the character question in a way that one of my grade school teachers might have posed it. “Does citizenship count?” If the question back in Clinton’s time was “Does citizenship matter?” my guess is that most people, regardless of political persuasion, would have answered in the affirmative. As they would today. In grade school, citizenship was a good stand-in for character. The teachers did not see us outside of the classroom, so that is what they could judge. And using the word citizenship instead of character made it clear that our behavior affected others, our classmates and teachers, the other citizens of our school. I do not see the two words as interchangeable, but it is clear that citizenship is an important part of character. Anything from running red lights when the law is not present to breaking your oath of office as a public servant are citizenship violations that are also character flaws.

When the “Does character count?” question is applied to President Trump, many of the same people who said “No” when it was asked about Clinton now answer “Yes” and vice versa. Trump has his own series of very Clinton-like affairs, with attendant lies about those dalliances with females as marginal as the ones who were in Clinton’s life. And you can throw in the many non-sexual scandals that Clinton, Obama and Trump have been credibly accused of. Yes, only the one party accuses the president of the other party of having been involved in scandals. Both parties are right about all three presidents, but almost to a person, members of each party defend their president, and accuse the other. “Obama was scandal free for 8 years.” “Trump isn’t perfect, but he is way better than those Democrats.” Have societal mores changed, or are we allowing our moral positions to be dictated by our politics?

Morals, as guided by a https://revolution2-0.org/moral-compass/ (moral compass), should drive our lives, including our politics. We are running the equation backwards when we allow our politics to shape our moral stances. And we cannot realistically expect to have our elected officials to have higher and better morals than we do as voters. Remember, if we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters.

We are now, correctly, holding sport stars accountable for their actions away from the playing fields, and punish actors, business people and others for current and past transgressions, particularly those of a sexual nature.

View Details

Introduction

Many of us have heard of the need to make a “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_of_faith (Leap of Faith)” in order to go from the evidence that we can take in with our senses and process with our brains in order to get to a belief in God in general or the specific faith–or lack thereof–that we hold. There is no clear and convincing proof of the existence of God, or of the validity, superiority if you will, of any particular religion. And atheists can’t prove their positions, either. No one on earth knows for sure; the assumption is that everyone who is no longer here–dead, that is–does know. Having faith requires a leap, a crossing of the irreducible gap, from where reason leaves off and belief begins. We use facts and reason to narrow the space that must be crossed by faith to the smallest possible gap.

In purely earthly matters, it does not take a leap of anything to understand the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem (Pythagorean Theorem) that in a right triangle A2 + B2 = C2. Or to believe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle%27s_law (Boyle’s Law) of gasses. We can prove these things beyond any possible doubt.

Unlike with science, in our day-to-day earthly lives, more than ever taken up by politics, we all too often take a stand, grabbing onto what we believe, then fudging the facts until they agree with our beliefs. Here, instead of starting with the best facts and clearest reasoning, taking the narrowest possible leap to get to belief, we are starting with slogans and cliches, plus a few selected facts and opinions drawn from entirely sympathetic sources, requiring a huge Leap of Agenda to get from there, where minimal reasoning left off, to our political beliefs. And that’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

As an undergraduate philosophy student, I was drawn to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard (Soren Kirkegarrd)’s struggle to close the gap that needed to be crossed by faith in order to fully embrace his Christian belief. He did not simply state that he was a Christian, then go from there, picking up whatever supportive evidence and reasoning there was along the way.

How many of us who have strongly held convictions on controversial and important topics have aggressively ferreted out the pertinent facts, then applied sound, non agenda-based logic to those facts? Let’s start with some of the big issues:

https://revolution2-0.org/climate-change-whos-right-ep-119/ (Climate Change). “The world will end in 12 years if we don’t aggressively address climate change.” Of the people who believe that, and want to completely upend the world as we know it in order to save it, how many actually have the facts (courts call real facts evidence) that would support such an Armageddon-like prediction? During the Vietnam War, an unnamed United States major, referring to the bombing of Ben Tre, South Vietnam, when asked by reporters why the village he bombed had to be virtually destroyed, replied, “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it.” Are we headed to a repeat of that kind of lunacy on a dramatically larger scale with climate change?

https://revolution2-0.org/climate-change-whos-right-ep-119/ (Abortion). “My body.” “My choice.” Well is it your body? Science is giving us more and more evidence that it is a separate human. And given that if it is human abortions would be murder, real clarity is demanded here. With the “my choice” part, no one is free to do what they want just because they are using their bodies to do it. Like pushing on the accelerator with your foot to hit 60 mph in a school zone. Of punching me in the face after listening to this podcast…:).

https://revolution2-0.org/build-the-wall-yes-no-ep-91/ (No Border Wall). If you want open borders, step up and say it. And give some real thought to what it would mean for the US to have the same type of borders with the US and the other 194 countries on the

View Details

Introduction

Most regions in the world have their favorite source for starches, that complex carbohydrate that supplies nutrition and needed calories. Leading favorites include potatoes, rice and yams; there are many more, but we’ll use these examples. They can be served up in a variety of ways. Potatoes can be fried, baked, and mashed, with each variation having many offshoots. Rice can be steamed or fried, and can show up on your plate as anything from risotto to sushi. Which starch is the predominant one for most people is pretty much due to geography rather than having been a studied choice.

The same is true for religion. Most regions in the world have their favorite religion. Leading favorites are Christianity, Islam and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism (Hinduism). There are more, but we will use these examples in today’s podcast. As with starches, each religion is served up in a variety of ways. And the predominant religion for most people is pretty much due to geography rather than having been a studied choice.

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

I am a potato guy. More importantly, I am a Christ-following Christian. I was born into both. I worked to reinforce the early exposure and training that set me on those paths, but I did not start with a complete review of all the available starches and the major religions of the world in order to make a studied choice. Nor will I now. I will work a little to make better potatoes at home, and try to find the best restaurant fries and hash browns. I will work much harder to be more Christlike. I will never get there, but the game is in the working at it.

It is not important to find the perfect starch. It is important to find healthy sources and take in, use if you will, the right amounts at the right times. It is also important to share the starches you have with those who have needs and wants. And share them in a way that shows that you care for those with whom you are sharing. Yes, love can be expressed in the proper preparation, presentation and sharing of lowly starches.

It is not important to find the perfect religion. It is important to learn about your religion and practice it, use it if you will, at all the right times. Which will be a whole lot more often than you do with starches. Like as close to 24/7 as we can get. It is also important to share the religion you have with those who have needs and wants. And share your heart, including your religion, in a way that shows that you care for those with whom you are sharing. Yes, love can be expressed in the proper expression and sharing of your heart and your faith.

It is good for you to familiarize yourself with a variety of starches. If the only starch you will eat are potatoes, you will be stuck with the chicken teriyaki at a sushi restaurant. And no hummus or sandwiches for you.

It is good for the soul to familiarize yourself with other religions. Let’s take a few quick peeks via quotes. “When you walk, walk; when you eat, eat.” -Buddha. What I get out of that is to stay calm, and focus. Multitasking is overrated. “Every act of kindness is charity.” and “Give to those who have never given anything to you.” -Mohammad. “Man is made by his beliefs. As he believes, so is he.” –Bhagavad Gita (Hindu Bible).

Pause for two important questions: 1. Did you do a thorough job of researching all of the world’s starches before you settled on a favorite? 2. Did you do a thorough job of researching all of the world’s religions, doing an in-depth comparative study, before you settled on where to put your faith and trust? Just about everyone answers these two questions in the negative. And that’s just fine–as long as you don’t get carried away, even a bit superior, about your decision to adopt the faith you were born into. More specifically, don’t tell people that they are going to Hell if they don’t accept Christ as their Saviour, and don’t treat people as Infidels,...

View Details

Introduction

The real and inherent danger of privilege is in giving others power over you, declaring that power, that privilege, to be unfair, then demanding compensation in the form of cash, preferential job or schooling treatment, or just the right to be self-righteously angry.

Privilege is another word for advantage. Advantages are everywhere in our society; sports, education, business, military, etc., etc., etc. That’s a poor excuse for giving up and demanding that the advantages be eliminated before trying your best. The book, then movie, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moneyball (Moneyball), by Michael Lewis, published in 2003, was about the relatively impoverished Oakland Athletics baseball team and its general manager Billy Beane. Its focus is the team’s analytical, evidence-based, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabermetrics (sabermetric) approach to assembling a competitive baseball team despite Oakland’s small budget. Other big-market teams, e.g., the Yankees and Red Sox, had 5-7 times as much money to spend on players as did the Athletics. That’s a real advantage; privilege, if you will. But Oakland did not whine and ask for relief; they found a way to win. And the baseball world sat up and took notice. And we are taking notice as well.

The danger of privilege, of having advantages, does not come from some people having it and others not; it comes from how we react when others have more than we do in areas that are important to us. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

“Check your privilege!” When I first heard that admonition, I had no idea what it meant. I knew the speaker thought that privilege was bad, and that the other person was supposed to reflect on his supposed privilege, and make some changes. After a bit of research, I found that when someone tells you to “check your privilege,” what they’re really asking you to do is to reflect on the ways that your status might have given you an advantage–even if you didn’t ask for it or earn it–while their status might have given them a disadvantage. For example, a tall white guy might get hit with “Check your privilege” if he cuts in front of a small woman of color in a movie line. That has nothing to do with privilege; the guy was being a jerk. Asking him to check his privilege will do nothing but get a laugh and the middle finger from him. Two guys his size telling him that what he did was “not cool” might actually teach him a useful and lasting lesson.

Let’s all take a trip to the homecoming football game at either our former high school or college alma mater. We are excited to be there. The weather is great and the $2 hot dogs are actually hot and quite tasty. The other team is our archrival, and the hometeam stands are buzzing. Then we remember that we have not won a game against them in the last 12 years. Or is it 14? They have more funding, winning coaches and recruit better players. We don’t stand a chance. How are we going to handle ourselves? Choice time. Before we make that choice, let’s hear another voice, “The best competition I have is against myself to become better.” –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wooden (John Wooden). Now for our choice. Do we grumble and complain about how unfair it is? Do we yell out the football equivalent of “Check your privilege”? Maybe something like, “Overpaid, overpaid,” or “Unfair game, unfair game?” Or do we settle in for 2 1/2 hours of supporting the young men who have trained hard to get ready for their formidable opponent, and need and deserve our encouragement for the entire game? They are walking onto the field, knowing they are in for a tough 150 minutes. They will be able to hold their heads up if they do their best–despite the physical beating and the score. We will be able to hold our heads up with them if we give them our all in support. And we will all be the better for it.

Remember Coach Wooden’s words, “The best...

View Details

Introduction

Tariffs are a tax on consumers and businesses, and damage economies. When it costs more to import something, like appliances or smart phones, prices naturally rise. And the price of similar domestically produced items also rises. To date, the relatively modest 10% tariffs added months ago cost the average family almost $800 per year. What will happen if they go to the announced 25%?

Tariffs are also a tax on businesses. When it costs more to export goods, fewer will be sold. For example, if a country, either retaliating or simply initiating a tariff, puts a tax (that’s what a tariff is) on American farm goods, the American farmers will be hurt. As they are being hurt now. And the government is subsidizing them to ease tariff pain. That hurts the taxpayers. Apple stock was down 6% on May 13th–a one day drop–due the announced increase in tariffs. (Apple smartphones are made in China.) Now we are hurting shareholders, including public and private pension plans and 401(k) individual retirement plans.

Tariff and trade wars have no winner. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast

Continuing

“How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually and then suddenly.” This dialogue is from Ernest Hemingway’s 1926 novel, The Sun Also Rises. That’s exactly how things like this go; it looks okay for a long while, then all the wheels fall off at the same time, seemingly with no warning.

Pause for a moment of truth: We live in a global economy. As we live in a national economy. Different states in the United States have different economic strengths and weakness. Nobody is pushing for all regions in the US to be able to supply everything; we are interdependent. For example, no one is trying to fund a social media startup in Iowa to dethrone FaceBook. And no one is trying to produce pork bellies (bacon) in Silicon Valley. In exactly the same way, different regions, different countries on the planet, are far better at economically producing different and excellent goods and services. Smartphones are made in China. Wheat comes from “America’s breadbasket of the world.” Again, we are interdependent.

We can easily break that interdependence, but inevitably we will pay a lot more for a whole lot of the things we buy, often getting lower quality goods and services for the higher prices we will need to pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism (Mercantilism), a trade policy that pursues/demands a balance of imports and exports–or better a favorable ratio–is a justifiably discredited way of handling global trade.

So, Will, what happens when we buy $500 Billion a year more from, say China, then they buy from us? The first thing we need to observe is that we obviously have more money and better lifestyles than those in China. We buy 4 times as much from them as they do from us. We have the money and want the stuff. China needs the money, and sells us the stuff. If someone else came along with a better deal, we’d take it. Buying stuff made in China is a good deal for us, or we would not do it. Selling us stuff is a good deal for China, or they would not do it either. Long-term trade imbalances are “balanced out” with borrowing or foreign investment. If we don’t want to do that, we will need to pay a lot more for far less quality.

To date, the average family is paying about $800/year more for more things than before the new tariffs of a few months ago. Imagine what you would have to pay for a smartphone if they were suddenly included in the tariffs, and the tariffs went to the announced 25%? And aren’t smartphones already overpriced?

Now to retaliatory tariffs. When we add or raise tariffs on imports, the other country imposes tariffs on things they buy from us. Retaliatory tariffs. Farmers and ranchers are already hurting due to depressed prices, environmental disasters and chronic oversupply. Retaliatory tariffs are adding to that hurt, because that makes what

View Details

Introduction

“Beat L-A!” “I love Tom Brady!” “My two favorite teams are the Broncos and whoever is playing the Raiders.” That is acceptable–even healthy–partisanship.

I am a Broncos fan because of an accident of history. My step-father bought 2 tickets in 1960, the first year they existed, and I have been a fan ever since. A good friend of mine in the San Francisco Bay area is a Raiders fan because his father was a 49ers fan. An opposite motivation, but still a very acceptable one.

Most of us who are loyal to favorite teams came by that loyalty in some unstudied way. There was no deep thought involved. No evidence gathering. No long-term study of character and methods of play. We just grabbed onto something and jumped in. And stayed jumped in. We shout at the other team at the games, yell at the TV, tease our friends who root for the “enemy”, and generally carry on. All good stuff.

Increasingly our choice of political parties is just as casual. And our loyalties and actions, based on that casual, unchallenged choice, are just as deep, unquestioned and unchanging.

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

What typically influences our choices when it comes to teams and parties? Accidents, mostly. Our family of origin. Where we grow up. Where we wind up working. Where we choose to live. Geography is a big one. Take a look at the map of the electoral results of the 2016 Election.

Is it an accident that states like California and New York are predominantly progressive, and states like Texas and Oklahoma are not? Take a careful look at this electoral map; with four exceptions, virtually all of the states in the contiguous 48 that voted one way or the other are in connected blocks. Colorado and New Mexico share a border, and the remaining two, Minnesota and Illinois, are very nearly connected. Q. Did everyone of a like mind move to the same places, or is something else going on? A. Something else. In the absence of differing opinions from a variety of sources, people will rely on the opinions of family and friends, co-workers and their favorite news sources and social media. Outside of family, all the sources will be selected more to have one’s preconceived notions and thinking supported rather than challenged. It seems so much easier that way. Lazy might be a better word. Not surprisingly, all the selected sources will pretty much share the same opinions. Similar opinions from apparently different sources reinforce each other and can easily be seen as a valid consensus. And with some notable exceptions families, neighbors and co-workers in the same geography tend to lean one way or the other on significant issues, adding to the sameness. Creating not a new idea generator, but an https://revolution2-0.org/do-you-live-in-an-echo-chamber-ep-112/ (echo chamber). And echo chambers, by definition, can do nothing but reinforce thought–echoes can only repeat what has been already said.

And within parties, why does everyone have to think the same way about every issue–no matter how controversial? Strict party line votes occur all the time in federal, state and local governments. Here’s an obvious example on a huge issue: All Senate Democrats voted for Obamacare; no Senate Republicans did. Is that because not a single Democratic Senator wanted to vote against it? Could it be true that every single Republican thought Obamacare was unacceptable? I posit that it is impossible for every Democrat, voter or legislator, to agree with every other Democrat on every issue. I claim the same thing for Republicans. But that is how our elected representatives vote. On a lot of issues, both sides of the aisle vote in blocks, all while they must have differing views on at least some of the issues being brought up for discussion and voting.

Why is that? Easy answer. The head coach of the political team, perhaps the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority Leader, called the play, and...

View Details

Introduction

Life is simple. And hard. And well worth it.

Let’s start with the good living part. Start with being grateful for everything. Have a moral compass. Always be personally responsible for everything in your life. Be your brother’s keeper for everyone in your life. Love. Nothing else matters without that.

Now let’s build on this by adding the plan for sound politics. Remember that we are all the privileged inheritors of Revolution 1.0 in ‘76. Stop labeling ourselves and others and think. Look for the common goals. Look for the facts that pertain to those goals, and apply non agenda-based reasoning to those facts to achieve those common goals. I will repeat my offer to give $100 in cash for every issue, no matter how controversial, where we cannot come up with an overall common goal. Love. Nothing else matters without that.

All of the above is simple and easy to understand. And very little of it is at all easy to accomplish. And every bit is worth it. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

It all starts with https://revolution2-0.org/gratitude-ep-27/ (gratitude). Gratitude is the bedrock, the touchstone–cornerstone–for any effective philosophy, religious dogma or simply a way to get through life or the day. Without gratitude, there is an inescapable emptiness; not a yearning, but a feeling of being ungrounded. This makes for a fertile ground for resentful thoughts of unfairness or “Why me? Or worse, comparing yourself to others.

Add the https://revolution2-0.org/moral-compass/ (Moral Compass). Some people call it your True North.

No matter; the questions are:

Do you have one?

If you have one, what is it?

Why is that your True North/Moral Compass?

Do you follow it?

If you don’t have a solid Moral Compass that you follow, then again nothing else matters. Nothing. You will simply be a cork on the ocean of life, following the changing paths of the tides, currents and waves. I know; I have been there. And I still have to fight to stay with and strengthen my adherence to my True North.

“I’m not unmindful of man’s seeming need for faith; I’m for anything that gets you through the night, be it prayer, tranquilizers, or a bottle of Jack Daniel’s.” -Frank Sinatra. So, what gets you through the night? And is that the same as a True North? Finding and following your True North will get you through the day and night in far better shape than pills and booze. And will set you up for continuing, healthy success.

What are some examples of an effective Moral Compass? And how do you know? Two things: 1. Your North has to be something outside of you–with externally inspired values, goals and checkpoints. A compass works because no matter which way you look or turn, it always points to an externally fixed location. The danger is that our own internally generated principles may lull us into a false sense of commitment. There must be an outside entity to learn from, and to act as a touchstone–a place to check in to see how we are handling ourselves. This does not mean that you don’t need to internalize the external teachings and examples; all is certainly lost if you don’t. But it is equally certain that it cannot be just you. 2. That outside entity must be powerful enough to keep you on track even when it is hard. If your North’s power and influence in your life is weak, so will be your adherence to it.

Okay, back to simple but hard, easy to understand, but difficult to do. People know what to do even in difficult situations. The reason they don’t is not lack of knowledge, but lack of sufficient motivation to do the hard tasks that likely lie in front of them. A friend, the most long-term successful health and life coach I know, provides a great example. When I approached Don about losing weight, he asked two questions. The first was, “Will, if you are at McDonald’s, which is the better choice, a Big Mac with fries and a Coke, or a salad?” “Well, the salad, of course.” “Okay”,...

View Details

Introduction

“Medicare for All” is an intentional misnomer used to disguise free, single-payer insurance as the popular Medicare plan that so many are currently using for health insurance. Most parts of real Medicare require some form of cost sharing by patients. Medicare Part B, for outpatient medical expenses, has a standard premium of $1,626/per year with an annual deductible of $185, plus a 20% copayment. Dental coverage, vision insurance and useful drug coverage cost even more money.

Medicare for All would have much broader coverage, no cost sharing, and fewer choices of healthcare plans. MFA would cover a wide variety of dental, vision, drug and mental health services not covered by Medicare. The most recent version of the House bill would add long-term nursing and home healthcare. All of this would mean dramatically higher federal spending; the various estimates come in between $2.5T and $3.5T/year. That’s trillions of dollars per year with a current federal budget of $4.4T; meaning that the budget would increase by about 68% right off the bat.

Supporters of MFA are not being at all honest about what they are pushing. Opponents of MFA are being strangely silent because of ignorance, fear or for not having a platform. That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

If you want no cost, single-payer insurance, then stand up and say it. Don’t hide behind giving everyone good ol’ Medicare. Hey, if it is good enough for our seniors, then it’s good enough for everyone. Right?

And if you are against no cost, single-payer insurance, then stand up and be counted. Know what it costs. Know the difference between MFA and currently popular Medicare.

This is exactly like the border security debate, where statements and claims like “Walls don’t work”, “Walls are inhuman” and, “We do not have a border problem.” really means that the speaker wants open borders. The correct assessment is that voters in America would not support a push for open borders, as they would not support single-payer health insurance, so let’s just pretend that we want something less drastic. Let’s creep up on what we really want. In other words, lie.

How many have heard the story about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog (frog in boiling water)? If you drop a frog in boiling water, he will jump out and save himself. If you put a frog in a pot full of room temperature water and gradually heat it to boiling, he will stay in and die. Learning from the experiments on frogs, most leading supporters of both open borders and single-payer health insurance are putting us in tepid water, completely prepared to raise the temperature to where they want it–be that a nation with no borders, or a country with no cost insurance that covers everything for everybody. I am clearly not for either, but that is not today’s central point.

It is clear in today’s example that the frogs represent Americans, us, you and me. Politicians of a certain stripe are putting us into the room temperature water, fully intending to raise the temperature gradually so that we will not notice and jump out.

Now for Today’s Key Point: If you are for something, have the courage of your convictions and stand up and claim what you want. Don’t do the frog thing. Conversely, if you are against something, know what you are talking about, and stand up on your hind legs and call it out. Be heard. Be effective. And don’t be the frog.

Not being the frog who lets the heat creep up on him is part of what Revolution 2.0™ is all about. Not letting yourself be put in the water in the first place is more of what we are about. As is keeping fellow Americans out of the pot. More of what we are about is taking control from those who use these kind of tactics to fulfill their personal and professional agendas.

Segueing from the specifics of today’s topic to overall principles, the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, are:...

View Details

Introduction

Dignity, like self-esteem, cannot be conferred; it must come from within.

There is a lot of talk from some quarters supporting giving people what they want in areas like healthcare, education and housing, as well as in cash, with a growing call for a guaranteed income. The reasons given include these benefits being “human rights” and that conferring these benefits will allow the recipients to live in “dignity.” The truth: like a feeling of accomplishment, dignity cannot be granted, it can only be earned.

That’s the topic of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

There is an increasing amount of conversation–and action–around the subject of providing everything from free housing, free higher education and free healthcare to a universal income (free money) so that the recipients can “live in dignity.” Is having money a source of dignity? Henry VIII had vast wealth, and was by no measure dignified. Louis XIV, the wealthiest man on earth at the time, was an arrogant, out-of-touch, absolute dictator. Gandhi was, quite literally, dirt poor, yet projected a quiet and powerful dignity. As did Mother Teresa. And who would make the argument that Mark Cuban is more dignified than https://newsok.com/article/1973624/70-hour-a-week-janitor-finds-his-real-work-begins-in-church (Luther Harris)?

We can dismiss the notion that having money bestows dignity; it simply does not. That would also mean that giving people money would also not confer any type of dignity.

I hear the argument being made that being poor to the point where one is unable to feed or house themselves would necessarily be undignified. There is a natural temptation to accept that position, but it really is just the flipside of the money equals dignity argument we disproved moments ago. Let’s dig a little deeper. The lesson I learned growing up was, “We may be poor, but we can always afford soap.” The idea was that maybe your parents could afford only one pair of shoes and two school outfits for the coming year, but they would keep the clothes clean for you and you could clean your own shoes. The dignity here was in doing your absolute best with what you had. Pride and dignity came from being clean, even if you were wearing worn clothes that were not new even when your older siblings wore them.

Another part of the ethic of the times was the dignity that came from not accepting welfare, and a sense of needing to “pay back what you took” if welfare was needed as a last resort. Now we are being told that welfare, money from taxpayers, is a human right and confers dignity. It appears that we are trying to move past even the very recent, “you deserve it because you are a victim” position, to “you deserve it because you are alive.”

Money and dignity are connected: The connection is that dignity comes from working hard to earn it. You have heard the expression that, “Money is the root of all evil.” That’s not at all correct. The original quote is, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” This is a key distinction. Let’s make another vital distinction: It is not money that confers dignity, it is doing your absolute best to earn it that does. Money confers the ability to buy things; doing your best confers dignity. John Wooden, three-time collegiate basketball champion as a player, a professional player, and the best college coach of all time, said, “Focus on effort, not winning. Winning is a byproduct of effort.” He consistently emphasized the importance of doing your best over winning. Here’s another, “Success is never final; failure is never fatal. It’s courage that counts.” Coach Wooden is correct in saying that dignity comes from the courage to do your best, whether you are succeeding or failing at that moment.

Telling people that giving them money gives them dignity does two terrible things:

It robs them of learning that working for that cash is the only money-connected path to dignity and

The...

View Details

Introduction

What is more important, how well we live or how we live in comparison to others? If we have a life with decent food and clothing, access to healthcare, comfortable housing including heating and AC, transportation, a cell phone and a TV with multiple channels, does it matter if Warren Buffet is worth $87 Billion?

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

“The only person you should try to be better than is the person you were yesterday.” -Unknown. Lots of people are going to say this person or that person first or most famously said this; the point is we all know this to be one of the major guiding truths in our lives. Or at least it should be. So why then is there an ever-increasing amount of conversation focusing on inequality, perhaps the most dangerous form of comparing ourselves to others?

Let’s ask a few setup questions. Inequality in what?

Results? I trust that no one is seriously saying that everyone’s results should be the same.

Talent? I don’t have, and never had, the talent to be an NBA star. And even the most ardent supporters of government solutions realize that no law can change basic talent levels.

The law? We are all equal under the law. If you don’t agree, name one law that promotes, or even allows, inequality.

Opportunity outside of the law? Yes. Of course. My parents could not afford to send me to college or grad school. Some parents send their kids to private school from K-graduate school. Unequal? Yes. Unfair? Oh, hell no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Herzberg (Frederick Herzberg), was an American psychologist who became one of the most influential names in motivation and management. He separated what he called hygiene functions from motivational factors. His work showed that once certain functions, the hygiene functions, have been satisfied, advancement in those areas does not create significantly more satisfaction and motivation. For example, once certain compensation and work area needs were met, more of the same made little difference. After the hygiene functions had been satisfied, the motivational factors needed to take over. Things like achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement, and the approval of respected superiors are the key. The hygiene functions need to be in place for the motivational factors to come into play. But once the hygiene function needs have been satisfied, the motivational factors are the key to growth and satisfaction.

Governments, at best, can provide the only hygiene functions. Only individuals and other private entities can supply the growth and satisfaction that comes from adding the vital motivational factors.

Where does all this leave us with the initial question of which is more important; quality of life or comparing lives? Given that all results cannot–and should not–be the same, if we are concerned with inequality, aren’t we left trying to come up with an acceptable ratio between, say, the bottom 10% and the top 10%? There are useful examples from the corporate world. Ben & Jerry’s, the famous ice cream company, once had a 5:1 rule where the CEO’s total compensation could not be any higher than five times that of the lowest paid employee. When Ben Cohen was set to retire, and a search for a new CEO began, the ratio was increased to 7:1. Realizing the ineffectiveness of the ratio’s ability to attract, retain and motivate a valid candidate, the company decided on a 17:1 ratio in 2000. Shortly afterwards the pay cap was abandoned. More currently there was an article in the left-leaning Guardian that says that no CEO should earn more than 1,000 times the lowest paid employee. We will use that ratio elsewhere.

Any reasonably smart business is paying its employees at the market rate and is charging for its goods and services at the market rate. Smarter businesses are adding Herzberg’s motivational factors to...

View Details

Introduction

When I was in grade school my classmates and I sang “Old Folks at Home” (also known as “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suwannee_River (Swanee River)“; that’s how I knew it.) Swanee River is a minstrel song written by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Foster (Stephen Foster) in 1851. Since 1935 it has been the official state song of Florida, although in 2008 the original lyrics were revised.

Here is the chorus from this 1851 song:

“All de world am sad and dreary,

Eb-rywhere I roam;

Oh, darkeys, how my heart grows weary,

Far from de old folks at home!”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Foster (Stephen Foster), is known as “The Father of American Music” because of the many lyrical and extremely popular songs he wrote, including “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camptown_Races (Camptown Races)“, “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Old_Kentucky_Home (My Old Kentucky Home)“, “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanie_with_the_Light_Brown_Hair (Jeanie with the Light Brown Hair)“, and “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beautiful_Dreamer (Beautiful Dreamer)“. Foster used the Negro dialect of the day for the lyrics.

Should a song like this be sung today? No. Should we rip songs like this and the people who wrote and performed them from our history books, to be replaced by accusations of hate and racism? How about people like Robert E. Lee and Kate Smith? No. Not at all. Should we know and learn from our history–all of it? Yes. Of course. And that’s the topic of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

Let’s start the discussion by saying that we cannot learn from history if we do not understand it. Insert your favorite quote about learning from history here. That part is clear on its face, yes? And if we distort and twist that history before erasing it, things get even worse.

Here is today’s Key Point. And, yes, we are getting to it early. We need to know, to really get it, that people like Stephen Foster, Robert E. Lee and Kate Smith are not hard-core Nazis, KKK riders or even sad little David Duke. They are ordinary people, like you and me. The lesson we need to learn is how to be sufficiently educated, aware and caring to keep evolving as individuals and as a society. We need to be continually evolving and constantly improving. Tearing down statues and reputations while rewriting history books in an effort to make yesterday look like we think it should have been make that learning and evolving impossible. All of us, including the “tear it down” advocates, need to remember that the learning and evolving needs to continue forever. What we do today will be judged through the lens of history tomorrow. And don’t we want future generations to be learning and improving rather than accusing and tearing down the history we create?

I hold https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee (Robert E. Lee) accountable for most of the death and destruction in the Civil War, a war that killed more Americans than all of our other wars put together. General Lee was asked by Abraham Lincoln to head the Union Army, but Lee refused, and proved the wisdom of Lincoln’s request by brilliantly leading the Confederates to victory after victory over the superior but poorly led Union forces. Lee’s mistake was in seeing his loyalty to his state, Virginia, as more important than his loyalty to the United states. At the end of the war, Lee petitioned to have his citizenship restored. Because of a clerical error, it never happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Smith (Kate Smith), had a radio, television, and recording career spanning five decades, which reached its pinnacle in the 1940s. Smith became known as “The Songbird of the South” after her enduring popularity during World War II. Later, sports teams including the Philadelphia Flyers and New York Yankees featured her. I remember how the Flyers thought that having her sing a ringing rendition of...

View Details

Summary

“My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with the facts.”

Do you know anyone whose mind was changed about the person or party they support as a result of the Mueller report?

After two years years of investigation by top-line professionals with all sorts of investigative resources at their command, don’t you suppose there should have been general agreement about the Mueller report result? Not a chance. The investigation produced a 400 page report–and no changed minds.

Why?

That’s the subject of today’s 10-minute podcast.

Continuing

The answer to the following question is telling: Are you angry or relieved that the President of the United States was not found guilty of colluding with a foreign power to alter the results of a presidential election?

Some people are angry because they were convinced that Trump was guilty well before the report was released. Why? Because they simply wanted him gone? Because certain news sources had been telling them that for about two years?

Others, the people from day one who had decided that Trump was not guilty, are angry because they believe the whole agonizing, national process was a politically-inspired fishing expedition, with no other purpose than to damage the President.

The only relieved–non-angry–people are the ones who withheld judgment until the evidence in the report was released. And who among them would not be relieved to know that their President had not colluded with the Russians to better his election chances.

Here is my summary of the Mueller report. There was no collusion, and Mueller did not find enough evidence to charge obstruction. Mueller and his team investigated 10 incidents of possible obstruction, and found none to be worthy of further action on his part. Trump did urge some of his senior staff to take actions that could very well have been seen as obstructions, but each one refused. And Trump backed down each time. Discredit to Trump for trying. Credit to his staff for standing firm.

The report also revealed something long true about Trump that anyone who had been paying attention should have already known. Donald J. Trump repeatedly does things that are embarrassing and wrong to cover up other things that he has done that are embarrassing and wrong. But not criminal.

Trump and others are claiming full exoneration. That’s the truth and nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. He was exonerated of collusion, but not of the obstruction. When faced with the “no exoneration” on collusion part of the report, the response is that obstruction on a non-crime, the report said there was no collusion, is a thin premise upon which to seek further action.

Democrats and much of the media are still insisting that Bob Mueller has laid out the case for Congress to take action on obstruction. Some are already calling for impeachment. One representative, Rashida Tlaib, D-MI, did not feel constrained to wait for the evidence in the report when she shouted, “We’re gonna impeach the motherfucker!” hours after being sworn into Congress last January 3rd.

To date, the Mueller investigation and the reaction to it has produced more heat than light. The Democrats seem determined to let nothing drop until they have proven what they want to prove. Or at least have provided enough cover to keep their voters and viewers happy. Trump and some of the Republicans appear to be ready to launch an investigation of their own into Hillary Clinton and what they believe to have been the nefarious political origins of the Mueller investigation. If that happens, do you think that anyone’s mind will be changed as a result? Will we once again produce more stress, more division, and no changed minds or hearts?

There are two Key Points today: 1. No matter how much you dislike or even despise an office holder, that is no reason for impeachment. That’s what the electoral process is for. Organize to defeat him in the next election. If criminal...

View Details

Summary

That was the evening ritual as announced each night by “Auntoy”, my stepmother’s mother. Auntoy (her real name was Florence Pauly Carroll–but I don’t think I knew that until years later) was the savior of my youth.

Today’s podcast is about the vital, no-substitute-for it, home life, family life. I have used the term https://revolution2-0.org/?s=dinner+table (dinner table) in the past as an anchor phrase for how wisdom and learning about everything from handling finances to faith to work ethic to understanding history to values to respect for authority to patriotism to how to think (not what to think) is shared and discussed at the family level.

As a way of getting us into this discussion, I am going to take a moment out of our 10 minutes together to tell you a bit more about me. Then we’ll get into why family interracton, the dinner table, is the beginning of everything.

Continuing

My parents split when I was 1. My Dad got custody; I did not see my Mother for several years afterwards. For about 2 ½ years, I was raised by the staff in one or the other of my paternal grandparents’ homes. I met my step-mother, Paula, when I was 3 ½; she, my Dad, Auntoy and I became a family. Dad was distant, Paula was unpleasant, and Auntoy was my rock, my support. I remember times with her at the dinner table–having nothing to do with dinner–that I still treasure. Halfway through my Junior year in high school, I moved to Colorado to live with my Mom and her husband–mainly to see if it was any better there. This is not the “dinner table’ upbringing I am recommending and encouraging. But it is the one I want for your children and grandchildren. Yes, grandparents get to participate, too. Let’s talk more about the dinner table.

In schools, doesn’t it all start with parental involvement? Time after time we hear that the parents of low performing students are the ones who do not show up for the parent -teacher meetings. In homes where the importance of getting a good education is modeled and stressed, that’s the direction the kids go in. Conversely, in homes where being taken care of by others is modeled and stressed, that’s the direction the offspring most often take.

The dinner table works. For example, successful political, acting and sports families, often produce equally–or more–successful children. Archie Manning had a good college and NFL career as a quarterback. You may not have heard of him, but you have likely heard of two of his sons, Peyton Manning and Archie Manning. Kirk Douglas was a movie star, as are his sons and grandsons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelina_Jolie (Anglina Jolie)’s father is Jon Vought, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Barrymore (Drew Barrymore) is a member of the Barrymore family of actors, and the granddaughter of acting immortal John Barrymore. And we all know about political families like the Kennedys and the Bushes.

Closer to home, one of my friends and former business colleagues is a highly skilled personal investor, using skills and disciplines that he learned at, you guessed it, the dinner table. He has built an enviable financial life by putting those dinner table skills to use.

Today’s Key Point: What your children–what other children–learn at home through modeling and discussion will help shape their entire lives. For good or for ill. Your choice. And silence–no conversations–is also teaching and modeling. It goes on when they are listening and absorbing. It happens when they appear distant and distracted. And, yes, your kids are absorbing everything even when they are openly unreceptive and defiant.

Yes, it takes a village, but parents are the main hut in that village. The village is there to support the parents and grandparents in their good work–not to substitute for parenting. Teachers, law enforcement and community services are all part of the village’s support system for the parents. If

View Details

Summary

Barack Obama is ½ black, as is Tiger Woods. Both are seen as simply black. All-white Rachel Dolezal was elected president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP in 2014. Despite her darkening makeup, she was obviously very light-skinned. Yet she was welcomed as a leader in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Ms. Dolezal was 0/0 black. I am 1/14 black.

Seven https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/what-percentage-indian-do-you-have-to-be-in-order-to-be-a-member-of-a-tribe-E2Nk86ICOEiAgDH1dnDGBg/ (Native American Tribes), including the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, North Carolina, see you as qualified for membership if you are a 1/16th blood match. Twenty-three tribes, including the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians and the Seminole Nation, will consider you if you have any sort of Native Americican lineage.

To the Nazis, anyone, regardless of religious affiliation, who had two Jewish grandparents was classified as a Jewish Mischling (mixed blood) of the first degree. A person with only one Jewish grandparent was classified as a Mischling of the second degree

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serena_Williams (Serena Williams), with two black parents, lost an important and controversial tennis match to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Osaka (Naomi Osaka), who has one black parent, and one Asian parent (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods (Tiger Woods)). Many people, post Serena’s loss, blamed racism. Think about that one for a moment.

Today’s podcast/blog spotlights the often artificial designation of who is a disadvantaged minority–not to promote fairness under the law–but to create, justify and advance so-called social justice and other political agendas.

And that’s today’s 10-minute blog/podcast topic.

Continuing

In America’s racial past, someone who was half black would have been called a mulatto. A quadroon was ¼ black, and an octoroon ⅛ black. I would have been a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me (hexadecaroon). Those were pejorative terms, designed to “prove” that even if you were half, partially or even marginally black, you were really all black and therefore inferior in the minds of the bigots. That was their agenda. Isn’t it equally wrong to identify and treat people who are half, partially or marginally members of a certain minority race or ethnicity as full members for their benefit? This is most often done to qualify them for victimhood and the ability to draw financial benefits and claim the moral high ground.

We have gone from claiming that full or partial genetic membership in certain racial and ethnic groups proves inferiority and justifies unfair poor treatment, to using the same characteristics to prove superiority, justifying unfair favorable treatment. Both are equally wrong; both are equally dangerous.

We all see race and https://revolution2-0.org/i-see-color-and-gender-dont-you-ep-116/ (color). Everyone of us. Where we might be different is what we think and do after we see what we all see. Do we see excuses to declare either inferiority or superiority? Do we look for other ways to make unnecessary and unfair judgments? Or are we simply aware of those differences, which may be unremarkable, but still real, on one hand, or quite remarkable and useful on the other?

It is terribly wrong for a person to root against a black NFL quarterback because of race. It is fine and good for a young black man playing Pop Warner football to root for that same QB because of race. Am I being hypocritical here? Of course not. The first person was motivated by racial dislike. The second person was motivated by a highly-relatable example of excellence.

Tiger Woods just won his first Masters golf tournament since 2005. I love it because it showed the world that a man can come back even from a self-imposed hell. Once heralded by many as the player who might have become the...

View Details

Summary

There is surprising controversy about wanting only legal immigrants, and then only those who want to assimilate into our culture. I see both as non-negotiable, but many do not. Some even want the opposite. I want to see tightly secured borders, a generous allowance for both the immigrants we want and those who need to be here for reasons of either economic or political persecution. And, yes, a final, post having well-secured borders amnesty for the millions of illegals already here.

I am an ardent fan of the historically-successful American melting pot. For the same reasons, I am not a fan of an American salad bowl.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about who we think we are, who we think we should be, and what it is that immigrants need to assimilate into.

Continuing

I started the high tech electronics portion of my career in Silicon Valley in the early 80s. An emerging press relations (PR) firm, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regis_McKenna (Regis McKenna), discovered, to their surprise, that they could not deliver the needed cohesive PR message for their client firms. Why? The client firms did not have a cohesive message to deliver in the first place. The CEO, executives, and employees had varying views on what their company was all about. Before Regis and his team could explain to the world who their client was, what it stood for and why it mattered and to whom, the company had to sort that message out before it could be delivered. In short order, Regis McKenna added a strategic consulting firm to the front end of its PR arm. Summary: Regis and his staff needed to help their clients decide who they were before that message could be intelligently announced to the world.

In exactly the same way, we, we as Ameircans, must decide who we are, what we are proud of and what we stand for as a culture, before we can invite other people to join us. And before we can proudly tell others why being part of our culture will be a plus–a huge plus–for them. N.B. I said “people” here, not just immigrants. Some of us, and some of our neighbors, need to be reminded of who we are as a people, and what we stand for as a culture.

Let’s pause for some clarifications here. I am a supporter of people being bilingual, not countries. When a person has an understanding of more than one language, he is broadened in his thinking. She has insights into other cultures and ways of thinking than can come only from understanding linguistic nuances. When countries are multilingual, it tears them apart. I am also a fan of countries being multi-ethnic, but not multicultural. Bringing different ethnicities together in one culture is like adding alloys to iron to make steel. Bringing different cultures together trying to make a successful country is like stirring rocks in the attempt to get them to blend.

American culture was first codified in its founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Founders put in writing that we the people had unalienable rights, rights that came from our creator, not the state. The state could neither grant nor deny these rights; rights including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For the first time in history, the individual was elevated higher than the state. In a series of astonishingly bold documents and announcements, an unknown group of men and women from an equally unknown backwater British colony, declared that the divine rights imbued in man by his creator completely replaced the false notion of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings (divine right of kings). What began with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta (Magna Carta) in 1215 was now complete. As long as they were not hanged as traitors for their beliefs.

Today’s Key Point: We are the highly fortunate inheritors of the revolution of 1776. We are here to build on that legacy, not to dismantle it. As a country, with heroic ups and...

View Details

Summary

A ratchet is a device that allows something like a nut or bolt to be turned in one direction–but not in reverse. It allows movement in one direction only; it does allow for the object to remain stationary, but no reverse–no “going back.”

Isn’t that exactly what is happening almost all around us; in politics, religion, fashion, behavior and “what’s acceptable”, and in technology? In politics we are moving steadily to the left, in fashion and behavior ever more libertine, and technology continues to change our lives–for better and for worse. On the other hand, is education an area where the ratchet effect has us going backwards–not going forward?

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about the ratchet effect in America.

Continuing

Beginning with two-term Democratic President https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson (Woodrow Wilson), 1913-1921, the Democratic party has been moving ever to the left, emphasizing more government responsibilities and fewer individual responsibilities. Democratic President https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt (Franklin Roosevelt), FDR, 1933-1945, continued that trend. There were moments when the ratchet stopped moving to the left, but, I argue, it never reversed. Democratic Presidents, John Kennedy, JFK, 1961-1963, and Bill Clinton, 1993-2001, created short pauses, e. g., Kennedy’s tax cut and Clinton’s workfare. Republican President Ronald Reagan, 1981-1989, created something like a two-term pause–but no reversal. The most recent Democratic President, Barack Obama, 2009-2017, pushed the country leftward.

No Democratic Presidential primary candidate today would have any chance of being their party’s nominee if they advocated the then-winning policies of either FDR or JFK. And we are already seeing signs that Joe Biden, Obama’s two-term VP, might have an uphill struggle in his apparent effort to be the 2020 Democratic nominee. Why? I argue that the Democratic party has gone past wanting an “Obama Third Term” because the party has taken another leap to the left in just the past few years. Bernie Sanders ran to Hillary Clinton’s left for the 2016 nomination–and lost. Today his party is forcing even him further to the left, adding things like reparations to his platform to be competitive.

First-term Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) says former President Barack Obama’s promise of “hope and change” was just a mirage. She went further in her criticism by pointing out the “caging of kids” at the U.S.-Mexico border under the Obama administration. (Obama was called the “deporter-in-chief” by immigrant rights advocates for the record number of undocumented immigrants deported during his presidency.) As a capper, at least for now, Rep. Omar called out the “droning of countries around the world” under Obama. A 2015 report claimed that nearly 90% of people killed in recent drone strikes in the Middle East “were not the intended targets.”

There is a sudden appearance of women from Biden’s past, seemingly timed to coincide with his impending announcement that he will run for the presidency. They are coming forward with complaints about his having made them uncomfortable with his actions. These women represent the first round of attacks Biden can expect if he runs for the nomination as expected. Yes, he is old, white, male and heterosexual; all the wrong things to be in today Democratic party politics of identity politics and intersectionality. But the big issue is that his politics are not at all sufficiently left. Sanders is also old, white, male and heterosexual, but his politics are acceptable to those who object to Biden’s.

Today’s Key Point: Politics are rapidly ratcheting left. Is that what you want? If so, then you need do nothing. If it is not okay with you, then you need to get moving and make a difference. And no more holding the line, no more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatius_Cocles (Horatius at the Bridge) fighting a...

View Details

Summary

Most of us have taken a position on climate change. How do we know what the facts are, and what solutions would be effective? Here is my position: I want a cure that is not worse than the disease.

For those who agree with, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” virtually no cure would be too draconian. But do any rational people really believe we might have only 11 years and 10 months left before the world ends? Others are saying the world’s climate is always changing. This observation leads them to the conclusion that whatever we are doing now regarding protecting the planet is fine; all we need to do is keep it up and the earth will absorb the changes as it has always done.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about climate change, and what–if anything–to do about it.

Continuing

If anyone makes a prediction about climate change, a sales forecast, or a stock market or economic prediction, the first question we should ask is, “How have this person’s predictions turned out in the past?” To find out, we need to look at past forecasts, their predictions, and the actual results. Comparing those forecasts to actual results over time will give an A/F, actual over forecast, percentage. For example, if a salesperson has predicted an average of $100K in sales for each of the last 10 years, and has been averaging $82K for those years, he would have an A/F percentage of 82%. 82/100=.82. Any Sales VP would be well advised to multiply any future sales forecasts from that person by .82, reducing the forecasts to a more realistic number, before forwarding them to the CEO.

Isn’t it even more important to look at the A/F, actual over forecast, when it comes to climate change? Here a few examples:

Al Gore’s 2006 movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”, forecast dire climate scenarios. It was predicted that much of Florida and the San Francisco Bay would be underwater by now. The movie used horrifying footage from 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, and suggested that climate change was the cause of frequent and more intense hurricanes. But since then, hurricane frequency has decreased, and the storms’ intensity hasn’t yet grown significantly. Gore also predicted in the film that, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows on Mount Kilimanjaro.” University of Massachusetts scientist Doug Hardy, who was a co-author of a 2002 Science article upon which Gore’s statement was based, notes that the former vice president was taking a bit of literary license, since research shows that the snow cover has come and gone seasonally there for at least a century and a half.

In 1989, a senior UN environmental official, Noel Brown, forecast that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend was not reversed by the year 2000. He added, “Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s dust bowl conditions to Canadian and US Wheatlands.”

In 1967, a best-selling book came out called “Famine 1975! America’s Decision: Who Will Survive?” It predicted mass starvation around the developing world due to increasing population. “Today’s crisis can move in only one direction – toward catastrophe,” it warned. Some experts praised the book and ridiculed doubters. “All serious students of the plight of the underdeveloped nations agree that famine is inevitable,” CalTech biology professor Peter Bonner wrote in a 1967 review of the book in the prestigious journal Science. The exact opposite of the book’s prediction happened. Famine deaths have plunged dramatically as farming technology and food distribution improved.

Global cooling was once a worry to many, such as University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, who warned that present trends would make the world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000, about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” British...

View Details

Summary

What is the similarity between the well-known Salem witch trials and American politics today? Wait, Will, are there any similarities? Are there really things that tie witch trials and our politics together? Yes, several, in fact.

I am sure that we all recoil in horror when we think about witch trials; trials that demonized the use of the wrong words, simple accusations treated as proof, being afraid of standing up for the truth for fear of being similarly accused, and the horrific and permanent punishments. We would never do anything like that, right? Right? Wrong. We do things like that everyday, either by being active participants or be standing by and allowing the active ones to get away with it.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what American politics and witch trials have in common.

Continuing

Arthur Miller wrote the timeless play, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucible (The Crucible), in 1953. Written during the McCarthy period, the play was focused on showing how human frailties and base human drives in that period, the 50’s, the period where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_McCarthy (Joe McCarthy) held sway, were just another version of the Salem witch trials. The Senator from Wisconsin tossed around unfounded accusations that certain people and classes of people were Communists. Back then, in the middle of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War (Cold War), being labeled as a “Commie” was as damning as being labeled a witch in the 17th Century. During the McCarthy era, as with the Salem witch trials, lives were destroyed because people and groups of people used accusations for personal and professional gain.

Are people using accusations for personal and professional gain today? Are these accusations being used as complete evidence of guilt by the people making them? Are other people afraid to protest these accusations and other actions because they will be treated in the same way? Yes, yes, and yes.

But it is far worse today than ever before. Instead of leveraging hatred and fear for personal and political gain gain by using two labels, witches or communists, and then only one at a time, we have now created dozens and scores of categories deemed worthy of vilification. Where once we focused on one group at a time, we now use multiple and intentionally damaging labels simultaneously.

“Ist” and “phobe” are popular suffixes, and can be attached to just about anything; sexist and racist, and xenophobe and islamophobe among the most popular. If using a popular accusatory suffix is somehow grammatically awkward, then we can trot out the ever-popular label; victim. For example, if the accuser is poor and wishes to make someone else responsible, accusing that enity of being a povertyist (someone who hates the poor) or succesphobe (someone who hates and crushes others’ success) creates tongue twisters, and removes much of the sting of the accusation. The solution is easy: 1. Claim that you are a victim of poverty, 2. Point out the person or group that made you poor, 3. Demand to be supported financially, and 4, Shout that anyone who disagrees with your agenda is an “ist” or “phobe” of some sort. Facts and accuracy simply get in the way of the objective here. Volume, repetition, passion and selecting the right audiences are all that’s necessary to win the day.

Challenge: What is the difference between using labels like “witch” and “communist”, or “racist” and “xenophobe” to gain personal and political advantage? While we are at it, let’s throw in terms like “socialist” and “abortionist.” When those labels are thrown out, the speaker has a certain definition in mind. Let’s examine some of those definitions.

We’ll look at different labels, why they are bad, why we think they apply to the accused. Ignoring the word witch as antiquated, let’s get started:

Communist. When used as an accusation, it is likely to mean that the accused is a Joseph Stalin or Mao lover, or merely...

View Details

Summary

These five names represent people who have been much in the news, in part due to alleged crimes. Unless you count OJ’s conviction for stealing sports memorabilia, none were convicted in criminal court.

They also represent the sad state of affairs in American politics, and gross imbalances in our vaunted system of justice and highly touted national https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meritocracy (meritocracy).

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about imbalances in our politics, justice system and merit system.

Continuing

Let’s start this conversation with what our roles are in all of these instances. Yes, everyone knows that both OJ and Jussie are guilty. There is abundant evidence, including eyewitnesses and mounds of corroborating testimony and other evidence to remove any rational doubt. OJ was let off after committing two murders by a clearly biased jury. But we, all of us, including the jury, know that OJ is an unconvicted double murderer. After the trial, Johnny Cochrane, OJ’s defense attorney, was asked if justice was black or white, referring to race, not clarity. His answer, “Justice has a color, and it is green.”

Jussie was let off after being charged with 16 felonies by an apparently rogue Chicago prosecutor. As I write this podcast, an enraged Chicago Major and Police Superintendent are both calling Jussie a liar. Both are furious that Jussie continues to throw the Chicago Police Department under the bus by continuing to maintain his innocence.

And we also know that Brett (Kavanaugh, in case you forgot) was defending himself against an uncorroborated accusation. There was even testimony that conflicted with his accuser’s claims. Yet one side of the political aisle wanted his head.

Donald was investigated for the better part of two years, with the Special Counsel using every tool available to his powerful office. The result, as summarized by the US Attorney General, was that Donald did not collude with a foreign power to tilt a Presidential election, and there was no conclusion on obstructing justice. Has Donald, The Donald, done other things outside of what he was investigated for that could be worthy of criticism? Yes, but my guess is that so have all the others on today’s list, including Hillary. But let’s stick to what we know.

Oh, yes, Hillary. We all know that she spent considerable time and expense to be able to have her own local server, instead of having the State Department’s IT folks take care of her. And as the head of the State Department, she would have been well taken care of; likely better and faster than handling it on her own. With 24/7 online help and IT people who would have been more than happy to show up in person at any time. And we all know that Hillary erased tens of thousands of emails, using specialized techniques to insure they could not be recovered as is usually the case with computer erasures. Isn’t it clear to all of us that the only reason anyone would bother with the cost and inconvenience of having one’s own server, rather than using the one at work where you are the boss, would be to maintain privacy, including being able to permanently erase information?

In each case, all five names, it is easy to see money and influence raising its ugly head, unfairly affecting the outcomes. Money and influence got OJ and Jussie off the hook, and seems to be protecting Hillary. Money and influence almost derailed, Brett. And I see it on both sides of Donald’s investigation by the Special Counsel.

Today’s Key Point: As important as it is, today’s key point is not the massive and unfair advantage conferred by money and influence; it is our role in all of these examples–and our role in how we allow ourselves to be governed. We, you and I, are responsible for whatever negatives are represented in Donald’s investigation, Jussie and OJ going scot free, Brett’s time at the stake and whatever excesses Hillary might have committed. “In a democracy, we...

View Details

Summary

Have you heard a politician or a friend say, “I’m colorblind?” I am not colorblind, and I am not blind to gender, either. I am aware of color, gender, body type, accents, education, manners, wealth, personality type, and a lot more. And so are you. We all are. The question comes when we decide what to do with the observations that we all ma

For the next 10 minutes, we will discuss what these observations–and any actions that may stem from these observations–mean to us as individuals and as a society.

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will discuss what these observations–and any actions that may stem from these observations–mean to us as individuals and as a society.

Let’s start with an admission; I am partially red-green color blind. When I was being processed and tested prior to joining the Army–you know, the part where they do things like count the number of your arms and legs–the bored evaluator was flipping the pages of the test for color blindness. Pages like the one here started showing up.

There was–and is–no number that I could see. The guy next to me, also on the same page, called out a number. I repeated it. That went on for eight pages or so; I called out the numbers the guy next to me said, and I passed.

But let’s go back to the subject at hand. We all see the same things; we do not all take the same actions based on what we observe. And there are times that taking action on the observations we make about race, gender and sexual preference are absolutely right and correct. For example, if you are a woman with a preference for heterosexual males, lacking specific knowledge, you might use what used to be called “gaydar” to make at least an initial assessment of whether a particular male might be worth flirting with. In some professions, ballet for one, there are many more hetero females than straight males. One of the first, and legitimate, questions that women in ballet ask each other about attractive males is, “Is he gay or straight?”

Considering race, gender, body type, income and sexual preference are perfectly all right when it comes to dating and marriage. Are they acceptable considerations when it comes to friendship? Acceptable legally, yes, but one would be much the poorer if these considerations in any way limit the number or scope of friendships.

Many, if not most, colleges use race in their admission decisions. Assuming that the number of acceptances has a limit, isn’t it true that if an affirmative action admission process permits the acceptance of a minority who would otherwise not have made the cut, that a non-minority applicant who would have made the cut is not accepted? This is a https://revolution2-0.org/zero-sum-game-ep-15/ (zero sum game); for every winner, there must be a loser.

So far, we have talked about circumstances where it is either clearly permissible to use characteristics like race and gender in decision making and actions, as in considering these differences in dating, or at least arguably acceptable, as in college admissions. There are categories of actions where making decisions and acting on race and gender differences is unacceptable; wrong and, hopefully, illegal. Using race or gender to justify superiority is deeply wrong. Supporters of slavery used their twisted views on race to cast blacks as non-human, using that as the main argument to make slavery acceptable. In the same way, the Nazis positioned Jews as non-human to create a foundation for their horrific treatment of religious or ethnic Jews. Others use their bastardized political and...

View Details

Summary

If you ask someone why they want to go to college and the answer is, “To get a job.” they intend to treat college as a vocational school. If the answer is something along the lines of learning from the great minds that went before them, to learn about our shared history and to learn how to think, then they are going to college. In either case, partying and other non-academic pursuits will be involved (more in the former case), but that is where the similarity ends.

Individually and as a society, we benefit from both a broad liberal arts education and vocational training. Everyone should have some foundation in history, science, philosophy, languages, the arts and have some command of numbers. That’s a liberal arts education. And we all need specific skills, vocational skills, whether used in the home, professionally or both. You don’t need to go to college to give yourself a good liberal arts education; libraries are everywhere, and you can find/start a book club. You are more likely to need formal training to acquire good vocational skills.

Vocational schools are not at all always blue collar. Examples of vocational training range everywhere from welding school to undergraduate science and engineering schools to medical school. My liberal arts degree was a BA in Philosophy from the University of Colorado; my vocational degree was an MBA from Harvard Business School.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about college and vocational training; the differences and how to choose.

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about college and vocational training; the differences and how to choose.

Let’s start with something that I hope is becoming increasingly clear: college is not intended to be for everyone. In the main, college has become a cross between something that is expected after high school, a fun time, and fiercely expensive. It is a waste of time and money if the desired result is producing thoughtful citizens who are well equipped in terms of a solid fact base with the ability to apply those facts to whatever issue is at hand.

Today’s Key Point: The best combination is layering vocational training and skills on top of a solid liberal arts foundation. Both pursuits are opportunities for lifelong learning. And while learning is occasionally hard work, remember to jump in feet first. When you learn, just as when you live (learning being a key part of living), get it all over you. Roll around in Socrates and Martin Luther King. Dig deep into welding school or dental school. Demand excellence from your teachers, and...

View Details

Summary

The recently often used word, inequality, is frequently used as an accusation or a condemnation rather than simply an observation. When people use inequality as a criticism, as something that needs to be corrected, are they talking about inequality under the law, inequality of opportunity (apart from the law), inequality of results or inherent inequalities e.g., height, longevity genes or attractiveness?

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about the answers to these two questions.

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about the answers to these two questions.

Let’s start by taking a position on legal inequality; there isn’t any. As always, I am open to challenge here; point out situations where the law encourages or even permits discrimination, and I will stand with you to fight it.

Now, let’s address inequality of opportunity. We have that in abundance. Some we must leave alone, and others we must correct. Using education as an example, we see there are inequalities that we should not try to fix, and inequalities that we must use all the tools at our disposal to correct –and do it now. If a family is able to afford to send their children to top private schools from pre-K through graduate school, well, good for them. My parents couldn’t, and neither can I. But that does not mean that either everyone should have that ability, or that no one should. This is an example of where there is an uneven playing field, a lack of balance in opportunity, and we all need to recognize it and move on.

Where there is an imbalance in education is the pre-K through high school world. Aggressive school choice would fix it by providing needed competition. But it seems that many of the people who decry uneven playing fields are dedicated to preserving huge differences in the quality of schools available to families across America. Competition provided by allowing parents to have ready access to equally funded traditional public schools, https://revolution2-0.org/charter-schools-make-public-schools-better/ (charter schools) and vouchers for private schools, would begin to improve our school literally overnight. Competition makes for better sports, better computers and better cars–just for a start. So why is there any resistance to school competition at all, much less the stiff resistance we see on a regular basis? Special interest groups are placing their needs above those of the students and their families and communities. Teachers unions want all the funding to go to public schools because that is where their power lies. Politicians, even the ones who send their children to private schools, want the votes and the funds the teachers unions send their way. And the kids, their parents and our country are left begging. The unions support the politicians, the politicians restrict charter schools, and virtually refuse to grant vouchers.

Let’s introduce the https://revolution2-0.org/free-or-equal/ (free or equal) concept; in other words, pick one. We cannot be free and equal at the same time. Remember, I have taken the position that there is no legal discrimination, so when I talk about equality of opportunity, it always assumes legal equality. I am addressing equality of opportunity outside of the law. Even at a glance, it must be clear that we cannot be free and have either completely equal opportunity or equal results simultaneously. Let’s hear another voice on this: “Human beings are born with different capacities; if they are free they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free.”

View Details

Summary

Have you ever celebrated St. Patrick’s Day–even just a bit? Do you know of anyone else who has? I don’t mean only things like marching in a St. Patrick’s parade, drinking a bathtub full of green beer, or running around with a sign saying “Kiss me, I’m Irish!” I mean wearing a tiny piece of green to school because you were afraid that people would have a license to pinch you if you didn’t. Or planning on having corned beef and cabbage for dinner. Or maybe faking your best Irish accent as you said “Top o’ the mornin’” instead of “Hi” to your friends and coworkers.

If you or anyone you know did anyone of these, was that cultural appropriation? If so, why? If not, why not?

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about the answers to these two questions.

Transcript

If you or anyone you know did anyone of these, was that cultural appropriation? If so, why? If not, why not?

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about the answers to these two questions.

Let’s start with a definition of appropriate from Merriam-Webster, the dictionary people. “1: to take exclusive possession of: 2: to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use 3: to take or make use of without authority or right.” Wow. To appropriate something is pretty serious. Words in the definition like “exclusive use” and “set apart” are pretty descriptive.

So let’s immediately answer the question of whether or not participating in celebrating St. Patrick’s Day is cultural appropriation. No. Of course not. Look back at the definition and see if any part of what we read from Messrs Merriam and Webster applies. Nope. Not a word. Not a single word.

So, is wearing a sombrero and a serape on Halloween cultural appropriation? No. Just apply the definition again. How about wearing lederhosen and a Tyrollean hat during Oktoberfest? Or going to a Japanese restaurant and trying to order in Japnese? No. None of these comes close to qualifying. BTW, I once tried out my hotel, taxi and restaurant Japanese in a Japanese restaurant. After a few tries and no response, a sushi chef leaned over and said. “Sir, we are Korean.” Oh. Turns out they owned a Korean restaurant as well.

Okay, Will, what about wearing blackface as part of a costume? Or goosestepping and throwing Nazi salutes? Both are clearly wrong. Forgetting cultural appropriation, actions like these are just wrong. Dead wrong. And we don’t need a dictionary to know this.

Question: Why are we seeing and hearing what seems to be a lot of conversation about how almost any kind of costume or imitation is cultural appropriation and much to be avoided? And if not avoided, then criticized to the point of scorn.

Answer: This is yet another example of agenda over integrity. The agenda in this case is to promote the identity group politics of victimization in order to gain personal and political advantage. Assigning certain identity groups other groups to ally with, and, worse, make yet other groups the enemies of the allied groups, is at the heart of identity group intersectionality. Yes, our nation is dangerously divided and getting more so. And this terribly harmful division is being fueled by identity group intersectionality. And all for personal and political gain.

Today’s Key Point: “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_pluribus_unum (E Pluribus Unum)” is on all of our money, and is one of America’s key founding...

View Details

Summary

An echo chamber is a space where all the voices sound like all the other voices. Do you live in a political echo chamber? Do all the voices you hear, family and friends, neighbors, co-workers, news media, etc., say (preach?) basically the same thing? Do most of your conversations end with head nodding agreement and wonderment–or worse–at how anyone could think anything substantially different?

If any of that is true, be aware that equally intelligent, equally good-hearted people, people who have also thought things through, just may have opinions 180 degrees apart from yours. With the same head nodding and wonderment in their opposite echo chambers.

The solution is not to somehow drown out or belittle the other echo chambers, the different points of view. The solution is for everyone to open up to opinions that are all over the map. Change up your news sources, seek out those who will disagree with you. Challenge–at a core level–your own thinking. Always. The diversity that counts most in life is diversity of thought. And that type of diversity is getting negative mention, if any mention at all.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means to us as individuals, and to the future of our republic.

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means to us as individuals, and to the future of our republic.

The greatest chance of being in an echo chamber comes from living in one-party https://revolution2-0.org/is-geography-destiny/ (geographies).

Is it an accident that states like California and New York are predominantly progressive, and states like Texas and Oklahoma are not? Take a look at this electoral map. With four exceptions, all of the states in the contiguous 48 that voted one way or the other are in connected blocks. Of those four, Colorado and New Mexico share a border, and the other two, Minnesota and Illinois, very nearly connected.

Question: Did everyone of a like mind move to the same places, or is something else going on?

Answer: Something else. In the absence of differing opinions from a variety of sources, people will rely on the opinions of family and friends, co-workers and their favorite news sources and social media. Outside of family, all the sources will be selected more for comfort and absence of frustration than political reasoning, intellectual probity and diversity of thought. Not surprisingly, everyone will pretty much share the same opinions. Similar opinions from several sources reinforce each other and can easily be seen as a valid consensus. Caution: this is a false consensus, based on a clearly biased group of inputs.

Today’s Key Point: Living in an echo chamber is far more damaging than just having limited inputs and insights and a narrow outlook; it is dangerous. The danger comes...

View Details

Summary

Question: Does what’s going on at our southern border constitute a national crisis?

Answer: Yes.

Could this crisis have been avoided?

Of course. And fairly easily.

Whose fault is it?

“Round up the usual suspects.” Trump and his administration, Democrats in Congress, and, well, us. You and me.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means to us as individuals, and to the future of our republic.

Transcript

Question: Does what’s going on at our southern border constitute a national crisis?

Answer: Yes.

Could this crisis have been avoided?

Of course. And fairly easily.

Whose fault is it?

“Round up the usual suspects.” Trump and his administration, Democrats in Congress, and, well, us. You and me.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means to us as individuals, and to the future of our republic.

Pause for some perspective here: Since 1979, US presidents, including Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, “W” and Obama, have used the National Emergencies Act of 1975 to declare 58 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-many-national-emergencies-have-been-called-by-presidents/ (national emergencies); 31 are still in effect. So let’s not act like Trump is alone in walking on possibly thin Constitutional ice.

How could this have been avoided? Simple: focus on the real issue, the core question, not personal and political warfare. The core question is clear, “Do we want secure borders?” If the answer is no, then nothing needs to be done, and there is, by definition, no emergency. Beto O’Rourke, a former Democratic member of Congress from Texas, and a name often mentioned as a candidate to be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2020, recently went on record opposing any extension of the existing border walls. His point was clear; if we add more wall-like barriers to entry, people wishing to come here illegally may suffer physically by having to travel further before finding any easy way to sneak in. That’s a man who wants open borders. And there are many more like him, although not all are as open about wanting open borders.

Assume the answer to the secure border question is yes, that we do not want open borders as we have between and amongst the states. Everyone crossing a state border has citizenship rights, including voting, benefits, etc., as soon as they show up as residents in a new state. When the secure border decision is made, the politicians need to step aside and ask experts, people who know about borders and such, to come up with a plan about how best to secure the 2,000 mile border, with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Once the experts have presented the plan, including specifics and cost, there may be some questions, but with tweaks the expert plan should stand. The last thing we can allow our politicians to do is to go wandering out of their core competency. Leave the specific planning and implementation to professionals. In some areas, a wall of some sort, perhaps aided by technology and personnel, might be exactly the right solution. In the middle of the Rio Grande, likely not. But experts can tell us.

Politicians look at, for example, highway and bridge construction needs, and come up with funding. They don’t, thank goodness, tell the highway and bridge engineers how to lay out the highways and what materials to use. And they correctly stay away from telling the pros which type of bridge to use and where. But that is not happening with the critical issue of securing our border. Our politicians are micromanaging this issue; they think this benefits them, and it definitely harms us. And does anyone remember how badly the politicians screwed up the Vietnam war by micromanaging everything there, even including hand picking daily air strike targets? I damn well do. They shamefully wasted vast amounts of American blood and treasure by not letting the experts, the military, do their jobs.

In tort law, civil law, there is a doctrine

View Details

Summary

Part of the miracle of 1776, pulled off by a then nondescript group of nobodies from a tiny, backwater British colony, was the correct observation that our rights to “…life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” come from our Creator, not from monarchs or elected governments. Those rights, which are not the subject of this podcast, are everyone’s responsibility. God granted those rights, and we must have each other’s back to defend them.

The so-called rights that are today’s subject matter are the right to taxpayer-paid housing, education, healthcare, etc. And the etcetera is getting more etcetera all the time. Remembering that with every right comes an equal or greater responsibility, today’s key question is whether benefits like housing, healthcare, food and education should be granted at no cost to the user, or should reasonable access be guaranteed to these products and services? Free or reasonable access is the question.

Are an individual’s food, education and housing someone else’s responsibility, or is that a responsibility where the individual might play a full or partial role themselves? For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means to us as individuals, and to the future of our republic.

Transcript

Today’s Key Point: Today’s question ties nicely to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

https://revolution2-0.org/responsibility-lessons-from-desert-pete-ep-85/ (Personal Responsibility); take it, teach it and,

Applying point no. 1, personal responsibility, to today’s issue, we are all responsible for everything that is conceivably within our control. Things like national defense and disabilities from a damaging, congenital disease or condition are not.

Applying point no. 2, being our brother’s keepers, to today’s issue, we are all responsible, as a matter of morals as well as public policy, to come to the aid of those who are dealing with things out of their control.

Let’s look at a definition: “Out of someone’s control.” This does not mean that something is https://revolution2-0.org/life-is-hard-as-it-should-be-ep-106/ (hard), or unpleasant, or boring and repetitive, unfulfilling or unworthy of their talents. This means that the person, try as they might, trying hard over time, simply cannot handle the tasks, cannot meet their responsibilities even after full, determined effort over time.

But, Will, what do you do about the large and growing inequality of results when people, equally doing...

View Details

Summary

Representative Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, AOC as she identifies herself, or “Alex from the Bronx”, as others call her, is a product of our lazy thinking times. I can remember participating in discussions with as much passion for making everything right, and the same naive, uninformed and misinformed information base, and wandering approach to logistics and planning as AOC’s. But we were sophomores in high school then. This goes far beyond AOC; many of her party’s leaders are actively supporting her, and few–if any–have challenged her. And we–all of us–are a part of the problem. Ill or uninformed voters are dangerous enough. Politicians of the same type are even more dangerous. And our fault. If we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means for everything from our personal lives to the future of the republic.

Transcript

Representative Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, AOC as she identifies herself, or “Alex from the Bronx”, as others call her, is a product of our lazy thinking times. I can remember participating in discussions with the same passion for making everything right, and the same naive, uninformed and misinformed information base and wandering approach to logistics and planning as AOC’s. But we were sophomores in high school then. This goes far beyond AOC; many of her party’s leaders are supporting her, and few–if any–have challenged her. And we–all of us–are a part of the problem. Ill or uninformed voters are dangerous enough. Politicians of the same type are even more dangerous. And our fault. If we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means for everything from our personal lives to the future of the republic.

The powerful group of declared candidates hoping to oppose Donald Trump in 2020 fully support policies like the Green New Deal in general, and Medicare for All free college in particular. While the Green New Deal was instigated by AOC, they have all signed on.

Pause for clarification. This is not the fault of the Democrats, it is not the fault of the Republicans. It is our fault. “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Worthwhile quote from a Pogo, cartoon opossum, in the eponymous cartoon strip.

Clearly, if we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters. (It really is up to us.)

Let’s take a deeper look at what’s going on:

Medicare For All would cost in excess of $3 trillion (with a “T”) a year. Keep in mind that our national budget is just in excess of $4 trillion a year. Medicare For All would almost double our annual spending. Already fewer and fewer medical providers are accepting Medicare; there is no guarantee that the facility you might want would even accept Medicare. Others are now limiting Medicare patients to certain days and hours, making getting appointments more and more difficult. Additionally, Medicare is cutting back access to physicians, allowed procedures and medicines. These problems would be greatly exacerbated if millions of people were added to the Medicare rolls. And what do you do with the tens of millions who have worked for decades, having paid into Medicare all along? Do they just stand by and watch while the services they earned deteriorate while now being free to others?

Add in the fantastic 10-year goals of the Green New Deal, and we are at about $10 trillion (yes, still with a “T”) a year. In addition to the $4T we are spending each year now. Let’s remember the Green New Deal’s author, AOC, said that she was coming to DC in January to be “inaugurated” and that she would soon be “signing bills.” That lack of even basic understanding of how congress works would get you an “F” on a high school civics quiz. Remember AOC’s opposition to and eventual delight in helping to kill Amazon’s HQ2 plans...

View Details

Summary

This is not a podcast about race, sexual preference or left vs. right. This is a podcast about how agendas are so important to some that a supporting alternate reality, a series of lies, is created to support the agenda. The alternate reality, the lies, is then defended as the truth

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means for everything from our personal integrity to the future of the republic.

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means for everything from our personal integrity to the future of the republic.

Let’s start by stopping calling this a hoax. A hoax is something much more lighthearted; perhaps damaging, but more like a joke or a prank. This was a well-staged event, carefully designed to malign and accuse a broad swath of Trump supporters, and those perceived as being aligned with those supporting Trump. This was a hate crime, bordering on political terrorism.

Jussie Smollett, a black actor, staged an implausible hate crime, paying other participants $3,500 (by check!). I don’t know who bought the noose that was supposed to have been part of the crime perpetrated by the paid participants calling out “This is MAGA Country!”. Jussie checked off all the boxes. He is clearly black and openly gay. He staged this deceit to include a noose along with red hat folks beating him and yelling about MAGA country while pouring bleach on him. Why? Both the black Chicago Police Chief and the black judge who have him the $100K bail said that he had disgraced himself and the city because he wanted to make more than his current $65/episode for his starring role in the TV series “Empire”, and thought the publicity would help.

Almost as many celebrities and politicians who could make it to a microphone immediately supported Mr. Smollett, saying things like this was a “modern day lynching.” There was rush to go on the record to signal their virtue and anti-hate purity, “Hate has no pace here.” When the facts–there’s that word again–started coming out, the very same people refused to comment, saying that they needed to wait until all the facts came out. Huh. They did not need a single fact past Mr. Sollett’s claim before they aligned up against the “MAGA Country” accused perps, and, by extension, all people who align with or support in any way the current President.

It is cheap and easy to want to wait for the facts when the evidence is against you. There is no honor there. Honor and respect is yours when you wait for the facts before expressing an opinion when the initial and incomplete, but potentially convincing evidence, is in your favor. That’s when standing up for due process earns respect.

This is a good time to point out that when there are real issues, like racial or sexual-preference hatreds, there is no need to fake it. Has anyone read about the Jews faking anti-Jew hate crimes in Germany in the ‘30s and ‘40s? Or fake anti-black crimes in the Jim Crow post Civil War days? Of course not. The issues were real, so no fakes were required to make the point. Isn’t is clear to everyone how miraculously far we have come in the less than 250 years America has existed? Why aren’t we celebrating that stunning progress, all while working together to keep making things better? Wouldn’t that be far more to the point than manufacturing victims amid dwindling real issues? Is it that activists, facing dwindling stacks of real issues, don’t just celebrate and deal with the remaining issues, they make things up, creating the appearance that not all that much has changed? And don’t they do that so they will still have a platform, providing them with money and notoriety? The...

View Details

Summary

Socialism in much in the news. At first glance, it might sound appealing. Needs driven by inequality will be erased. Everyone gets what they want, and no one is the worse for it.

How does socialism stand up to a deeper dive into what it is and how it works? For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack those two questions: 1. What is socialism? and 2. How does it work?

Transcript

Socialism in much in the news. At first glance, it might sound appealing. Needs driven by inequality will be erased. Everyone gets what they want, and no one is the worse for it.

How does socialism stand up to a deeper dive into what it is and how it works? For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack those two questions: 1. What is socialism? and 2. How does it work?

Firsts, let’s first pause for a mutual goal check. I am assuming that we are all looking for an economic system that simultaneously rewards talent and hard work, while taking care of those who truly need it. Do you agree? (I realize this is thumbnail summary.)

Now, let’s start with some key observations:

Capitalism is the greatest wealth-producing engine the world has ever seen. Some may doubt its fairness, but no one doubts its ability to create wealth on a massive scale.

All societies redistribute wealth. Everyone of them. Example. If all a particular society did was to tax enough to provide roads, some would pay more for those roads than others. Most people are likely to use the roads disproportionately to their tax contribution. Some more, some less; that’s an example of redistribution. The question is not whether to redistribute wealth, but what is the proper level of redistribution.

Okay, let’s add some definitions:

Democratic Socialism: I believe that Senator Sanders and others are talking about something other than the traditional definition of socialism. They are not talking about the government owning the means of production. They are not talking about the government owning and/or controlling entities like Ford and Facebook. Not yet, anyway. However, Senator Warren and Representative Ocasio-Cortez are beginning to introduce those thoughts. Democratic socialists are talking about massive income and wealth redistribution. Even more than we have now. The Scandinavian countries are an example of democratic socialism. Their version of socialism is capitalism with heavy income redistribution.

Communism: Traditional socialism with the addition of prohibiting any private property.

Capitalism: A system wherein people, individuals or groups, including corporations, own the means of production and engage in voluntary exchanges of money for goods and services.

Profit: Selling things, taking in income, for more than it costs to make them, drives everything; capitalism, democratic socialism, traditional socialism, communism, no matter what the system is. Here we are not talking about taxes or what you do with taxes; we are talking about how you make the money and wealth that is taxed in the first place. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it. The gozindas have to exceed the gozoutas or nothing works in any system.

Question: Which economic method or principle, either type of socialism, communism or capitalism, is the best approach to making and selling products and services for more than they cost? Answer: Capitalism. Absolutely no question. Remember, democratic socialism is successful capitalism, capitalism with profits, with heavy income redistribution. Without profit there is nothing to tax, and nothing to redistribute.

Capitalism is amoral, not immoral, mind you, amoral. It needs a moral compass. Democracy needs a moral compass. Any system, group or person needs a moral compass. If you...

View Details

Summary

Life is indeed hard, and it is correctly designed to be that way. As soon as we get that, life becomes dramatically more manageable. And we then have a chance to lead our best lives.

Those who cry foul, teaching all who will listen that if life is hard that means that something must be unfair, are doing all of us and our society a huge disservice.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack why life being hard is exactly the way it should be.

Transcript

Life is indeed hard, and it is correctly designed to be that way. As soon as we get that, life becomes dramatically more manageable. And we then have a chance to lead our best lives.

Those who cry foul, teaching all who will listen that if life is hard that means that something must be unfair, are doing all of us and our society a huge disservice.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack why life being hard is exactly the way it should be.

Let’s start with an observation: We all learn more from the hard times than we do from the easy times. I don’t know anyone for whom that is not true. Do you? And with that hard times learning, we can grow and strengthen ourselves to lead stronger, happier and better lives. Yes, I did say “happier.” There is no conflict between hard and happy, is there?

We all know that to make a muscle stronger, we must work it, and the harder we work it, the stronger it becomes. Our minds are like muscles; we much work them to make them stronger, and the harder we work them, the stronger they become.

It is only when we push ourselves, mentally and/or physically, that we improve, get stronger, and further prepare ourselves for leading our best lives. The corollary is also true: When we don’t challenge ourselves, nothing gets better. If fact, things get worse. These physical and mental muscles will atrophy. And we get a touch lazy in the process.

Life is bad enough when we don’t challenge ourselves, when we don’t take responsibility for getting through the hard times. We are hurting ourselves and those around us, but that is all. It is far worse when powerful voices in leadership tell us that if things are hard, that not only is it proof that things are unfair, but that someone else is responsible for getting us through the hard bits. Why is it their responsibility? Because they are the ones who made it hard for us in the first place. That’s the reason that identity politics were dreamed up and are so often in the news. The idea is to relieve certain groups, those victimized by other groups, of responsibility while placing the blame and the responsibility on other groups. This is called intersectionality. I call it identity group wars.

Remember the part about how we learn much more from our hard times than we do from the easy ones? The only thing that we can learn from someone else easing our hard times by being forced to provide money, housing or more, is that voting for things is a lot easier than working for them. But if we do that, we have been robbed of the learning, the joy, of having done it for ourselves. And we have also been robbed of the perhaps even deeper learning that comes from having tried and failed. Success comes more from previous failures than from previous successes.

Imagine that we, you and I, are at an important high school football game, where we are closely connected to one team, and are rooting loudly for them. Mid-way through the third quarter, our star running back is brought down by and very hard hit from a much bigger opposing player, and is knocked out of the game. It was a clean tackle, and he will be back for the next game, but he is out for the rest of today. Now imagine that the refs stop the game, announcing that is was unfair that our player was put of the game by a much bigger player. Because of that unfairness, the refs awarded the now tied game to us. Victory! Of sorts. It would seem like a hollow victory at best, leaving a bad taste in our mouths. And imagine the reaction on the...

View Details

Summary

The term “celebrity opinions” is neither an oxymoron, nor is it a signal that we are about to hear the truth. “Expert opinion” is different. A celebrity is clearly qualified to give an expert opinion in their sport or art, but that’s it. Kanye West and Robert De Niro can give a legitimate expert opinion on rap or acting, respectively, but their opinions on finance or politics, are about as valuable, as, well, my opinions on rap and acting.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack the difference between opinions from experts, and opinions from non-experts who have all the credibility on the subject matter at hand as, well, the guy in front of you in the line for coffee or movie tickets. (And I have not forgotten about Liam Neeson.)

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack the difference between opinions from experts, and opinions from non-experts who have all the same credibility on the subject matter at hand as, well, the guy in front of you in the line for coffee or movie tickets. (And I have not forgotten about Liam Neeson.)

Even celebrities like the Kardashians are experts in their field, this “field” being getting rich over being famous for being famous. Like Zsa Zsa Gabor before them, that’s what they do. And elements of our society have rewarded them handsomely them for it.

Why is it that we not only listen to celebrities when they hold forth on topics like politics and economics, but we take what they have to say to heart? I want to hear what a starting running back in the NFL has to say about the sport in general, and specific topics like the need to set up the running game to bolster the passing game. I enjoy listening to experts, and I could very easily learn something. I am happy to listen to him talk about politics, but I would give his thoughts on that subject about the same weight as he would my comments about how best to plan and execute a winning NFL running game. Politics is not his expertise, and football is not mine. We should both listen to each other as individual non-experts, entitled to our opinions. But no more. Yes, we can each hope to be heard as we recite our own story, our personal view of the subjects, but as legitimate as those stories are, they are just that: one person’s story. These stories are highly anecdotal, with no statistical significance at all, and no expertise being used to advance the thinking on the matter at hand. All of that seems obvious.

So why do we do listen to celebrities when they are talking outside of their expertise?? Do we believe that actors who play successful politicians in a movie actually have political expertise? Did we believe that when Robert Redford played in “The Natural”, that he had could have been a superstar baseball player? Do we believe that a singer who has a hit song about how things should be, actually knows about how to change the world along the lines of the way things should be? I don’t think any of these things are true. Do you?

Today’s Key Point: With the decline of critical thinking, both in education and in the public debate, we no longer have that critical thinking as a standard by which to filter and judge the validity and worth of what we are seeing and hearing. This leaves a gap, and we have substituted popularity and notoriety in its place. We have traded critical thinking for having our opinions given to us by “celebrities.” And here the word celebrities includes not only athletes and artists, but voices on the radio and talking heads on TV.

This abandonment of

View Details

Summary

Have you heard about the man from India who plans to sue his parents for being born without his permission? The remedy he seeks is lifetime financial support. Everyone sees this man, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287 (Raphael Samuel), as somewhere between being the most entitled person on earth, or simply a lunatic. Perhaps both.

We’ll look at Mr. Samuels’ demands of his parents, and compare them with the Green New Deal’s demands of American taxpayers.

The https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-congress-green-new-deal-resolution-introduced-by-rep-alexandra-ocasio-cortez/ (Green New Deal), among other things, requires:

“4.15 providing all of the people of the United States with–

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) access to clear water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

Pause for clarification: Robert Hockett, Cornell law professor and adviser to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, has admitted, after several previous denials, that an official “Green New Deal” document posted by Ocasio-Cortez’s office contained a guarantee of economic security even for those “unwilling to work”

Turns out that Mr. Samuels is too modest in his demands of his parents. Perhaps he should amend his parental lawsuit, substituting the Green New Deal language. It would get even better for Mr. Samuels when you look at the dozens of other requirements in the Resolution–as we will in this podcast.

This Resolution, a “10-year national mobilization” is backed by many leading names in the Democratic party, including currently leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, with Rep Ocasio-Cortez, D-NYC, Sen Ed. Markey, D-NY, Sen Elizabeth Warren, D-NY, Sen Kamala Harris, D-CA, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY and Sen Cory Booker, D-NJ.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what this kind of thinking, this type of plan for our nation, would mean to us, our communities and America.

Transcript

We’ll look at Mr. Samuels’ demands of his parents, and compare them with the Green New Deal’s demands of American taxpayers.

The https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/08/heres-the-full-text-of-congress-green-new-deal-resolution-introduced-by-rep-alexandra-ocasio-cortez/ (Green New Deal), among other things, requires:

“4.15 providing all of the people of the United States with–

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) access to clear water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

This Resolution, a “10-year national mobilization” is backed by many leading names in the Democratic party, with currently leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, including Rep Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, Sen Ed. Markey, D-NY, Sen Elizabeth Warren, D-NY, Sen Kamala Harris, D-CA, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY and Sen Cory Booker, D-NJ.

For the next

View Details

Summary

Ralph Northam, Governor of Virginia, should resign. But not for the reasons that most people are citing–the outrageous photo on his medical school yearbook page showing youths, one in blackface and the other in full KKK garb. He originally admitted to having been one of the men, and later simply denied it. He is clearly backpedaling, and not telling the truth. Perhaps to soften the lie, he then admitted to having appeared in blackface at least once when impersonating Michael Jackson. Once again, it is not the original action that brings people down; it is the coverup. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal (Watergate).)

People who make mistakes, repent and learn from them can be valuable teachers and leaders. Northam has demonstrated neither repentance nor learning. He is simply stonewalling, hoping that the news cycle will forget about him, and that he will not have to resign. And he is the same man who accused his 2017 gubernatorial election opponent of racism multiple times during the campaign. That is why he should resign.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to have made a mistake, repented and learned from it, as opposed to having make the same mistake with no repentance, no shame and no learning.

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to have made a mistake, repented and learned from it, as opposed to having make the same mistake with no repentance, no shame and no learning.

Today’s Key Point, part 1: Today’s PC culture, PCism, of self-righteous intimidation is doing major damage. PCism should not be dismissed humorously, or even bitterly, as merely a language nuisance. PSism is aimed at limiting and directing our thoughts and speech.

Similar to Strother Martin’s role in https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/cool_hand_luke (Cool Hand Luke), a movie where Martin works constantly to get a prisoner, Paul Newman’s “mind right.” Martin is the Captain of the guards in this Southern chain gang prison. Newman, Luke, is a prisoner. Martin uses his power as the Captain on Luke throughout the movie through intimidation, beatings and worse, to change how Luke thinks. Captain, “You’re gonna get your mind right. And I mean right.” It is important to note here that Luke was not a problem prisoner–at least in the way that most of us would define the term problem prisoner. He was quietly irreverent; he did not suck up to barracks and chain gang guards in the obsequious way that most prisoners did. That’s enough for the power structure to need to come down hard on Luke. Very hard. And all for easily overlooked slights. The specific slights were not the issue; the prison authorities saw that Luke’s mind was running on a track different track than what they wanted. And they saw that thought difference as dangerous. Luke was different. All the lumps in the mashed potatoes had to be beaten out. That’s...

View Details

Summary

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Revolution 1.0) was the Founders’ Love Letter to America. Revolution 2.0™ is mine.

I am in love with that vision, with the people who risked everything to give that vision life, with the people who have not only kept it alive for us, but have delivered on its promise the past 2 ½ centuries, and with you, my brothers and sisters. We are the inheritors of both this breakthrough vision and the responsibility for continuing to deliver on the promissory note, to continue to more forward with the Declaration’s statement of direction, to fulfill the promissory note.

I categorically reject, based on facts we will discuss together, the idea that our country, America, is anything less than the deliverer of that unique, powerful and overwhelming loving vision; it delivered that vision to itself and to the world. For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what I mean when I write that Revolution 2.0™ is, “A Booster Shot”, and why Revolution 2.0 is, at its core, a Love Letter to America.

Transcript

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Revolution 1.0) was the Founders’ Love Letter to America. Revolution 2.0™ is mine.

We have forgotten how utterly revolutionary these principles were in 1776. Until the late 20th century, democracy alone was rare and generally short-lived.

The radical principles set forth in the Declaration were clearly a statement of direction, a promise made to America. There would never have been an America in the first place if the Founders had insisted on full acceptance of these principles from the beginning. With numerous ups and downs, deep embarrassments and moments of intense pride, and at great cost to our country in terms of time, treasure and blood, we have steadily advanced that fantastic, dangerous, breakthrough vision for ourselves and much of the world. Along the way, and by no coincidence, these principles created what is today the world’s most diverse nation, and the strongest and most financially successful one the world has ever seen.

This bears repeating: Along the way, and by no coincidence, these principles created what is today the world’s most diverse nation, and the strongest and most financially...

View Details

Summary

We are being told by a growing crowd that health care and housing are human rights. “Human rights” being another way of saying “should be provided by taxpayers.” Given that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare and housing than food, the next thing we hear will be that food is a human right. And not long after that, clothing. And isn’t some sort of entertainment necessary for good mental health? When the necessities of life are all seen as human rights, who will work–and why?

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what that means for all of us and our futures as individuals and as a Republic.

Transcript

We are being told by a growing crowd that health care and housing are human rights. “Human rights” being another way of saying “should be provided by taxpayers.” Given that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare and housing than without food, the next thing we hear will be that food is a human right. And not long after that, clothing. And isn’t some sort of entertainment necessary for good mental health? When the necessities of life are all seen as human rights, who will work–and why?

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what this means for all of us and our futures as individuals and as a Republic.

Today’s Key Point: Housing, healthcare, food, shelter and clothing, among other things, are not human rights to be guaranteed to everyone. Our communities, our nation, should–must–provide reasonable access to all the necessities of life to everyone. At its core, reasonable access means that anyone who works hard over time should have access to all of these products and services for themselves and for all of those for whom they are responsible. If someone can’t do for themselves, then the necessities should be provided. If someone won’t do for themselves, they properly and by their own choice are on their own.

We make huge progress by merely bringing up the can’t vs won’t choice. The many and growing taxpayer-funded programs all ignore this question, and focus only on perceived need. All regardless of whether that need was generated by an honest inability, after working hard over time, to provide for themselves, or if the need was generated from something less than that level of effort. Or from something that did not look like at all like an honest, hard-fought desire to make it on their own.

Life is hard, and it is correctly meant to be that way. Don’t we all learn far more from the hard times that we work through, than the easy times? Of course we do. And I am exactly the same way. The good news is that while life is hard, once we understand that, the truth of the statement that life is hard, life gets a lot easier. Once the expectation has been set and understood, it’s not so bad. In fact it’s pretty good.

Pause for a definition. By “hard”, I do not mean going to work, picking the kids up from school and doing the dishes. That may be boring and repetitive, and, perhaps, not what you’d like to do with each and every day, but it is not hard. Hard is working while putting yourself through undergraduate and graduate school. Signing for student loans is not hard. Hard is going to night school while working in a dead end job. Seeking taxpayer support because your job is being threatened by technology is not hard. You get the idea.

Does this sound hard-hearted to you? It doesn’t to me. At all. It does not even sound like “tough love” to me. It is a necessary observation about how the world, with us in it, is correctly designed to allow us, you and me, to take advantage of the hard parts in our lives by learning from those experiences. And by learning to be tough enough to keep on keeping on. In exactly the same way that your body repairs or replaces damaged muscle fibers after a workout, making you stronger. No workout, no muscle growth. No hard experiences in life, no growth.

Key Point No. 2 (Do I get two today?): If we as individuals and a society protect others from “hard”, we are doing them a great disservice. Most conversation about providing welfare focuses on the burden placed on the taxpayers. As true as that is, it’s not my point here. The great disservice is to those from whom the opportunity to learn from hardship, to learn to prosper from gritting it out, has been stolen. Yes, stolen. Stolen by the cruel fiction that life should not be hard, and if it is hard, it means that it is unfair. Q.E.D. And “unfair” is presented in many ways, including victimhood, identity politics and the like.

Let’s test Revolution 2.0’s two main tenets on today’s principles:

Tenet no. 1. Personal Responsibility. Take it. Teach it. This is an easy application. Life is hard. Don’t just “deal with it”, embrace it. Thrive in spite of it all. And model that behavior for others.
Tenet no. 2. Be Your Brother’s Keeper. This is a little less obvious in today’s application. Here, you, the Keeper, are not there simply to supply cash and other necessities for your Brother; you are there to supply learning and motivation. Remember the lesson about giving a man a fish, as opposed to teaching him how to fish? Well, teaching him how to fish is not useful unless he wants to fish for himself after the lessons. If all he gets from you is learning how to fish, and not the importance of–the dignity that comes from–fishing for himself, not much has been accomplished. I’ll go a step further here: to the extent that people are not teaching this principle, they do everyone a disservice. And to the extent that they teach the opposite, teaching that dignity and worth can be derived from victimhood-based entitlements, instead of teaching that dignity and worth are derived–and derived only–from hard work over time, they are perpetuating an injustice bordering on evil on all of us–and our nation.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

If we apply those two core principles simultaneously, never only one or the other, we will always be on the right path. Depending upon what we face, one principle or the other may appropriately be given more emphasis, but they are always acted upon together.

The Founders, Revolution 1.0, were declared traitors by the British Crown, and their lives were forfeit if caught. We risk very little by stepping up and participating in Revolution 2.0™. . In fact, we risk our futures if we don’t. I am inviting you, recruiting you, to join Revolution 2.0™ today. Join with me in using what we know how to do–what we know we must do–to everyone’s advantage. Let’s practice thinking well of others as we seek common goals, research the facts that apply to those goals, and use non agenda-based reasoning to achieve those goals together. Practice personal responsibility and be your brother’s keeper.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, recruit, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

Join me. Join the others. Let’s grow this together.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Links and References

Can’t or Won’t?

Money and Dignity

Life is Hard

Housing is a Human Right

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do respond in the blog with comments or questions about this podcast or anything that comes to mind, or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Now it is time for our usual parting thought. It is not enough to be informed. It is not enough to be a well informed voter. We need to act. And if we, you and I, don’t do something, then the others who are doing something, will continue to run the show

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary

If you think that healthcare and higher education are expensive now, wait until they are free.

When people pay for goods or services with their own money, they are price sensitive, and shop carefully, balancing their needs and wants with what those things cost. When they shop for the same goods or services with taxpayer money, price sensitivity is replaced by the simple desire to have what they want. Healthcare and college costs are soaring far faster than inflation for just these reasons.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what that means for the future of our Republic.

Transcript

If you think that healthcare and higher education are expensive now, wait until they are free.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what that means for the future of our Republic.

Let’s take a look at some very instructive examples. When a person buys something for themselves or someone very close to them, they look carefully at both price and quality. When they are using their money to buy something for a near stranger, say at the office Christmas gift exchange, price is important, but quality becomes less important. When they are able to use 3rd party money for something for themselves, quality is still important, but price becomes less important. Finally, when someone, perhaps one of us, is able to use 3rd party money to buy a gift for a stranger or near-stranger, neither price nor quality are all that critical. This last example is exactly what happens when laws are passed to use taxpayer money, 3rd party money, to supply benefits for others–voters, in this case. The politician is much less concerned with the price or even the quality of the goods or services being provided–the driving concern is votes. Buying votes. Buying our votes.

Medicare is predicted to go broke by 2026, 3 years earlier than predicted just a year ago. Yet there are more and more voices calling for Medicare For All. Social Security is predicted to go broke by 2034, driven by many factors, including the expansion of benefits far beyond what was envisioned on day one. But politicians are afraid to make even the most reasonable changes to keep Social Security solvent.

Today’s key point: with more and more taxpayer money being poured into healthcare and higher education, the lack of price sensitivity on the part of the users of those goods and services will allow the vendors, healthcare providers and colleges and universities, to continue to raise prices higher and higher, with no lessening of demand. Spending taxpayer money on what we want breaks the usual, and useful, laws of supply and demand.

In higher education, liberal access to large amounts of taxpayer-guaranteed student loans is resulting in educational institutions being awash with cash–cash from students who are far less price conscious because of the virtually unlimited supply of taxpayer-guaranteed loans. Most Americans can’t remember a time when politicians weren’t claiming to make education more affordable by funneling more money to colleges. But after the latest surge in college “affordability” policies, implemented over the last decade, the staggering costs are becoming clear.

Expanding federal grants and loans to finance higher education has predictably given colleges the ability to raise prices, which in turn requires students to take on even more debt to pay the new higher prices. It’s not a new story. In 1965, DC launched a program to make college “affordable” by offering a taxpayer guarantee on student loans. By an amazing coincidence college costs have been rising much faster than inflation ever since. Today, student loans total over $1.5 T (that’s trillion); more than credit cards or car loans. Taxpayers must pay when if the student does not. And there are increasing amounts of not-well-publicized taxpayer subsidies in the form of government loan forgiveness for taking certain types of jobs–jobs that pay in addition to reducing the borrower’s student loans. The small piece of good news here is that the economy is so robust that some employers are offering to help pay off loans in certain professions to attract and keep employees.

Additionally, there is a growing danger here from two movements, both of which promise to drastically expand the kind of taxpayer-funded programs we are talking about in this podcast: 1. The “X” is a human right” and 2. “X” makes our society better.”

Let’s take the “human right” argument first. We are being told by a growing crowd that health care and housing are human rights. “Human rights” being another way of saying “should be provided by taxpayers.” Given that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare and housing than food, the next thing we hear will be that food is a human right. And not long after that, clothing. And isn’t some sort of entertainment necessary for good mental health? When the necessities of life are all seen as human rights, and therefore taxpayer funded, who will work?

Now, for the “makes our society better” argument. For example, an educated population is good for society, therefore college should taxpayer funded. Well, there are lots of things that are good for society. A population that is well-fed, can travel to new places, is able to enjoy and learn from the arts, and more, is good for society. But does that mean that taxpayers should pay for everything that is good for our communities and our society? Of course not.

There are solutions everywhere–when the consumer, the person using the goods or services, has enough skin in the game to carefully look at price and quality before making a selection, things get dramatically better. In the healthcare world, one of the two examples at the beginning of this podcast, LASIK surgery and plastic surgery, are areas where quality has gone way up, while prices have plummeted. Why? The consumer has, pun intended, skin in the game. They were motivated to look for price and quality in these areas, and the providers responded. And where consumers are not motivated to look for price and quality, providers can pretty much do as they please. (Perhaps we will look at government price controls in another podcast.)

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, recruit, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

Medicare Insolvency

Is Healthcare a Right?

Contact

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary

Identity politics is quickly becoming a dangerous trend. It is bad enough when we do it to ourselves, for example, “I am Asian, therefore I will vote for Asian candidates because only they will have my best interests in mind.” It gets far worse when the identity group is assigned to us, and then we are kept in line, by being told, for example, “You are a woman, and if you don’t vote for women candidates wherever possible, you are being a traitor to your gender.”

Nazi Germany identified groups; Jews, homosexuals, the mentally ill, gypsies, and more, and assigned them to concentration camps. Note the name: these identified groups were concentrated in camps, not wanting them to mingle with the rest of the populace, and making it easier to punish them. WWII America forced the relocation and incarceration in concentration camps in the western interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry. Oh, and the US Supreme Court was just fine that.

Powerful forces, political and otherwise, are using identity politics to force us into ideological camps, and punishing us when we think and act outside of the thinking and actions that are expected and allowed to those identity groups.

For the next 10 minutes, we will tie these two subjects together, and talk about what it means for our Republic.

Transcript

Powerful forces, political and otherwise, are using identity politics to force us into ideological camps, and punishing us when we think and act outside of those camps, outside of the thinking and actions that are expected and allowed to those identity groups.

For the next 10 minutes, we will tie these two subjects together, and talk about what it means for our Republic.

Today’s Key Point: Forces that push groups identified by gender, race, religion, disabilities, sexual preference and the like, into camps are always doing the wrong thing. And it does not matter if the camps are secured by physical walls backed by guards, or thought- and action-control walls backed by verbal (and physical) bullies.

Moreover, assigned identity groups are told which other groups to ally with, and which groups are their natural enemies. This dangerous extension of identity groups is something called intersectionality.

On an international scale, intersectionality, groups pre-aligned with each other against other groups that were also pre-aligned with each other, led to the devastation of WWI in 1914. A Serbian assassinated the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Austria appealed to Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany for support, should any shooting start, before they dealt with Serbia, initially believing that Serbia would promptly surrender in guilt for the assassination. Bolstered by Germany’s support, Austria refused to be at all reasonable with Serbia, and pushed for war. In what could be seen as an international bar fight stemming from a single aasination, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire (the Central Powers) fought against Great Britain, France, Russia, Italy, Romania, Japan and the United States (the Allied Powers).

If Austria hadn’t had a “blank check” from Germany, bolstering its “courage” in dealing with Serbia, is there any doubt that the assassination would not have resulted in a world war? A single assassination might have resulted in economic or other sanctions, but nothing more. It was the bravado, the feeling of power and self-righteousness, that came from being part of the Central Powers group, that was the real trigger for the war, not the murder.

This is exactly where we are headed, where we are being herded, in the US today. Yes, we have enemies, but not the enemies that the intesectionalists want us to see. Whites and blacks are not enemies; men and women are not enemies, Christians and secularists are not enemies. And intersectionality, groups against groups, is encouraging us to take small slights, real or imagined, seriously enough to start political wars. Wearing the wrong hat (pink or red), holding up the wrong sign, espousing the wrong cause, can incite real anger and hostility.

All of us, every last one of us, do indeed have natural enemies; self-serving leaders and casual voters are the enemy. The self-serving leaders part is obvious; casual voters may need explaining. To start with, if we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters. As always, it is not on “them”, it is on us. Casual voters are the ones who get their information from sources they know will agree with their current beliefs and convictions. Casual voters are the ones who think that sayings and slogans constitute thought and well-formed arguments. Casual voting is part of what has produced the political taffy pull that we are seeing today. Casual voting will never, never, produce the candidates and officeholders we need.

To get the leaders we need, we voters need to do in-depth research on the issues ourselves. Walter Cronkite is dead; the days where the evening news on the three networks was (mostly) unbiased reporting are gone. Where once you could flip through the three channels, and get pretty much the same unbiased, straight reporting, take on the news of the day from each one, are behind us. Today, virtually all news source have a spin, a bias, a point of view. We need to dig. We must do our own research, go to sources with differing opinions and biases. Know our history and how that history informs today’s debates. Know at least some world history. Think. We need to let ourselves see real facts, no matter how challenging those facts may be to our current worldview. Facts and non agenda-based logic will lead us to the truth. And the truth will indeed set us free. Free from slogans and cliches. Free from being assigned identity groups. Free from the intersectionality wars.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, recruit, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

Identity Politics–Wikipedia

Identity Politics–Podcast

It is time for our usual parting thought. For us at Revolution 2.0, it is not only change your thinking, change your life. It is change your thinking, change your actions, change the world. And if you can do it in love and enjoy the people around you at the same time, all the better.

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary

This is a highly controversial subject, but it should not be. Using simple common sense, it becomes so very clear cut.

In the United States alone, we perform over one million–one million–abortions each and every year. I start with this concrete fact to alert all of us to the critical nature of this discussion, and to the vital importance of getting the answer to this much discussed and controversial question absolutely right. The core of this question is life and death on a massive scale. Many times bigger than all of our war deaths, gun crime fatalities, deaths due to alcohol and other drugs. Anything.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack this critical and controversial subject–and come up with some answers.

Transcript

This is a highly controversial subject, but it should not be. Using simple common sense, it becomes so very clear cut.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack this critical and controversial subject–and come up with some answers.

Given the magnitude of this topic, let’s put away all of our preconceived notions, and ask the the only two questions that need to be and must be asked and answered:

When does life begin? and
When is it acceptable for the state to sanction the taking of a life?

And don’t we need to know exactly when life starts; I mean with great precision? Without being able to pinpoint the moment when life starts, we are clearly left with an agonizing grey area. As in the grey area when the fetus might be a life, and then again, it might not be. Is it a non-viable tissue mass or is it a human? In this grey area, aren’t we obligated to give the benefit of the doubt to the fetus, and treat it like a living human? We can’t be willing to abort a fetus if it might be a living human any more than we would fire a shotgun into a darkened room, not knowing if anyone was there or not.

Now that we know that we need a precise moment, what is that moment? Using trimesters doesn’t give us that moment. Cutting the cord is a precise moment, but we clearly have a child by then, so that does not help. Is it when the entire baby emerges, or just the head? And if we call the baby fully emerging the test for the precise moment, what is so special about the feet? And how do you handle your thinking with breech babies and C-sections? The only precise moment in the whole process is conception. That’s when human life begins.

Now comes perhaps the more important question of when it is appropriate for the state to sanction the taking of a human life. Wars, law enforcement and self-defense are accepted examples. Capital punishment is more controversial. Now, what about the taking of a life for economic purposes, or simply for convenience or personal preference? As in the prospective parents cannot afford to have that child? Or convenience, as in it would be a 20-year burden to have this child? Or because the child might be mentally challenged? Or the wrong sex? What about when it is highly likely that the child will grow up with few–if any–advantages–and be born into the middle of a drug-infested, ganbanger neighborhood? Is it OK to kill the child under any of these circumstances? Because that’s exactly what we are doing now. We don’t want this person, so we pretend that it is not a person. And when we convince ourselves that a class of beings is not human, we have given ourselves permission to do anything we want with them. Blacks were not seen as human, so it was OK to enslave them. Jews were declared not human, so concentration camps and mass extermination were OK. And now the issue is the child in the womb. If it is judged to be not human, it is OK to exterminate it. But it is a child, and if we, as individuals or a society, want to do away with it, let’s at least say out loud what we are doing. We are taking a human life for convenience. We should be ashamed of our attempt at absolving ourselves of our crimes with the pretense that it was not human in the first place.

Most of us have a very hard time imagining the twisted logic and moral void that would have been required to see either blacks or Jews as non-human–and then act on that belief. We revere the abolitionists and the occasional Holocaust savior like Oskar Schindler, while we despise the Nazis and hate the slave owners. But which are we; are we good guys or are we participating in evil? Even if we are not directly involved in abortions, we are participants in that we allow them to proceed. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” –Edmund Burke, Irish statesman and philosopher.

The people involved in the recent March for Life were doing something. What can we do? What can you do? It is not hard to imagine a world in the not-too-distant future where the people look back on abortion with the same disbelief and horror as we now see slavery and the Holocaust. How will they see us; you and me? How will history judge us? After a deep examination of this subject, how do we see ourselves?

Forget the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade; this is not a legal question; it is moral one. And, as with all laws, the laws should arise from morals; we should not be aligning our morals to comply with current law.

A quick note on two arguments we often hear in defense of abortion, e.g., “A woman can do anything she wants with her own body.” First, if it is a child, and that is the clear case I am making here,, it is not her body. It is separate person with his or her own DNA. Second, a woman cannot do whatever she wants with her body any more than I can. She is not allowed to punch someone in the nose even if her fist is part of her body. And I cannot take what I want from a store without paying, even if I do it with my own body.

And what about a woman’s reproductive rights? Good question. She has 100% control over her reproductive rights, as does a man, until the moment she has a separate person growing inside her.

How’s that for coming to a hard and fast conclusion on one of the most debated and controversial issues for our day? To me, it is just Common Sense. Nothing more.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, recruit, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

March for Life

Common Sense

It is time for our usual parting thought. For us at Results With Reason, it is not only change your thinking, change your life. It is change your thinking, change your actions, change the world. And if you can do it in love and enjoy the people around you at the same time, all the better.

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary

Don’t like this choice? How about a choice between leftover cube steak and a bunless hot dog? This is how about a third of the electorate saw the 2016 Presidential choice. In round numbers, about a third hated DJT, another third hated HRC, and the last third hated the choice. Yes, many voters genuinely wanted one candidate or the other, and were quite happy with their choice. I am in the third that was unhappy with the choice I faced. Of the 17 Republican primary candidates, I saw Trump as my 18th choice, but then Republicans selected him as their standard bearer. Despite Sanders’ best efforts, that result was never in doubt on the other side; there was never a chance that Clinton would not be the Democratic candidate.

If you were happy with your choice, then I’m happy for you.

However, with 130 million votes being cast, that means about 43 million voters were disgusted with the choice they faced. For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what that means for the future of our Republic.

Transcript

If you were happy with your choice, then I’m happy for you.However, with 130 million votes being cast, that means about 43 million voters were disgusted with the choice they faced. For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what that means for the future of our Republic.

Here is the evolution of the thinking that I have seen since the 60s when I first started voting. Caution, this is highly anecdotal, but still revealing.

“I like this guy a bit better than his opponent.”
“The other guy is not at all to my liking.”
“I could never–ever–vote for the other guy.”
The people who voted for X are idiots, and have no idea of what is good for them. By voting for X, they have proven that they have betrayed their race/gender/class.” (Pick one or more.)
The Jackson Pollack approach to voting mail-in ballots. Spill spaghetti sauce on the ballot, let it dry, and turn it in. (Okay, a little dark humor.)
“Not My President!”
Overturn the election, and change the Constitution so this can never happen again. Both parties are capable of that.

There is a ratchet effect here, creating evermore polarization, division and, increasingly, hatred. Divide and conquer is an age-old strategy, used by rulers and other leaders to do exactly that; divide and conquer. Many of our leaders do this to advantage their careers and their party. All to our detriment. Think about this for a moment; no matter who wins, this kind of deepening division will take us all down. If we stay on this path, one side will emerge triumphant, and the other defeated. That’s clearly a formula for more hating, and more fighting. Including physical fighting.

Today’s Key Point: If we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters. If let them, our leaders will continue to further divide us for their benefit. If we let them, and so far it seems to be working for them quite well. We’re falling for it. We often quote talking points from the politicians and media we favor. We listen to the voices who all share the same viewpoints, then go with that. We need to do at least a little thinking for ourselves. We were not designed to be parrots or recording machines. Here’s an example; I consult six different news sources, sources with different biases and viewpoints, before I think I think anything. And it is where those sources all overlap that the truth lies.

Knowing history is also key. So much of what we are seeing and facing today has been played out before. What were those historical results? What can be applied to our thinking today so that we do not to make the same mistakes–and can repeat the successes? We all want to trust the media and our politicians, but it is irresponsible if we trust but don’t verify. Get the facts, dig for the truth, then go back to and check to see which sources are worth trusting, and which sources are not worth trusting. Trustworthy sources are becoming like unicorns. We must all do our homework.

Q. What’s the key to finding the truth? A. Wanting to find the truth, and not just wanting to reinforce our current thinking. We have to be more open to learning, and possibly being wrong, than looking to shore up our need to be right. Come to think of it, maybe that’s today’s point. What are your thoughts?

Think about what the 43 million voters who were deeply unhappy with their 2016 choice want today. Do they want a 3rd Party? They might be somewhat mollified if one of the major parties came up with a candidate more to their liking, but for 2020 that does not seem likely. Will they vote for an existing minor party, or would they consider that to be wasting their votes? Might they get so disgusted as to not vote at all?

All of us, all three thirds of the voters; happy Clinton and Trump voters and the miserable last third, need to want our country to succeed, regardless of which party wins on which policy debate. This is not about which party wins, it is about our country winning. And we need all three thirds to sit down in the boat and row. After all, we have only one government at a time. This does not mean that we compromise any of our individual principles and beliefs; it means that we get it that we are on a Team of Rivals. That was Lincoln’s approach to governing. And Franklin Roosevelt used that method as well, much to our country’s advantage in WWII. Rivals, even ones we do not like, have much to contribute. Here’s Lincoln on that subject. “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.” -Abe Lincoln. I am working on rising to that standard.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, recruit, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

You Can Be Right, Or You Can Change the World

Compromise

Time For a Third Party

Team of Rivals

Contact

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary

Compromise, or the lack thereof, is much in the news. In the political arena, the voices calling for compromise are currently credited as being the more rational. For example, the part of the secure borders discussion focusing on the use of walls has led to calls for “splitting the difference” between President Trump wants in funding, and what Democratic leaders are willing to fund.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to compromise; where compromise works and produces desirable results, and where it does not. And the “does not” part is by far the majority.

Transcript

Compromise, or the lack thereof, is much in the news. In the political arena, the voices calling for compromise are currently credited as being the more rational. For example, the part of the secure borders discussion focusing on the use of walls has led to calls for “splitting the difference” between what President Trump wants in funding, and what Democratic leaders are willing to fund.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to compromise; where compromise works and produces desirable results, and where it does not. And the “does not” part is by far the majority.

Compromise can be effective, i.e., it can produce desired results in Zero Sum situations. A zero sum situation or game, is one where one person or groups wins, and the other must lose. And for as rare as those situations are, most of us treat all situations like zero sum games, one that must have both a winner and a loser. If you see the winner as +1, and the loser as -1, then you can see that the sum, “+1 and -1”, is zero. Here’s a couple examples; who washes the dishes and sports games. If a couple is discussing dinner dishes, this zero sum game clearly lends itself to compromise. One solution could be to alternate nights. Easy. In sports, another zero sum situation, no compromise is even discussed. Both teams want to win.

In politics there are very few zero sum situations, but both sides want to win anyway–and have the other side lose. That’s a formula for having everyone lose. Most, especially politicians and the press, and too many voters, treat every situation like one that must have both a winner and a loser. The use of walls as part of border security is a current example. This is not a zero sum situation, and this is not an example of where compromise can lead to the best results–or even good results. Professionals, e.g., engineers and other subject matter experts, not politicians, should make the decision about if and where walls should be used to meet the goal of making our borders as secure as possible, with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Once that question has been answered by the non-political experts, politicians need to fund the amount required by the solution. The answer, not subject to compromise, could be anywhere from $0 to $10B. Any compromise would weaken the solution.

Compromise is often held up as the intelligent, emotionally stable way of reaching agreement with another while preserving – or even enhancing – the relationship.

Careful; with the way compromise is being taught, it’s a dangerous thought process that often leads us to the wrong conclusion. Okay, how on earth could compromising be a trap? Because “splitting the difference” or “meeting others half-way” may easily lead to the wrong solution. A solution that can not only be sub-optimal, but can hurt the relationship and be bad for both sides, as well as others who are affected by it.

Today’s Key Point: The point here is not to get rid of the notion of cooperating with others and working things out; the point is to drop the idea that splitting the difference is the way to do it. Substitute finding the “best solution” for “splitting the difference” and good things happen. Splitting the difference is easy; kinda the lazy way of figuring things out. Finding the best solution takes a bit more time and mental energy, but it is well worth it.

Compromise has been described as a solution where both sides feel equally screwed. There is some intended humor here, but this illustrates a core point: Neither side got what they wanted, and both feel like they gave up something for an easing of tensions. Drop all thought that we, our side or our party, must have its way; drop that definition of winning. Replace it thinking that seeks creative solutions that create win-wins for everyone. Remember, it is win-win, or no deal.

This approach works. But nothing works until you do it. Try this and let me know.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, recruit, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

Zero Sum Game

Compromise

America First?

Contact

As we get ready to wrap up, please do reach out with comments or questions about this podcast or anything that comes to mind. You can email me at will@revolution2-0.org, or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary

I’m not talking about having a laugh a minute. I am talking about the deep satisfaction that comes from knowing that you are on the right track. That doesn’t always feel like fun, but it almost always feels right. And when things don’t feel right, stop and ask, “Is this temporary, like am I having to work through a hard spot, or I am off track?” When you ask yourself questions like that, go to the place where you tell yourself the truth, and ask again. You will get the answer. Promise. And we all have that “truth” place. Sometimes we deny that we have that place because we are not ready to deal with the truth right then, but it is there. Find it. Go there.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means when we are simply not having any fun, and how to fix it.

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means when we are simply not having any fun, and how to fix it.

We all have a built-in barometer that tells us if we are on the right track or not. We just have to be aware of our barometers. It will let us know. We are in the same danger of falling off track if we sense it, our built-in barometer, and pay not attention as if we don’t listen for it in the first place. We are all familiar with that underlying feeling of satisfaction, almost like a quiet buzz, that rises up as just plain fun from time-to-time. And if that is not happening for you, something is wrong. Do not ignore that feeling, passing it off with a false thought, like life is supposed to be this way for some reason or other. Life is supposed to be hard: Life “rules” are simple to understand, hard to implement, and immensely satisfying when done well. Real fun, real satisfaction, comes only from hard.

There are different names for what I am calling our built-in barometer. Other names include instinct, gut feeling and hunch. Perhaps you have your own name for it. Regardless of the name, I have found that everytime I allow my intellect to overrode my instinct, my barometer, I screw up. Everytime. Not most of the time. Everytime.

Today’s key point. Politics today is no fun at all. Accusations, invective, vitriol, “my side can beat up your side” and overall dislike and distaste for anyone or any group that does line up with with “correct” thinking, make politics entirely devoid of any fun or genuine satisfaction at all. Something’s wrong in our politics. Something is very wrong in our politics.

Until we return to politicians seeking to advance the common goals, the common good, instead of advancing their careers and the power of their party, nothing will change. Until we citizens and voters start demanding more of ourselves in terms of having a true understanding of the real issues–along with understanding the history of these issues and history in general–nothing will change. Until we all get it that unless we all win, that unless America’s needs–not ours or our party’s needs–are met, nothing will change.

“We must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately” -Ben Franklin. When Franklin said this, he was being quite literal. If the Revolutionaires did not hang together and win, the British would physically hang them all separately. Today we do not risk physical death by not hanging together, we risk political and financial death. We risk the loss of our freedoms, the loss of our integrity, and the loss of any claim to any kind of moral authority as a nation. Which loss is worse, the loss of life of the loss of freedom? Here’s another quote, ““Give me liberty, or give me death!” is a quotation attributed to Patrick Henry from a speech he made to the Second Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. Fortunately, we do not have to make this terrible choice. But we must choose to think differently, then act on that thinking. That’s a lot of what Revolution 2.0™ is all about.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

The Founders were declared traitors by the British Crown, and their lives were forfeit if caught. We risk very little by stepping up and participating. In fact, we risk our futures if we don’t. I am inviting you, recruiting you, to join Revolution 2.0™ today. Join with me in using what we know how to do–what we know we must do–to everyone’s advantage. Let’s practice thinking well of others as we seek common goals, research the facts that apply to those goals, and use non agenda-based reasoning to achieve those goals together. Practice personal responsibility and be your brother’s keeper.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

Ben Franklin Quote Meaning

Common Sense and Politics

Contact

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary:

No, I am not talking about a new party that will rise up and put us back on the right path. I am not talking about taking over one of the lesser parties and having that one rise up and take over.

I am talking about infiltrating each and every one of the existing parties, including Independents and Unaffiliateds, with a return to common goals, common sense, and a focus on what is best for America–not what is best for the individual politicians and their parties.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what this would mean to us individually and to our country.

Transcript:

No, I am not talking about a new party that will rise up and put us back on the right path. I am not talking about taking over one of the lesser parties and having that one rise up and take over.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what this would mean to us individually and to our country.

I don’t believe for a moment that we the people and our political parties are nearly as divided as the leaders, both in politics and in the media, want us to believe. The division we see and hear about every day is largely manufactured by the press and the parties. It is in their selfish best interest to create and widen the divisions that make them look good and their opposition look bad. And keep us focused on them, and not the issues that we all face.

Let’s look at some of the most controversial issues and ask ourselves why we are seeing all the snarling, insults and accusations–and little, if any, progress. Ready?

Immigration Reform. Stop with the wall/no wall shouting and posturing. Start with secure borders, including walls where engineers deem them the best solution, then build a path to legal residency for the 10M-20M who reside here illegally. This would include DACA, E-Verify and visa tracking. Yes, this would be amnesty, but with a secure border, the last one. And as we all know, repeat amnesties is another way of creating open borders. But this clear and workable solution would expose the people, on both sides, who want open borders, and are not yet ready to ‘fess up.

Healthcare. Enough Single Payer yelling back and forth. Start with tort reform, and the ability to sell health insurance across state lines. Perhaps add some sort of drug price monitoring. Tort reform would greatly reduce the crippling medically-related legal fees–and most of Congress is comprised of lawyers.

Social Security. When it was first enacted in 1940, the payoff age, 65, was 3 years past the then current life expectancy of 62 years; today it is 82 years. We could immediately fix Social Security by adjusting the payoff age by half of the increasing life expectancy. Not retroactively, but going forward. Social Security would then be solvent, and retirees would be getting far more than when it was first enacted. Seems like a win-win.

Charter schools and school vouchers. The loudest voices want more money and have all the money go to public schools. Let’s tackle this issue with a look at what I believe should everyone’s goal. The best Pre K-12 education with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Test every solution against that goal. Are the voices demanding that all the money go to public schools willing to have this as a goal?

The list goes on and on; even the most controversial issues can be reduced to common goals, and a path to reach them. All of these–I believe obvious–solutions have two major flaws:

The leaders in the media and the political parties would have no idea what to say in front of a camera if they could not accuse “others” of being anti-American, borderline criminal, dishonest or robots doing the bidding of evil organizations like the NRA or Planned Parenthood.
These same leaders would actually have to lead, rather than simply out-accuse or out-promise their opponents. And accusing and promising is so much easier than leading.

Today’s key point. The Revolution 2.0™ movement, our way of thinking, i.e., seeking common goals, and there are always bedrock common goals to be found, applying hard facts (courts call hard facts evidence), and applying non agenda-based reasoning to these facts to achieve the common goals, is a process that absolutely works. And this process needs be applied inside the existing power structures: the parties and the media. The Progressive Caucus does its work inside the Democratic Party; the Freedom Caucus does its work inside the Republican Party. Revolution 2.0 must do its work inside the parties and the media. This is not a partisan movement; it is a American movement. It must appear–with you in it–everywhere.

I get it that no matter how carefully and sincerely we follow the aforementioned Revolution 2.0 process, there will be disagreements and tensions. However, and this is a huge however, this process will yield creative tensions, not dysfunctional friction. Dysfunctional friction is what we have now. Creative tension is one of the Revolution 2.0 goals. And that’s what we all want, isn’t it?

At Revolution 2.0, we are here to change America. Inserting ourselves and our thinking everywhere is a major part of how we do exactly that.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

Please do visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see offered.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

Third Party

Ask The Right Question

Contact

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary:

I am not talking about trees, shopping and giving and receiving presents. Or even travelling and baking and rushing to get things done at the last minute.

I am talking about the spirit of Christmas. Listen to another voice: “And therefore, Uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that Christmas has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!” ― Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol. What is Fred, Scrooge’s Nephew, talking about? We all feel it at times; kindness, forbearance, friendlier greetings, placing others’ needs before ours. That Christmas smile in our hearts that translates into happiness for ourselves and those around us.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it would mean to have Christmas year round.

Transcript:

I am not talking about trees, shopping and giving and receiving presents. Or even travelling and baking and rushing to get things done at the last minute.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it would mean to have Christmas year round.

After Christmas, the post holidays slump hits. We’re tired, perhaps spent more money that we should have, and we are wondering where the energy and good feelings went. Now it’s January; no work holidays coming up, the bills are due, and the weather may not be the best. What happened? Can we fix this?

We have made Christmas into an all-important, do or die, single day event. The frenzy starts early, and builds from there. Black Friday melees, tired and frustrated people trying to do too much and focusing on one day. People going about their regular business, adding Christmas business to their loads.

Let’s hear again from Charles Dickens, this time from Marley, Scrooge’s deceased partner. “Business! cried the Ghost!”, wringing its hands again. “Mankind was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were all my business. The deals of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!” Where are, “…charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence…” as we go through the entirety of the Christmas Season? And it is not just being in business that applies here, it is the busy-ness of life in general and Christmas in particular that fits here.

Have you ever been asked, “Are you ready for Christmas?” This question is often followed by some level of lamenting and commiserating by the people involved. Why? Halloween is the second largest holiday in the US as gauged by spending. Have you ever been asked if you were “ready” for Halloween? Perhaps you were asked what costume you were going to wear, but no one asks the “ready” question. The ready question implies the enormity of the task of preparing for Christmas, and is usually asked to compare how far the questioner is behind in preparing for Christmas compared to the other person.

Why all the strenuous preparing leading up to 20 minutes of opening presents, followed by a tired slump? Why not a continual, perhaps prayerful, focus on the spirit that Dickens writes about, “…charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence…”? We’ll go to another quote from Scrooge in A Christmas Carol. “I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach!”

All year. Not a build up to a peak then a valley; all year. And with that focus, the Christmas spirit will increase in us over time. Maybe not always up, but the trend line will be up. And isn’t that what we want?

Here’s another Dickens quote, also put in Scrooge’s mouth. He’s saying that if we don’t change, our future will not change. But if we do change, then our future will also change. A more modern way of saying this is we can’t change how we started, but we can change who we are from here on, and how we will finish. Here’s Dickens on the subject, “Men’s courses will foreshadow certain ends, to which, if persevered in, they must lead,” said Scrooge. “But if the courses be departed from, the ends will change.”

We’ll end today’s quotes with a no less well known character, Spongebob. This is the opening stanza from, “Don’t be a Jerk–It’s Christmas”, sung by Spongebob himself.

“Bring joy to the world;

it’s the thing to do

Don’t be a jerk

It’s Christmas.”

Let’s change how we see Christmas from the one-day crescendo of presents and feelings, to the anchor, the annual reminder to have the love and warmth of Christmas in our hearts and reflected in what we do and say each and every day. Wouldn’t that change everything from ourselves, to those around us, to our nation–and the world?

At Revolution 2.0, we are here to change America. Keeping the spirit of Christmas year-round is a part of that change.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know that you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

Please do visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see offered.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

Christmas Year-Round

Love as a Pre-existing Condition

Contact

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary:

You can be right, or you can change the world–but not both.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to make the right choice. At Revolution 2.0™, we really are about changing our America. We’ll get to changing the world along the way…:).

Transcript:

You can be right, or you can change the world–but not both.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to make the right choice. At Revolution 2.0™, we really are about changing our America. We’ll get to changing the world along the way…:).

From a very personal perspective, I have lost a lot of love in my life by insisting on being right. I lost the love after the argument when I was proved wrong. And I lost the love after the argument even (especially?) when I am proved right.

If you want to avoid those type of hurtful losses, challenge yourself: What is the result you are seeking in any debate or simple discussion where there may be disagreement? If the result you seek is to somehow make yourself feel good by trying to make the other person look bad, then repeating clichés, slogans and insults might work for you. Or backing them into a corner. Interrupting and not listening. Doggedly hanging onto your argument despite how reasonable and fact-driven the other person might be. Or appeal to others who agree with you who are observing the discussion by saying things—on topic or not—that will trigger their support for you and incite them to jump in on your side. Playing to the audience, in other words. All of these tactics will allow you to feel good about “your side”.

What would happen if you–if we–changed the definition of “your side” away from defending our position at all costs, to being open to the possibility of gaining an even better view of the issues under discussion? Then “our side” would have been improved, yes? And by handling the discussion this way, the other person is far more likely to do the same with us. (That person started with a “side” as well.) What can happen here is that the two sides come closer to becoming one side. Let’s use this possibility to have some fun with arithmetic. If two people are arguing, not listening and insisting on being right, it can be represented arithmetically: 1 – 1 = 0. One minus one equals zero. Each participant detracts from everything the other has said, with zero learning or progress. The other person had a “side”, too. And they are just as convicted as we are.

Similarly, two people in a discussion with the idea of listening, learning and possibly improving their viewpoint can be represented by: 1 + 1 = 3. One plus one equals three. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Both sides have learned, and, who knows, may team up rather than remain opposed.

Imagine a world if we sought first to find common ground. Among men and women of goodwill, there is always common ground, if you make an honest and patient search for it. For example, could anyone disagree with the common ground in pre-K-12 education being the best possible education with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars? Yet discussion rages in this area with all sides assuming that the other sides have some sort of self-serving goal. At Revolution 2.0™ we work to create that world,, not just imagine it.

To discuss/argue in the productive way recommended at Revolution 2.0, we’ll have to let go of defending our egos as the desired result, and substitute making things better as the goal. In other words, we would change the desired result from being right to finding and implementing what’s right.

Know your desired result, e.g., are you trying to win or are you working to improve yourself and the world around you (you can’t do both), find the common ground, agree on facts (the law calls those pesky things evidence), apply non-agenda driven reasoning, and look out. You are on you way to 1. Improving the specifics of how the topics under discussion are handled in the world and 2. Discovering that we are not so different one from the other after all. Nurture this process with love and patience, ground it in gratitude that you get to be involved, and there will be progress. Repetition, while maintaining patience, love and gratitude, will keep real progress increasing on all fronts, and increasing at an increasing speed.

Today’s Key Point: Change yourself; change the world.

“When I was a young man, I wanted to change the world.I found it was difficult to change the world, so I tried to change my nation.When I found I couldn’t change the nation, I began to focus on my town. I couldn’t change the town and as an older man, I tried to change my family.Now, as an old man, I realize the only thing I can change is myself, and suddenly I realize that if long ago I had changed myself, I could have made an impact on my family. My family and I could have made an impact on our town. Their impact could have changed the nation and I could indeed have changed the world.”

Written by an unknown Monk around 1100 A.D.

At Revolution 2.0, we are here to change America. That’s our version of “being right.”

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

Please visit the new store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see offered.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

Unknown Monk Quote

Love As A Pre-Existing Condition

Contact

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

View Details

Summary

I am all for manufacturing fast cars, good scotch and pogo sticks (yes, bring back the pogo stick), but I am dead set against manufacturing political issues. Especially when we have real ones that do not need to be produced in a deliberately contrived process.

The answer to the build or not build the wall question is clear and easy. First, ask the question, “Do I want open borders?” If yes, then no wall; simple. If no, then stop debating and turn the matter over to engineers with expertise in this type of design challenge. Give them the task of coming up with the a secure border with the most efficient use of taxpayer money. I am guessing that to meet that challenge, they will recommend different technologies in different geographies. And who knows, these engineers might rise to the challenge with some entirely new ideas.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to have–or not have–secure borders and how to make that happen if desired.

Transcript

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to have–or not have–secure borders and how to make that happen if desired.

The wall or no wall question is a perfect example of a manufactured issue–a manufactured fight, in fact. For a long time, Democrats were in full support of secure borders. Along comes Trump with his no. 1 chant. “Build the wall!” and the Democrats ran to the other side of the issue, even willing to participate in a 30% government shutdown to deny Trump his requested funding. Funding, by the way, that amounts to .14% of the annual federal budget.

Trump was wrong to call for a wall. Walls have all sorts of negative connotations. Calling for a secure border is what he should have done, but it is hard to make that into a crowd-pleasing chant. The Democrats should put away their Trump swords, and fund securing the borders. Secure borders are the necessary first step to achieving a sensible and humane immigration policy. Without secure borders, things that we need to do like approve DACA, and issue a final (did I say final?) amnesty to include a path to legal residency for the 10M-20M people living here illegally, along with using E-Verify and tightening up our visa tracking, will simply become revolving amnesty. Without secure borders, no matter what else we do, we will have open borders.

I do not want open borders. I can’t imagine living in a country with national borders as intentionally porus as our state borders. I also want a generous immigration policy, focusing on admitting the people we want, while allowing for the people who may not meet that criterion, but who need to come here for a variety of reasons.

At Revolution 2.0, we are here to solve issues for the good of the nation, not manufacture isues for the good of a political party.

All of this ties to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,
Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Let’s continue to build on the revolutionary vision that we inherited. Read the blog, listen to the podcast, subscribe, act. Here’s what I mean my “acting.”

Read the blogs and/or listen to the podcasts.
Comment in the blogs. Let others know what you are thinking.
Subscribe and recommend that others subscribe as well.
Attach links from blogs into your social media feeds. Share your thoughts about the link.
From time-to-time, attach links to blogs in emails that mention related subjects. Or just send the links to family and friends.

Revolution 1.0 in 1776 was built by people talking to other people, agreeing and disagreeing, but always finding ways to stay united and going forward. Revolution 2.0 will be built the same way.

And visit the store. Fun stuff, including hats, mugs and t-shirts. Recommend other items that you’d like to see.

Join me. Let’s grow this together.

Links and References

Pogo Stick

Ask The Right Questions

Contact

Remember: Knowledge by itself is like running a winning race, then stopping just before the finish line.

Will Luden, writing to you from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

Take 10 with Will Luden: Recent Episodes

Will Luden