Revolution 2.0

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 entiti

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 certa

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

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,

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? T

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 tha

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

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,

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 dis

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 Unaffiliat

Introduction In American history, 3 presidents have been impeached. What was the motivation? That is the subject of today’s 10-minute episode.  Continuing 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 to not convict was also along party lines. 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 removi

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-s

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 stor

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

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 resu

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 subje

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 fo

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. R

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

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 technology̵