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, 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.

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 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,

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, “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,

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,

Hello again, this is your host Will Luden with Revolution 2.0™. Welcome. Learn more and subscribe at 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 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 semi-automatic rifle based on the 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 allowing law abiding citizens the right to keep and bear...

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.

Introduction

The venerable Merriam-Webster dictionary offers the following definition for compassion: “Sympathetic 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.”

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 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 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,

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:

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.

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 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.

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.