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 Woodrow Wilson, 1913-1921, the Democratic party has been moving ever to the left, emphasizing more government responsibilities and fewer individual responsibilities. Democratic President 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 Horatius at the Bridge fighting a defensive battle; it is time to reverse the trend.

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,

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, 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 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 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,

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 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,

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

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 make.

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 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...

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

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.

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),

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

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.

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, 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 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 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.

The greatest chance of being in an echo chamber comes from living in one-party 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...

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 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.