Summary

Do the ends justify the means? No, never. Never? Never. Why? First off, all means are ends in and of themselves. If that is not a sufficient answer, know that unless you are the one who is always in control of the means, when someone else is on control of the means from time-to-time, those perhaps inappropriate and unpleasant means could be used against you, justified by the pursuit of the ends those folks had in mind. And you may very well disagree with those chosen ends all while you are disagreeing with the means being used to achieve those ends. “Karma” is a word that pretty well sums that up. The Golden Rule is a more Western way to say the same thing: Use the means on others that you would like to have used on you.

Links and References

Free Speech and Love

WWE Politics

Mortal Compass

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Do the ends justify the means? No, never. Never? Never. Why? First off, all means are ends in and of themselves. If that is not a sufficient answer, know that unless you are the one who is always in control, those perhaps inappropriate and unpleasant means could be used against you, justified by the pursuit of the ends those folks had in mind. And you may very well disagree with those chosen ends all while you are disagreeing with the means being used against you to achieve those ends. “Karma” is a word that pretty well sums up that reversal. The Golden Rule is a more Western way to say the same thing: Use the means on others that you would like to have used on you.

Let’s take a seat in our favorite theater and watch a particularly powerful scene from “A Man For All Seasons.” This is a conversation between Sir Thomas More, Lord Chancellor to Henry VIII, and Will Roper, the young hothead who want to fix all perceived injustices immediately and by any means necessary.

Will Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

Will Roper: “Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”

Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”

Yes, Sir Thomas would give the Devil the benefit of law for his--his--safety. As we all should. Remember the Golden Rule of means and tactics. And Karma; remember about Karma.

Think back with me to the debate about waterboarding. Many people were defending waterboarding by saying that information gathered that way saved American lives. The late Senator John McCain, famously a long-term, tortured prisoner of war, was against it. I am not taking a position for or against “enhanced interrogation” here; I am taking the position that if we do it, we should expect others to do it to us.

More recently, we saw how “enhanced” tactics can come back to haunt the enhancer. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used a simple-majority vote to change the Senate’s rules, allowing confirmation of judicial nominees to non-Supreme Court posts by the same simple-majority vote. That greatly advantaged the Democrats at the time, but came back to bite them in the form of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Summary

Q 1. Should we celebrate Columbus Day? A. Of course. The opening of the Americas to European countries was a monumental development. Q 2. Was Christopher Columbus intelligent, courageous, and dedicated to his beliefs and goals despite years of rejection?  A. Yes. All three, and at levels that allowed him to play a pivotal role in history. Q 3. Was Columbus a deeply flawed man, who savaged the indigenous populations? A. Yes, he was deeply flawed. As was every great man or woman in history. Every last one.

Experts in various fields correctly say that we need to deal with people and communities in a holistic way. I agree; let’s start with people like Columbus, FDR, JFK, Edison and many others in exactly that way. Let’s not be dishonest and portray only one side of the men and women who have shaped our country and the world. Presenting only one side--it does not matter which one one--to further an agenda is wrong and qualifies people as truth-twisters. A term we used in the last podcast, Profiling.

Links and References

Tolerance

Offense in in the Eye of the Offended

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Q 1. Should we celebrate Columbus Day? A. Of course. The opening of the Americas to European countries was a monumental development. Q 2. Was Christopher Columbus intelligent, courageous, and dedicated to his beliefs and goals despite years of rejection?  A. Yes. All three, and at levels that allowed him to play a pivotal role in history. Q 3. Was Columbus a deeply flawed man, who savaged the indigenous populations? A. Yes, he was deeply flawed. As was every great man or woman in history. Every last one.

Experts in various fields correctly say that we need to deal with people and communities in a holistic way. I agree; let’s start with people like Columbus, FDR, JFK, Edison and many others in exactly that way. Let’s not be dishonest and portray only one side of the men and women who have shaped our country and the world. Presenting only one side--it does not matter which one one--to further an agenda is wrong and qualifies people as truth-twisters. A term we used in the last podcast, Profiling.

Let’s jump right into the deep end of this pool by bringing up Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King, born in Atlanta in 1929, is a genuine American hero. In 1964, he won the Nobel Peace Prize for combating racial inequality through nonviolent resistance. And he helped to reshape how we think about and deal with race in our country, with worldwide reverberations. And he was a known plagiarist and a serial adulterer. That makes him human, and still very much a man well worth remembering and celebrating.

Thomas Edison, born in 1847, is known as the inventor of the light bulb. He also invented the phonograph and the motion picture along the way to being granted 1,093 patents. He founded one of America’s most successful companies, General Electric--GE. He was also a proponent of Direct Current, DC, as opposed to Alternating Current, AC. He fought vigorously, and often unfairly, to promote DC over AC. Had he won, the electric grid that in so many ways helped to build and supports the US would have been greatly delayed. And, yes, this flawed human deserves to be greatly honored for his many vital contributions.

Golda Meir, born in 1898, was the fourth prime minister of Israel. On her way to earning the unofficial title of “Iron Lady” well before Margaret Thatcher, the founding Israeli prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, called her “the best man in government.” She rallied her country after the horrific murders of Israeli...

Summary

Q 1. What’s wrong with profiling? A. Nothing; it is a vital tool, and useful in a variety of situations. Q 2. So, why are we talking about it? A. This word, along with so many other terms that are in common usage, has been co-opted by those among us who wish to rewrite key word definitions to suit their agendas. Kinda like re-writing history, but that is another podcast. People who do things like this are truth-twisters.

Links and References

Racial or Racist?

Offense is in the Eye of the Offended

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Q 1. What’s wrong with profiling? A. Nothing; it is a vital tool, and useful in a variety of situations. Q 2. So, why are we talking about it? A. This word, along with so many other terms that are in common usage, has been co-opted by those among us who wish to rewrite key word definitions to suit their agendas. Kinda like re-writing history, but that is another podcast. People who do things like this are truth-twisters.

The first thing we, you and I, need to do is to understand the true definition of a word. Then we need to understand what the altered definition is and the agenda behind the attempt to hijack the word. After that, we can use the word as originally intended--and be prepared for the 1984 word police--the truth-twisters--to come at us. But we will be ready.

We’ll deal with more than one word today; let’s start with profiling. Merriam-Webster, the dictionary people: “The act or process of extrapolating information about a person based on known traits or tendencies, e.g., consumer profiling: the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior, e.g., racial profiling.”

“Ah-ha” I can hear you saying, “See? Racial profiling!” There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong--and many things right--with racial profiling, along with the other types of profiling. For example, if you are looking for a cure for sickle cell anemia, you would not start with Asian or white populations, you would start with blacks; that population is the most susceptible. Among other things, different ethnicities overall have different preferences in personal care items. A careful marketer would ensure that certain products were optimized to give the greatest benefit to those ethnicities, then use always limited time and money to make sure the target market is aware of those beneficial products.

Kep point: In a world of unlimited needs and wants, and limited resources --the world we all live in--profiling, also known as focusing, is necessary. Profiling, like any tool, e.g., money, is inherently value-neutral, can be used for ill or for good. The last thing we should do is eliminate a valuable tool, e.g., profiling, by intentionally making the definition of profiling mean nothing but--or even mostly--illegal and racist actions by an alleged oppressor group against a presumed victim group.

Let’s take a look at a couple of other terms; discrimination and prejudice. We’ll start with discrimination. We’ll begin with Merriam-Webster again: “1a. prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment, e.g., racial discrimination. 1b. the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. 2. the quality or power of finely distinguishing, e.g., the film was viewed by the audience with discrimination. 3a. the act of making or perceiving a difference, the act of discriminating, e.g., a bloodhound's scent discrimination. 3b. psychology, the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to diff...

Summary

What is the connection between free speech and love? This one is pretty easy. Let’s start with the love part. It is easy to love people who are loveable. We don’t need to be encouraged or told to do that; it just comes easily and naturally. It is harder to love people we merely tolerate. And what’s this about loving our enemies? The admonition, the encouragement, to love one another is not focused on loving the loveable, it is focused on loving the unlovable.

It is the same with free speech. Embracing free speech is not about accepting or allowing speech you agree with. Like loving the lovable, that is easy and comes naturally, needing neither laws nor encouragement. The law and the moral correctness behind the concept of free speech is focused on speech we might violently disagree with.

Links and References

Tolerance

Offense is in the Eye of the Offended

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

What is the connection between free speech and love? This one is pretty easy. Let’s start with the love part. It is easy to love people who are loveable. We don’t need to be encouraged or told to do that; it just comes easily and naturally. It is harder to love people we merely tolerate. And what’s this about loving our enemies? The admonition, the encouragement, to love one another is not focused on loving the loveable, it is focused on loving the unlovable.

It is the same with free speech. Embracing free speech is not about accepting or allowing speech you agree with. Like loving the lovable, that is easy and comes naturally, needing neither laws nor encouragement. The law and the moral correctness behind the concept of free speech is focused on speech we might strongly disagree with.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire. Instead of being willing to defend to the death others’ free speech rights, we we are drifting towards wanting to put to death the ones with whom we disagree who are exercising those very free speech rights.

The First Amendment goes far beyond the pivotal guarantee of freedom of speech. It also includes freedom of religion, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. And having all five of these in the same amendment is not an accident; they go together. Notice how many people and groups want to cherry pick; they want, for example, the right to assemble, peaceably or not, often while squashing others’ free speech rights in the name of their view of “justice.” Might it occur to them there can be no justice while squashing other peoples’ rights? Perhaps the chant, “No justice, no peace.” might help make this point.

Let’s go back to tying free speech and love. Of the two greatest commandments in the bible, the second is, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” No, this is not a bible lesson, but pay attention; you can be secular and still get tremendous benefits from the wisdom contained in a variety of sources. The bible is one of those sources. Note the word “as”. Love your neighbor as yourself. This command does not allow for much wiggle room, “as yourself” means just that. Love yourself and your neighbors equally. No qualifications about loving the many different types of neighbors differently.

All five parts of the First Amendment, including free speech, are similarly broad. Yes, these freedoms are for us to enjoy. And with every freedom comes an equal or greater responsibility. One of our responsibilities is to ensure these same freedo...

Summary

Alfred Dreyfus was a French Jewish artillery officer whose trial and conviction in 1894 on charges of treason can easily be seen as a precursor to the Kavanaugh trial--yes, trial.  And it is past time that those of us on this side of the Atlantic know of this willful travesty of justice. Known today as the Dreyfus affair, the incident eventually ended with Dreyfus's complete exoneration. No, this podcast is not simply about drawing a parallel between what France did to Dreyfus and what our country is trying to do to Brett Kavanaugh; it goes far beyond that.

Links and References

Blame Game

Life Improving Dramatically; Protests Expanding

WWE Politics

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Alfred Dreyfus was a French Jewish artillery officer whose trial and conviction in 1894 on charges of treason can easily be seen as a precursor to the Kavanaugh trial--yes, trial.  And it is past time that those of us on this side of the Atlantic know of this wilful travesty of justice. Known today as the Dreyfus affair, the incident eventually ended with Dreyfus's complete exoneration. No, this podcast is not simply about drawing a parallel between what France did to Dreyfus and what our country is trying to do to Brett Kavanaugh; it goes far beyond that.

Emile Zola, a contemporary of Dreyfus and a French writer and playwright, published an open letter, “J’Accuse…!”, a bitter denunciation of the heavily biased trial and foregone conclusions in France in January of 1898. In the letter Zola addressed President of France Félix Faure and accused the government of anti-Semitism and the unlawful jailing of Alfred Dreyfus, a French Army General Staff officer who was sentenced to lifelong penal servitude for espionage. Zola pointed out judicial errors and lack of serious evidence. The letter was printed on the front page of the Paris newspaper and caused a stir in France and abroad. For his accusations against the false accusers, Zola was prosecuted for libel and found guilty in 1898. To avoid imprisonment, he fled to England and continued to defend Dreyfus.

Captain Dreyfus was guilty of nothing more than being a convenient target, but he suffered greatly by being disgraced and imprisoned in a penal colony. Zola was guilty of nothing more than attacking the indefensible and defending the unpopular and vulnerable; he also suffered.

That sort of thing can’t happen here, can it? After all, we have this centuries-old judicial system that, if anything, is overly protective of the accused. But aren’t we all too capable of attacking targets of convenience in the pursuit of an agenda--exactly what France did to Alfred Dreyfus over 100 years ago?

When conservative Justice Clarence Thomas was similarly accused by Anita Hill in 1991, he made it clear that his impassioned denials had less to do with possibly of being on the Supreme Court than his personal reputation and dignity. “This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.”

Justice Thomas quite understandably saw this as a race issue. Perhaps it is more about gender and politics. Anita Hill,

Summary

World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), is correctly more well known for its posing and posturing entertainment rather than the their supposed core product--wrestling. Replete with stylized good guys and bad guys, overdressed, overacting and anything goes--not matter how ridiculous--to increase their notoriety, leverage with their fan base to increase the power and influence of the WWE--the entity that pays them and makes it all possible.

Now, let’s make some substitutions: Republicans and Democrats are more known for posing and posturing than their supposed core deliverable--making our country better. Replete with stylized good guys and bad guys, overacting and saying anything--no matter how ridiculous--to increase their notoriety and that of their party. (Note that I did leave out overdressed.)

Links and References

The Blame Game

Why We Vote

Choosing Up Sides

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), is correctly more well known for its posing and posturing entertainment than the their supposed core product--wrestling. Replete with stylized good guys and bad guys, overdressed, overacting and willing to do or say anything--no matter how ridiculous--to increase their notoriety, leverage their power and influence with their fan base, and to increase the power and influence of the WWE--the entity that pays them and makes it all possible.

Now, let’s make some substitutions: Republicans and Democrats are more known for their posing and posturing than their supposed core deliverable--making our country better. Replete with stylized good guys and bad guys, overacting and willing to do or say anything--no matter how ridiculous--to increase their notoriety, leverage their power and influence with their fan base, and to increase the power and influence of their party--the entity that helps fund them and makes it all possible. (Note that I did leave out overdressed.)

What in God’s name happened? "Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the future." John F. Kennedy, Democrat, 35th President of the USA.

On the other side of the aisle, on at least two occasions, Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate running against Barack Obama, was questioned at campaign rallies about his opponent, each time with the questioner at close range, the mic being handed back and forth between the questioner and Senator McCain. One time a man said that he was “scared” of Obama because of his ties to the radical left, including Bill Ayres, a known violent radical in the 60s. The Senator responded that no one needed to be scared because Mr. Obama was a decent man. The crowd booed. Another time, a lady said that Obama was an Arab; McCain’s response: “No, he is not an Arab. He is a good man with whom I have fundamental political and economic differences.” This was greeted with scattered applause.

Where are the John McCains and Jack Kennedys? Would you vote for one, or do you prefer bare knuckle brawlers on your side? Bill Clinton famously said, “Politics is a contact sport.” Apparently he is right. Do we need referees, penalties and instant replay in politics? Or should we, the voters, be our own referees and refuse to vote for WWE-type politicians. Most of us, I hope, don’t want WWE politicians. We want honest, articulate, and determined politicians; politicians we can trust and with whom we agree on policy.

Summary

What is a microaggression? And why the need to come up with a new issue? Here’s what Merriam-Webster has to say: a comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority). I would add the majority gender, women, are also included in the definition of microaggression targets.

Why was the term microaggression invented?

Links and References

Everyday Wisdom: “Life is Hard”

Activists Don’t Want Peace

Life Improving Dramatically; Protests Expanding

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

What is a microaggression? And why the need to come up with a new issue? Here’s what Merriam-Webster has to say: “A comment or action that subtly and often unconsciously or unintentionally expresses a prejudiced attitude toward a member of a marginalized group (such as a racial minority).” I would add the majority gender, women, are also included in the definition of microaggression targets.

Why was the term microaggression invented?

Notice the terms in the definition, including subtle, unconscious or unintentional. And in the term itself: micro. Have we come to the point in the US where we have solved so many of our society’s major and minor problems that we need to create and highlight micro problems in order to keep attention-getting issues like outrage and victimization in the news? Answer: Yes. I will expound and explain as I go along.

Okay, I can hear you beginning to sit up and want to take me on. “Will, do you really, really believe that we have solved all or even nearly all of the ills in our country?” No. No. Not at all. Not even close. But we have solved enough of the major issues that activists can no longer credibly point to egregious examples of either unfairness or discrimination, hence the need for a new category. And this is a perfect new category. Again, note words like subtle, unconscious and unintentional. It is very hard to prove or disprove claims like these. And that’s part of the point of inventing this issue; allegations of microaggressions are easy to make, and almost impossible to defend.

These next two paragraphs are taken from an earlier podcast and repeated for effect. Much of my worldview is based on my conviction that America is an exceptional country, having made unique, powerful and vital contributions to the world in its relatively short history. Is America perfect? Of course not. Ity is deeply flawed. Are all great men and women deeply flawed? Yes. Are they still great? Yes. America is deeply flawed, and on balance clearly exceptional. These repeated excerpts are not at all the whole case for my belief; these are just the portions that pertains to today’s podcast. The US has been on a unique and successful mission since 1776 starting with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. America was founded on an astonishing principle; all men were created equal: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” The most astonishing part is that this principled stand was indeed astonishing in 1776. The Declaration of Independence was an international game changer, written at a time that hereditary monarchs and dictators ruled most of the world, and concepts such as private property for all and rights given to people by a Creator were almost unthinkable. In the process,

Summary

"The economy, stupid", was the winning phrase James Carville coined as a campaign strategist in Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against sitting president George H. W. Bush. This outlined the winning strategy; other “mission statement” slogans, including options like focusing on change vs. more of the same, and social issues including healthcare lost out. Good thing; it defeated a sitting president.

Links and References

Economics 101

Economics Definitions

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

"The economy, stupid", was the winning phrase James Carville coined as a campaign strategist in Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against then sitting president George H. W. Bush. This outlined the winning strategy; other “mission statement” slogans, including options like focusing on change vs. more of the same, or social issues including healthcare lost out. Good thing; "The economy, stupid" defeated a sitting president.

Why is the economy not again front and center in this election year? What has changed in the last 25 years.

Yes, I will answer, but first let’s look at who is responsible for this roaring economy. Barack Obama did a lot of the right things to help bring us out of the deep recession he inherited. Credit him for that rescue. After that, the economy for the next six years can be described as either “slow and steady growth” if you like what President Obama did, or “tepid” if you don’t. Donald Trump came in, signaled then implemented tax and regulatory cuts, and the economy took off. Credit him for lighting that fire. The current economy can be described as “roaring and benefiting everyone” if you like what President Trump is doing or “widening the wealth gap” if you don’t. Either way, the economy is on fire.

OK let’s repeat the question: Why is the economy not again front and center in this election year? What has changed in the last 25 years.

Answer: Fewer people believe the economy is a key part of determining their lifestyle. It is partly that many people have short-term memories, and after nine years of an improving economy a downturn may seem out of sight, and out of mind. Hey, it’s all good all the time, right? More important is the growing belief that everyone deserves at least a minimally comfortable standard of living. This expectation is married to a willful ignorance of where the money to support that largess comes from. The belief is clearly that “someone else” is responsible for creating the wealth that must be redistributed. And regardless of the state of the economy, roaring along or in deep recession, the money simply needs to be there to be given out. Ironically, the “someone else” who is being held responsible appears to consist of the disliked “1%” and corporations; “Corporations are not people!” The money this growing number of people demands be there, to be redistributed regardless of the state of the economy, needs  to come from the two of the groups they hold in the lowest regard.

In addition to ignoring the state of the economy while still expecting what is “theirs”, this thinking assumes that massive expenditures on things like the environment, healthcare, and education can continue to rise all while the pool of money to be redistributed also increases. Decreasing thought--if any--is given to the engine that provides the wealth to be taxed then spent in the first place.

And that’s why the roaring economy is being virtually ignored by more and more of the electorate. They simply don’t see any necessary connection be...

Summary

The World War II generation implored us to “Never Forget!” the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. And for many years, radio, TV, newspapers and magazines shouted the message annually, complete with photos, film and recordings. Does anybody remember any kind of meaningful remembrance on a recent December 7th? Neither do I. And the sneak attack on the Twin Towers is slowly being forgotten, soon to be relegated to the same kind of dim memory as Pearl Harbor. And with the fading memory go the critical lessons. Worse, there are key parts of our history that most of us never knew about in the first place.

Links and References

Why We Vote

Economics 101

Common Sense and Politics

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

The World War II generation implored us to “Never Forget!” the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7th, 1941. And for many years, radio, TV, newspapers and magazines shouted the message annually, complete with photos, film and recordings. Does anybody remember any kind of meaningful remembrance on a recent December 7th? Neither do I. And the sneak attack on the Twin Towers is slowly being forgotten, soon to be relegated to the same kind of dim memory as Pearl Harbor. And with the fading memories go the critical lessons. Worse, there are key parts of our history that most of us never knew about in the first place.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana. I’d add that those who never knew the history in the first place are also condemned to repeat it. And we are not talking about pleasant repetitions, we are talking about the unnecessary ugliness of needless suffering from repeating the same mistakes.

Here’s another one, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Alexander Pope, from his poem, An Essay on Criticism. His point is that a little learning or knowledge can only lead us into thinking that we know more than we do. Cliches, slogans, sound bites and preconceived notions are prime examples of a little knowledge. His solution? Simple. Know more. Before we have the right to open our mouths about anything at all meaningful, we need to 1. Know the facts. Not some of them. All--or at least the majority--of the important facts and 2. Apply non agenda-based thinking to those facts to come up with conclusions, solutions or courses of actions. Facts, the law correctly calls them evidence, and has rules about what is a fact and what is not. Someone else’s opinion is not a fact. Let’s try an example, from a fictional cable channel. “Senator Blowhard from XY state says there are 500K illegals in his state.” Stated as a fact in this hypothetical example. Now this. “Senator Blowhard from XY state hates immigrants.” Really? The commentator is making the leap from Blowhard’s citing a fact to an assumption of Blowhard’s beliefs. Perhaps the Senator does or does not hate immigrants, but nothing here justifies that conclusion. Be suspicious about that conclusion and others like it, and certainly do not repeat them.

Know your history and facts. All facts are historical. If it is not historical, it is a prediction. And by definition predictions are not facts.

The admonition to Never Forget is a way of urging us to know what happened and to keep the lessons that come from that knowledge in near-term memory. Let’s look at some Never Forget examples:

9/11. Do we know what happened? Who were the perpetrators? Why did they do it? What are the lessons that we can apply?

Pearl Harbor. Who did what to whom and why?

Summary

Nike was the Greek winged goddess of victory--victory both in war and in peaceful competition. The current international, yes, international, controversy intentionally generated by Nike with the hiring of former NFL QB Colin Kaepernick as its spokesman, is far more warlike than peaceful. (Nike employed about 74,400 people worldwide in 2017, with global revenues of more than $34B.)

Links and References

Racial or Racist?

Activists Don’t Want Peace

Off The Pigs

Contact

Please do reach out with comments or questions.  You can email me at [email protected], or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn.

And you can subscribe to the podcast on your favorite device through Apple Podcasts, Google, or Stitcher.

Transcript

Nike was the Greek winged goddess of victory--victory both in war and in peaceful competition. The current international, yes, international, controversy intentionally generated by Nike with the hiring of former NFL QB Colin Kaepernick as its spokesman, is far more warlike than peaceful. (Nike employed about 74,400 people worldwide in 2017, with global revenues of more than $34B.)

Let’s continue today’s podcast by separating what’s legal, for example things covered by the First Amendment, and the right thing to do. Legal is not always right, and the right thing is not always legal. What Colin Kaepernick and Nike are doing is legal, and wrong. What podcaster Alex Jones is doing on Infowars is legal, and also wrong.

When it comes to kneeling during our national anthem at NFL games, here’s what’s both legal and okay to do:

NFL teams, like all employers, are allowed to limit political actions, including protest, on their property during work hours.

Players, like all employees, can break those rules. The players risk consequences if they do. On the other hand, the teams may sidestep setting any rules or imposing any consequences in order to keep the players happy, and to keep making money.

Fans are allowed to make choices about going to games, watching on TV, buying NFL-branded swag and listening to or watching sports programs.

Bottom line: if players are allowed to kneel by their teams, fans are allowed to vote with their feet and their dollars. Everyone has those legal rights. There’s absolutely no argument here. The argument being presented in this podcast is how we should exercise those rights.

Nike’s tagline in the Kaepernick commercial is, “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” When Kaepernick was benched in San Francisco, he was rated 32 out of 32 NFL quarterbacks--dead last. He was through, and he knew it. He was not sacrificing anything by kneeling; he was trying to jump from his current sinking ship onto another where his hoped-for notoriety might find a way for him to succeed now that his football career had entered a cul-de-sac. And it did; he found a new ship. Ignoring the pigs dressed as cops on his socks, much of the media and many people portrayed Mr. Kaepernick as a warrior who sacrificed an NFL career in its early stages to fight for social justice. He knew his football career was over, so he was trying on a different uniform, this time as a social justice warrior who, by the way, was the product of a very comfortable, upper middle class upbringing. But the new uniform, as ill-fitting as it was, was his best chance at another shot at the brass ring. He lives in a mansion, and was still being paid millions by the 49ers.

Initially there was a try to shakedown the NFL for money with the argument that all 32 teams were refusing to hire Mr. Kaepernick because of his kneeling. This argument was ridiculous on the face of it. There are always at least a handful of teams that are desperate for a new QB,