Common Goals. I describe myself as a man seeking common goals. (How’s that for a party name?) I am registered as Unaffiliated in CO; there are more of those than either Republicans or Democrats here. Don’t most of us share the same common, bedrock goals? I don’t mean desires that many share like wanting this party or this candidate to win (or the other party or person to lose), I mean the core, meaningful, underlying goals that most of us share. Find the common  ground (yes, it exists), add statistically-significant facts (facts that apply broadly to the issue, not to, say merely 1%, but you use them because they support one side or the other), then apply non agenda-based reasoning. It works. And if the discussion falls off track, go back to the common goals–the touchstone–to get back on track. Back to bedrock.

Let look at a few examples together:

Education Goal: Having the best pre-K thru 12 education with the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars. Note, this does not presuppose one and only one way to get there. None of these goals do. A good starting approach here might be to allow free access to fully funded traditional public schools, charter schools and private schools via vouchers. Allow parents to make the right decision for their children, and allow competition to deliver the best product for the kids, parents and society. K-12.

Poverty Goal: Getting people out of poverty and into comfort in a way that they can eventually stay there on their own. And providing lifetime support for those who can’t provide for themselves.

Race Goal: Achieving racial harmony and overall success. Not by using race to support any particular ideology, and not by being afraid of being politically incorrect. We can get there–together–only recognizing the strengths, and, yes, and weaknesses, of each ethnicity. It will take great courage in today’s political climate to speak this necessary truth.

Gender harmony and overall success Goal: Pause for the truth. Men and women are not the same. And races are different. And herein lies enormous power. We can lean on and benefit greatly from the various strengths of the races and genders, using those positives to shore up the accompanying weaknesses. Learn from each other. Depend on each other’s strengths. In this way, the whole is far greater than the sum of its parts. 1 + 1 + 1 = 15–or more. But only in this way. If we defy part of the fundamental genius of God and nature and insist the that all ethnicities and both genders are the same, the whole–all of us–can never be more than, well, a collection of people with much the same to offer. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3–at best.

Abortion/Pro Life/Pro Choice Goal: Given that all of us are truly pro life and pro choice in the original and powerful definitions of life and choice, how then do we have an honest debate about this critical issue?  If we can decide where we stand on the two following questions, I think we’ll have it:

When does life begin?

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

Tax and money Goal: Setting tax and other economic policies to maximize the national economy, lower the burden on individuals–and do it in a way that allows the government to do its defined job efficiently. It is not a question of generally preferring higher or lower taxes. The question is clearer than that: 1. How much money is required to support the government in the tasks it does best and (what is it that government does uniquely well? 2. What is the lowest tax structure that delivers the required funds while being fair to those taxed?

What are some other examples of areas where we have/can have common ground?

None of these questions have easy answers. But all of them direct the conversations away from cliches, foregone conclusions and “proof by insult” or “accusation by identity” toward m...

I started my political life thinking that I was a Democrat. After all, they are the ones who want to help people. Right? Then I thought I was a Republican. They are the responsible ones. Right? I really thought that I knew who I was politically when I heard Jimmy Carter say that he was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Ah. Perfect.

For many years, I was happy with describing myself the way then candidate and President Carter described himself. But as the political landscape has become dysfunctionally more polarized, the original definitions of Mr. Carter’s terms have become obsolete. “Fiscal conservative” no longer means simply handling taxpayer money efficiently and having tax and regulatory policies that support robust, responsible economic growth. For many, it is coming to mean that you are at least somewhat suspicious of the Federal Reserve, support a return to the gold standard, and want a retreat to the original Federal Income Tax rate of 2%. Similarly, “social liberal” used to mean, at least to me, live and let live when it came to lifestyles. Now, it seems to be morphing into meaning “anything goes.” And not only simple tolerance for the anything that’s going; we have growing numbers of groups demanding elaborate accommodations for, well, just about anyone who declares themselves to be different. So now what do I do? How do I describe myself politically? Can I find a home? Create a home?

Conservative. Liberal. Republican. Libertarian. Moderate. Democrat. Progressive. Independent. Fiscal conservative. Social liberal. Those are the descriptors that people apply to themselves.

Here’s what some people call and say about the others: “Libtard”, “Trumpist”, and, “You’re a Fascist,” “No, you’re a fascist.” These labels have lost all ability to fairly identify, educate and inform; they are simply insults. And we often hurl these “labels” at each other.

We have weaponized labels.

Stop. Restart. Together. Focus on Common goals (how’s that for the name of a party?) "Common Goals" will be the subject of our next talk.

Will Luden, writing from my home office at 7,200 feet in Colorado Springs.

(Podcast Teaser. Please listen to the podcast for more.)

“Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. If they are equal, they are not free.” Aleksandr Solzehenitsyn.

Clearly true on the face of it. In addition to differing capacities at birth, God’s choice, we develop and grow at different rates throughout life; our choice.

Solzehenitsyn is talking about the inevitability of unequal outcomes in a free society. Clear on the face of it. Let’s also talk about the equality of opportunity. Key point: it will never be a level playing field. Unless, of course, we hammer everybody down to the lowest common denominator. But everyone can create a life where they have everything they and their family need, and a lot of what they want. And then create the opportunity for their kids to do even better.

The “rules” for success are simple, and incredibly hard to follow. But incredibly well worth it.

Our country started out as an experiment in democracy, then became the world’s oldest democracy. We are now the most diverse country on earth, free and fully aware of what we need to succeed as individuals and as a nation. What are we going to do with what is now the world’s greatest experiment in freedom and diversity?

Will Luden, writing from my home office at 7,200 feet in Colorado Springs.

Podcast Summary

In this podcast, my primary intention is for us to get to know each other better. Quoting Henry David Thoreau from Walden-Life In the Woods, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” Please note that Thoreau did not ask for his agenda to win out, to be right--or make others wrong. He asked for truth. Truth is where everything needs to start (but not end).

My Walden pond is Peregrine Creek, right on my property. My Life In the Woods starts about 70 yards from the creek, with Blodgett Peak, soaring to 9,5K feet, the immediately adjacent Rampart Range and Pike Nat’l Forest, which the Rampart range is part of. If I had the hoo-ha, and I don’t, I could walk to Utah and never see anyone.

My time connecting to Peregrine Creek and the wilderness that starts yards from my city-services home, allows me the space to challenge what I think I think. To let my thoughts find themselves before I share them with you. Duc (Duke), my 80-lb. Standard Poodle, currently wearing an Elizabethan Collar, is my constant companion out there.

While it takes me a good two days to put together a podcast that I am happy with sharing, it is my decades of varying experiences that feed into those two days that give my thinking, content, depth and a focus. And the focus is on how to contribute; how to make people and things around me better.

This podcast closes with a couple quotes.

“An unexamined life is not worth living.” Plato

“A life of contemplation and examination without action that changes things is waste of all that contemplation and examination." Will Luden

Will Luden, writing from my home office at 7,200 feet in Colorado Springs.

In typical Revolution 2.0 style, we’ll start with a hoped-for common goal: Barring the sale of firearms to (and confiscating from) those who have shown tendencies, red flags, that might indicate they would abuse guns, while still allowing law-abiding citizens to enjoy the safe use of well-defined firearms.

We are not starting from scratch; we have thousands--tens of thousands--of gun control laws on the book. Step one is to better enforce the laws we have now. More attention to individuals waving red flags needs to be supplemented with better intra-governmental agency cooperation and far better use of government technology. We know from experience that many DMVs do not enforce the legal requirement that drivers carry liability insurance, which is why most of us must carry uninsured motorist insurance. It is easy to show proof of insurance when initially needed, then cancel it. The computers with that information are not used to follow-up. Similarly, most of those who are in the US illegally simply have overstayed their visas. And unlike those those who tiptoed across the border, visa applicants are in the government's computers.

Let’s start our discussion by addressing the gun ban and confiscation that some are calling for (and others want but are not yet ready to speak up honestly). Calling for “gun free zones” is an example of the latter. Having gun free zones in a country with as many guns as people is exactly like having no-peeing zones in a public swimming pool. The folks running those pools know that is impossible, so they don’t allow urinating at all. With the exception of the truly naive, people calling for gun free zones in the US know they must fail, and eventually will have the opportunity to demand the total gun ban they wanted all along.

Other folks, equally wrong both strategically and tactically, want to toss out all of the nation’s illegal immigrants (like gun confiscation), with no more allowed in (like a gun ban). Those who hope to ban and confiscate guns are as wrong morally, strategically and tactically as those who want to ban immigration and toss out all illegals.

Now, let’s look at what we learned--if anything--from Prohibition--the alcohol ban. In 1920, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol. Those in favor of the ban called alcohol, “America’s National Curse.” (Sound familiar?) The results was that people still drank, but instead of buying alcohol at local restaurants and shops, they bought it from gangsters. Like Al Capone and his thugs. Businesses suffered and collapsed; crime soared. And people still drank. Recognizing that the cure was far worse than the disease, the 21st Amendment repealed Prohibition; the only time in our history that an Amendment has been repealed. Let’s learn from history, not repeat it.

Let’s remember, as we talked about in an earlier podcast, gun control, like immediately stronger school safety (the best way of stopping the next shooter), are both, correctly and necessarily, dealing with the symptoms of what we are facing, not the underlying cause. We will deal with that cause together in an upcoming podcast. For now, dealing with the symptoms is designed to keep the patient comfortable, and, in this case, alive until we can identify and deal with the root causes.

Some specifics: “Ban AR-15s.” OK, let’s look at that. BTW, AR does not stand for automatic rifle; it stands for Armalite, the original manufacturer. It is a small caliber, high-velocity, semi-automatic rifle. It is the semi-automatic version of the military M-16 which is capable of fully automatic fire. The “fully automatic” part is what makes the M-16 a military weapon.

Pause for a definition of semi-automatic: “able to fire repeatedly through an automatic reloading process but requiring release and another pressure of the trigger for each successi...

Dealing with evils like school shootings requires both a short-term approach, and a long-term approach. To stop the next shooter(s), the most immediate action we must take is to arm and train personnel--teachers and staff. The adults who are going to our schools each and every day, including today, tomorrow and every school day. They will need to be supplemented and supported by full-time professionals, but those will take longer to identify, recruit and train; qualified, or even prospective, law enforcement officers are not laying around waiting for something to do tomorrow. Enforcing current gun laws and amending and creating new laws are also a necessary part of the short-term, deal-with-the-symptoms process. Specifics of what to do about gun laws will be dealt with in a soon-to-be published podcast. We’ll work on that together.

Long-term, we need to reverse the moral decay in our country. Yes. Decay. Even a few decades ago, school shootings were unheard of--even if there were plenty of guns “back then”. Not as many, and not a powerful, but the differences in available firearms does not explain how we have gone from zero to 60 in school shootings over those few decades.

The 106-year-old company, L. L. Bean, which Leon Leonwood Bean started in his brother’s basement in 1912, built a huge business with an enormous level of customer trust and enthusiasm based on solid products and a lifetime guarantee. Lifetime. No questions asked. No receipt needed. When I was a student at the Harvard Business school in the 70s, one of the cases featured the famous L. L. Bean guarantee, with the core question being the financial wisdom of that promise. The case ended with the solid conclusion that it was not only a wonderful thing to do and great for publicity, but it made financial sense. No longer. In February of 2018, Leon Leonwood’s company took its promise back. They cited the rapidly growing number of cheaters, pointing out that returns have doubled in just the last five years, with all-too-many people sending back hand-me-down items for replacement. Even many items purchased at yard sales were returned. Both Bean and its customers lose; cheaters will simply move to their next scam.

Is it surprising that in a world where cheating like this is more and more prevalent, and much music, many movies and a whole pile of video games are violent, pronographic and, well, scuzzy, that whack jobs are shooting up our kids?

Disgusting, horrible and reprehensible, but not at all surprising. Make no mistake here; the inputs that are washing over our minds in waves are not “just entertainment” that does not influence us. Advertisers pay upwards of $5M to influence us with commercials for 30 seconds. Please don’t tell me that many hours of this agenda-focused trash every week does not influence us--and powerfully.

We will deal with our deteriorating moral compasses, our neede “True North,” in a soon-to-be published podcast. As always, we’ll work on that together.

Will Luden, writing from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

Our national debt of $21 Trillion--and rising rapidly--will be paid by our kids and grandkids. The much talked about 1% and the corporations will not be the ones picking up the tab; our heirs will get the check. Quick math shows that the about owed by each of one us, man, woman and child, is $60K. A family of 5 currently owes $300K. And we are the ones creating this debt.

Governments, corporations and, yes, even the 1% are made up of nothing but individuals. Individuals are the only entities who can create wealth for themselves and corporations; clearly they are the only ones who can create taxable income. And it has to follow that if individuals are the taxpayers, individuals owe the money.

Right now, we are spending money we don’t have--adding constantly to the national debt--obviously living better lives than we can afford. Our kids and their kids will be stuck leading lives that are less that they would have been able to afford because they are paying off past debts--our debts. “Fly now, pay later” is becoming we fly now, they pay later.

Is that at all reasonable and responsible? Is that what we want? Because it is what we are doing.

Politicians love to spend tax money to look like good guys and buy votes. That part of the fault lies with them. The greater fault lies with us; we vote for them over and over, knowing exactly what they are going to so. We know the debt will keep rising, buying our current generations things we can’t afford--passing a mounting and devastating debt burden onto future generations. Our kids. And their kids.

We can fix this. We must fix this.

Will Luden, writing from my home office at 7,200 feet in Colorado Springs.

Our nation and communities--in some cases families--are being pulled apart--unnecessarily. Gender, instead of simply being a natural part of our makeup, and a delight from time-to-time, is now one of the many artificially created fault lines. The play on words is intended here. Fault lines in nature can create devastating earthquakes. Finding fault simply and only along gender lines can create equal disasters with us as people. Today’s podcast examines how we are taking the wonder and delight of being male and female into the accusing world of “He said, she said.” And how we can fix it.

Will Luden, writing from my home office at 7,200’ in Colorado Springs.

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

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

How could that be? Don’t wolves prey on caribou? Indeed they do, but Mowat proved that the wolves attacked and killed only the weak, diseased and injured caribou, leaving only the strong. In addition to examining what the wolves had eaten, he observed that even the healthiest wolf had a near impossible time felling a healthy caribou. This limitation caused the wolf to make the herds stronger by eliminating the weak. The weak were no longer available to reproduce and compete for scarce food, leaving the strong to eat and reproduce.

So, how do wolves and caribou relate to public schools?

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

Vouchers are another type of helpful wolf. Charters provide one type of strengthening competition; vouchers another. Vouchers make public schools stronger in a similar, but importantly different way. Charter schools require exactly that, a charter from public school authorities (or other public agencies) to start and to continue operating. Schools where a parent could take a voucher already have the right to operate, and can operate with far less oversight than charters. Vouchers could be used in a broad variety of schools, likely more schools with more types of choices than local charters. Obviously this further expands the choices available to parents and students. And more competition to make the herd stronger.

Speaking of variety, I would support the use of vouchers for faith-based schools. My stand is that faith-based schools, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc., are no more a violation of the separation of church and state than what is happening in many public schools today; espousing secular progressivism, humanism and/or deism. Or even atheism, which is often proselytized with an enthusiasm and passion which would be the envy of many a believer. Students presenting vouchers to a faith-based school would be allowed to opt out of any religious classes. And just how do students in any type of school opt out of classes where teachers insert their convictions (in classes where the published syllabus has nothing to do with religion, pro or con, whether the teacher’s stand be faith-based in the customary sense, or grounded in their faith that there is nothing to have faith in)?

Let’s walk across the hall, from where the class on how competition makes worthy competitors stronger and eliminates the weak who can’t or w...