The Marine and the Hippie

In this dialogue, we discuss a recent story about a woman who has tuburculosis and refuses treatment for her disease. She has been dragged into court 16 times because she is knowingly spreading the disease, a treatable but deadly disease in her community. The discussion turns to the tension between civil liberties and civic duty. At what point does one's personal freedom end? At what point does a society have an obligation to lock a threat to public wealth, welfare and order away to prevent them from harming the community? At what point does a person who flouts any sense of civic duty lose their liberty? All these questions are raised in this discussion about modern society, where we pay attention only to liberty and do not seem to be interested in performing our duty to others around us.

In this dialogue, we discuss subscriptions, and specifically the economic model of people paying exorbitant amounts of money for services, without actually owning anything.  While this dialogue focuses on subscriptions for online services and streaming services, it can also extend to things like rent, where some wealthy property owner can charge you to live in a domicile that you do not own.  And the model itself approximates an extortion racket:  When you buy in, the provider of the "service" feels free to cause you problems at cheaper levels and then offers to solve the problem if you pay them more money.  There is significant pushback in the society to withdrawing from that economic model by people who themselves have bought in, because your participation in the society where everyone is being taken advantage of is called into question through withdrawal:  People stigmatize homelessness, and while homelessness can be hard, it can also be kind of rewarding simply by you not passing your wealth off to the property owning class.

In this dialogue, we discuss the inability of Americans to laugh at themselves.  We take a lot of people to task, but focus primarily on the ridiculousness around the anti-trans/ anti-gay Right, who will call different lifestyles and identities aberrant and repulsive, and still listen to music about gay men finding partners in public showers and hanging bronzed testicles on the back of their trucks.  We further discuss implications for this refusal to simply live and let live and an utter contempt for a civic mindedness which puts the good of the nation ahead of one's own personal likes or dislikes, and suggest that it will lead to the rise of a new serfdom or slavery in the US.  

In this dialogue, we discuss the implication of the development of AI technology.  On the one hand, AI technology can theoretically save labor and allow people to devote more time and energy to other things in their lives.  On the other hand, it will allow employers to pocket more profit through the cutting of labor costs.  Furthermore, it opens up more problems for teachers who are trying to encourage their students to learn how to write:  Students can spend money to buy papers composed by the AI chatbots, and while this is technically not copying, given that AI Chatbot is written in the student's own voice, it still does not mean that the student actually did any of the work on the project.  AI technology is here to stay, and so now we need to learn how to live in the society where it is constantly present.

In this dialogue, we discuss whether or not we have morality.  Morality is a system of moral rules, which can either come from some external source, or from our own rules about how we want to live in the world.  While the question about the existence of morality is controversial, if we do have morality, does that create an ethical obligation for us?  Do we owe it to our society to act morally, and to create a better world than the one we inherited?  The question remains open even after the discussion.

In this dialogue, the failure of post modern education, in the US specifically, but across the world more generally, to promote excellence, or even standards in education.  The notion that all deserve education is both a good and bad thing.  On the one hand, universal education has led to lifting millions out of superstition and ignorance, and has allowed them to advance in technology, art, music and science.  On the other hand, it has created a one-size-fits-all model which is simply inappropriate for a number of people, especially those whose aptitudes lie in other directions, and the insistence that these individuals remain in the same educational system as those who actually want to learn and have the ability to excel in class tends to draw resources from the students who care enough and have the ability to learn.  But the issue is not "not education" or "private home school" but taking the priorities of industry and putting them on the back burner to restore a sense of education as a dialogue between teacher and student.

In this dialogue, we discuss the rise of the new King in Great Britain.  While the world shows deference and obeisance to the new monarch, we deconstruct monarchy and touch on how the royal family became who they are.  Royals are who they are because they are the most brutal murderers, rapists, and conquerors on the planet  The foundation of all thrones is made of the bones of those who opposed, so that while the world sees a monarch drinking tea with her pinkie pointed in the air, it is difficult to remember that sheer brutality is what put her in her place to begin with.

In this dialogue, we talk about the refusal of decisionmakers to adequately address the problems that are facing our society.  While our society bleeds out, the politicians choose to offer policies that do not even address the problem, and are built in a way that are guaranteed to fail in our political process.  But the goal is not to actually solve any problems, we find, but to make it look like they are paying attention and care about the people.  What it really amounts to is that society is more or less bleeding out, and all our political leaders are doing are offering bandaids.  This of course will lead instead to a complete loss of our society if something is not done

In this dialogue, we talk about inflation:  Whether it is real or manufactured.  To make a long story short, we explain how inflation is driven not by uncontrollable factors in the economy, but by conscious decisions made by producers to set prices at "whatever people will pay", and then use this crisis as a way to take even more money from society than they already do, as well as their allies in the government who, instead of helping people, they help the well connected rob us all blind.  This great robbery is then blamed on poor people as a method of justifying further refusal to help poor people get access to basic services.

In this dialogue, we the gun crisis in the US.  In the aftermath of the deadly school shooting in Uvalde Texas, as well as other mass shootings across the country, it is clear that there is a gun problem in the US.  The numbers suggest that the reason people claim they want to keep firearms, justifiable, legal intervention in protection of life and limb, constitute a tiny percentage of firearm deaths, while the vast majority of death caused by firearms is either homicide, suicide or negligence.  In place of the pell mell, laissez faire attitude that we have in the US toward firearms, and in opposition to the "ban all guns" attitude held by ignorant Americans, what we should do is regulate firearms like we do cars, and then train gun owners on safety and responsible ownership of firearms.  Only then can we get buy in from actual gun owners and help from them to pass legislation and policy that would increase safety in the US.

In this dialogue, we the Great Baby Formula Shortage of 2022.  At some point there were policy decisions made that led to such a bottleneck in supply of baby formula, and created a panic among parents who insist that their children all need an ultra rare form of baby formula or their children will starve to death.  But much of this is being driven by companies who make money selling formula to these parents and who inform them, through their allies in the Government and the media, that parents should not try to make their own formula.  Nor can we seem to import it from other countries, because, for some reason, baby formula which is just fine for children in the EU or Canada or Mexico is probably extremely toxic for special American Children.  More than anything, this shortage is evidence that Americans have chosen to become completely dependent upon corporations who exist by draining the life blood of Americans, rather than practicing self reliance and learning how to make food for their own children.  We have forgotten, for the sake of corporate profits, what 10,000 years of human evolution has taught us, only within the last couple generations.  This show argues that people should relearn self-reliance and learn how to do simple, basic things for ourselves rather than relying on the convenience of capitalism.  Because, as this shortage teaches, Capitalism will not be there for us when we need it most.

In this dialogue, we discuss the lunar eclipse and the thoughts around lunar eclipses.  People who subscribe to astrology will argue that the lunar eclipse portends great opportunity to examine and make changes in one's life, but it is possible that people are merely manifesting the sort of future they want, and the lunar eclipse serves to remind you to do things that you should be doing.  Whether or not you are willing something into existence, your attention to the issue and choice to link various actions together becomes a reality for you, whether it be you manifesting your own future into existence, or your tying the actions of the stars and the planets to your fortune.  The lunar eclipse, at the very least, gave us an excuse to consider this topic.

In this dialogue, we talk about standards, and how the lack of standards leads to the failure of Democrats to protect Roe v. Wade.  Voters are willing to let the government and the country to run on autopilot until the enemies of rights finally start succeeding in taking away rights.  The Republicans have been working and organizing and winning state houses, congressional elections and judgeships for 50 years, and the Democrats, whenever they have a chance, they fail to do anything to reverse the gains made by the Republicans.  The standards that Democratic voters have for their elected officials are so low that they'll accept anyone who isn't a republican, and some who are.  But this leads to the elimination of rights.  And now, the Democrats wonder why rights are being taken away.  This is a result of the failure of Democratic voters to hold their representatives accountable for their failure to legislate on behalf of the people.

In this dialogue, we discuss the difference between blooming early and then fading out vs. living the entire time.  We begin the discussion with the story of Kobe Bryant, one of the greatest basketball players of all time, who worked and worked to provide a good life for him and his family, and then died young and never got to live life apart from his work.  We then moved to a metaphor of the man who is living life who is harassed by a professional who chides him for not sharing his values of hard work, saving and retirement.  What use is all that when you seek to spend your time living now and don't want to wait for an uncertain future.  Ultimately, we discover that it might be a different story if we were actually working for ourselves and our own lives, rather than simply working to make someone else rich.

In this dialogue, we the discuss systemic failure of the current education system which insists that there is really only one possible path to success for students, and calls those who do not fit into that mold "failures."  Much of the problem with students is that their home environment is not conducive to academic success under any circumstances, but part of the problem is that the student doesn't learn in the environment provided for them.  In many cases the teaching models are entirely inappropriate for the student's natural aptitude.  A systemic reform to education would allow the system to discover the student's natural aptitude and fit an education program to that aptitude to give that student the best chance to succeed along their own natural skill sets rather than imposing the needs of capital and society onto the student.  Only through systemic reform can we possible save our kids.

In this dialogue, we the discuss the propensity of Americans to select the lesser of two evils, because the political options we have today all run the same facade, which is designed to get people to believe what ultimately turn out to be completely lies.  In most cases, it seems that people of this world prefer those people who will smile in their faces, as they are stabbing them in the back to those who tell harsh, but necessary truth.  For example, we explore the case of those who have long offered to help the poor, and then turn around and ignore them after they are elected, or those who promise to do something to work to resolve society's ills, and then merely continue failed policy of previous administrations.  At the end of the discussion, we bring in a conversation about white lies, and offer examples of how to tell truth in a way which does not alienate those listening to you.

In this dialogue, we the discuss the breaking of social norms, and why our society allows this to happen.  While we may want to do genuine violence to transgress social norms, due to their refusal to follow the same rules that allow us to live in society with one another, most of us do not respond in such an extreme manner, because the norm of not harming other people around us supersedes the urge to punish normative defection. As a result, those who violate the rules that allow us all to exist in the same society tend to get away with their anti normative behavior, and we as a society are worse for it.

In this dialogue, we discuss the assault by actor Will Smith upon comedian and presenter Chris Rock at the 2022 Academy Awards.  In an incident that was broadcast across the entire world, Rock told a joke that Smith initially found to be funny, and then on second thought, took offense to.  This umbrage led Smith to climb up onto the stage, walk across the stage and physically strike Rock across the face, and then yell at him several times, before tearfully accepting his award for Best Actor.  We discuss the two different sets of justice which exist in this country, one which allows a wealthy and popular actor to physically assault another man in front of television cameras, with impunity, and the other which would prosecute everyone else to the ends of the law and beyond.  We also discuss the obvious hypocrisy of the Academy who claimed they "do not condone violence", but push out hundreds of movies annually, and award many of them, which feature gratuitous and often vulgar displays of violence consistently.

In this dialogue we discuss the way that people are taught to be incredibly stupid.  We are taught, primarily by our choices of media, to not ask questions, to not challenge authority, to not demand more.  The initial issue rises from the notion that when we pay taxes, we ought to demand things for it.  Instead, we simply pay into the system and do not get any active support from our society when we need help.  Sure, there are passive benefits, namely public order and fire protection, a regulated current, and marginally passable roads.  But those things do not make a bit of difference in times of crisis, when we need active support from the society:  At that time, we realize there is nothing left for us, because it has been given away long ago to the wealthy and powerful interests who all have lobbies and regularly claim any sort of social insurance there would have been.  Consequently, when we actually need social insurance, we are informed that there is nothing left for us:  meanwhile the Wealthy loot the treasury, corporations and insurance companies are highly subsidized and only nominally regulated, and we find ourselves in a pandemic and yet another war with zero support for the population.  The media is complicit in our learning to be stupid and not challenge it.

In this episode, we discuss the concept of Trickle down ethics, where the ethics of the person who sits at the top of an organization become the ethics of the lower down members of the organization.  In the US, profit is the only motive for most activity, and that precludes concepts of justice in discussions about whether or not to tell the truth on the television or whether or not to go to war.  That sort of ethic has been so imbued in our society that our politicians no longer feel the need to tell the truth, the media no longer presents anything but lies and things that satisfy advertisers and the people no longer expect decent or just policy from the government.  The only way to reverse this trend is to replace the people who are put in place because they have money and are treated as moral with those who are concerned with justice.

In this dialogue, we discuss the death of Truth.  Dylan asks the question if podcasts, political entertainment and various other messages should be labled "For Entertainment Purposes Only."  After a short discussion about the non-interchangability of professions, or non-expertise for expertise, we discuss who should be doing that labeling?  Should it be Google or Twitter or Spotify, or are those for-profit entities non-trustworthy to perform such an important function as librarian because they exist not to perform some sort of ethical function in society but exclusively to make money for their investors.  We finally move to a larger discussion about doping, and whether or not Truth itself even exists anymore, and we find that without some sort of ethical standard of Truth, there is no way to even make intelligible arguments.

In this dialogue, we discuss political rhetoric.  Specifically, we discuss the use by Joe Biden of the word "unimaginable" when describing the tornado outbreak in Western Kentucky and Southern Illinois during the night of December 10 2021.  When politicians use words like "unimaginable" to describe events which were completely imaginable, and for that matter, to some degree preventable, they shift responsibility for lousy or absent policy away from themselves and onto randomness.  Not only is it imaginable that tornadoes should happen, at any time of the year in Tornado Alley, but there are policies which can be created to warn people in tornados' paths earlier and give them the opportunity to escape.  And yet, political leaders prefer to use words like "unimaginable" to sidestep blame for policy failure.  As citizens we have the right to demand of our leaders that they adopt policy designed to help us protect ourselves from even natural disasters, but since we have come to expect "thoughts and prayers" to be the only thing our politicians offer in times of disaster and crisis, our support for government is undermined by our leaders themselves, and we are left to fend for ourselves.

in this dialogue, we discuss an extended metaphor of the sheep, the shepherd, the wolf and the Rabid Wolves.  The sheep are just living their lives:  their task is to follow.  The Shepherd's role is to protect and teach.  The wolf's role is to act and provide an outlet for human energy.  All people can play all these roles in different contexts.  And when balanced in society, each serves a very valuable function, and the society is healthy as a result.  However, the problem comes when some of the wolves become sick and begin to think that they must dominate and act far more aggressively than they need to.  In a sense, the rabid wolf is a symptom of a sick society.  And as we live in a society that seems to place value on the one who dominates and crushes others, we spread the sickness to more and more people, and the society leaves the healthy balance.  Eventually, if unchecked, the rabid nature of the wolves will overtake and kill the society, just like what ails us as a society will eventually kill our society.  We finish the show with excerpts of the Call to Prayer in Turkey forming the backdrop for Dylan's closing remarks. 

In this dialogue, we discuss the arrival of the season of Winter, metaphorically, for our society.  Winter is seen as the season of leanness and struggle, of a fight for survival.  As we leave the era of abundance in our society as a whole and enter into a season of manufactured and deliberate scarcity, created by the greed and selfishness of those who have, the option left for those who do not have enough to survive and yet need to survive anyway becomes violence.  We lose the veneer of society and civility when survival becomes a serious concern in our lives.  And this is where are are at as a society:  it has arrived as sure as the summer of abundance gives way to colder winds, harsher environments, and shortages that life experiences in the winter.  The only thing that can change this for people at least is good policy adopted by wise leaders who are both capable and willing to do what is necessary for the survival of society itself.  Without that, violence is guaranteed to be more common, and people will resort less to reason and more to simple brute force.

In this dialogue, we discuss the recent acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse.  We cover the facts of the case, and discuss not only the fact that he was acquitted of the charges against him in a court of law, but discuss the concept of moral responsibility for the killing of two men and the injury of a third in the city of Kenosha.  Both of us emphatically agree that Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in the situation where he would have had to use a rifle on other people in the first place, and while the jury found that his actions did not constitute crimes under the State code, not only is Rittenhouse absolutely morally culpable for those killings, but those who enabled him, to include his own mother, also share in the blame.  

In this episode, we explore the noble lie- a lie told by the powerful to get people to do what they consider to be good, but which the people wouldn't support normally.  In philosophy, the noble lie is told in the service of a greater good.  But in modern politics, it is simply told to get people to agree to support evil and/or ineffective politicians, and make people forget what is in their interests, by tricking them into believing the their political opponents are worse.  We find that we never get good government out of a contest over who is least bad.  And as a result, the only people who are served by the noble lie are the powerful who use the people.  The solution is to demand good government and benefits from citizenship.  

In this dialogue, we take a dive into philosophical discussion as we discuss Ayn Rand's book Atlas Shrugged.  The controversial work tends to raise strong feelings among both Rand's supporters and her critics, and we attempt to engage some of those ideas here.  The show was born out of the question "Why does the Left dislike Ayn Rand so intensely?"  On the one hand, she was a female writer who immigrated to the US from Russia in the mid 20th Century, and was a very accomplished author who wrote strong female characters and critiqued arcane structures of power and control.  Her writing has been very attractive to primarily movement conservatives in the US, who laud her support for individualism and laissez-Faire capitalism and her critique of regulation, big government, and social norms which are seen to be stifling creativity and innovation among doers in society.  Meanwhile her critics will argue that at the heart of her philosophy is a social Darwinism which would easily sacrifice the least productive members of the society.  At the end, we merely agree to disagree on the book and its contents, after a sometimes heated debate, of which this show is merely the culmination.

On this Dialogue, we discuss why textbooks that are used to teach children in schools not only foreclose any possibility of education, but actually serve the political interests of motivated actors in the community.  These textbooks, which frequently feature full color glossy pictures, charts, and maps, but contain a dearth of information, do not actually provide a full picture to students of their subject matter, and are designed more to convince school boards that are often captured by political actors to adopt them.  As a result of needing to please political actors at the state level, they do not offer complete or controversial information, but are instead used to paint a pollyannaish view of the country, its history, politics and society.  Kids therefore do not acquire the skills necessary to do any sort of critical thinking, and we are worse, as a society for it.

Om this dialogue, we divert from a normal discussion of current events to take a moment to talk about self publishing.  As we both are now published authors, we discuss some of the benefits of self-publishing, some of the challenges associated with editing and promotion, and the promise of self promotion for the dissemination of information from a broader pool of authors, essentially going around the gatekeepers in legacy publishing houses.  There are of course tradeoffs to self publishing as opposed to getting an agent, but at the end of the day, if your goal is to get your ideas before eyes and control your own art and philosophy, free of the needs for others to profit from your work, self publishing is a fairly easy and certainly inexpensive process that anyone with a bit of technical knowhow and dedication to the project can accomplish.

In this dialogue, we discuss morality, specifically the morality behind making decisions for other people.  We discuss whether people should be making rules for other people that they are not willing to obey themselves.  We delve into the topics of abortion and the COVID vaccine mandates.  We also look at moral theory and apply both absolute and relative ethical perspectives.  Throughout the discussion, we come to a view which shows that those who apply moral rules to others that they are not willing to live by themselves are nothing more than hypocrites.

In this dialogue, we discuss the moral justification for Revolution in the face of a rising serfdom in this country.  We consider why a revolution for humanity and against the dehumanization of people in the US would be the correct course of action for Americans, and we examine some of the things which stand in the way of a fundamental alteration of the social structure in the United States.  At the end of the day, what we determine is that a revolution would indeed be justifiable, but we are not so optimistic that a radical or moderate change of course is in the cards for the people of the US.

In this episode, we reintroduce The Marine and the Hippie as a show, and discuss the guiding philosophy of the show.  We talk about how dialogue and a willingness to discuss contentious topics in good faith is essential to finding common ground.  The entire purpose of the show is to try to propose solutions for current social issues, and resolve disagreements between ourselves.  As we discuss the MO for our show, we talk about ways that Americans can learn to find middle positions and abandon mutually exclusive stances.

In this dialogue, we consider the implications of the ending of the 20 year long War Against Afghanistan, and the resulting refugee crisis-  to what degree do we have an obligation to the people of Afghanistan who helped the US, or the professionals who simply seek to flee from a repressive theocratic regime that is replacing our largely kleptocratic puppet regime?  Will the process of integrating new Refugees into the US be easy or even possible?  Should we be bringing refugees from that country to ours, and to what degree do we offer aid when they arrive?  We can look at all these questions in a historical lens to try to get some answers.

In this dialogue, we discuss the concept of civic responsibility.  As we discuss the topic, COVID-19 is resurging in many places dominated by the unvaccinated, and the continued existence of large populations of willfully, and militantly unvaccinated, puts the rest of us, even the vaccinated, but most especially those who are not allowed, for whatever reason to get a vaccine, at grave risk.  At what point, we inquire, do people lose the right to make personal choices, such as the pigheaded refusal to get vaccinated, in the name of a greater social good?  This question has larger implications, of course, for many personal choice in public space issues as well:  At what point do we owe a duty to our society which supersedes our own fear, hesitation, or just outright impetuousness, obstinacy, and cruel disregard for the health and safety of others?

In this dialogue, we discuss religion and the dogma which tends to alienate individuals.  The static nature of organized religion ensures that there is no room for variation or divergence from the standard line.  But with a closer look at the actual structures of the organized religion, we realize that it is some degree separate from the actual faith that inspired it, and supposedly serves as a foundation of the religion.  Observance of the Religion is of man: the various rules which deny the human existence in its multitudinous and varied forms were entirely invented by man, and posited as the only correct way of worshiping or acknowledging god.  What is needed instead is a focus on living a good life, on earth, while we are alive, and letting the afterlife, if it exists, take care of itself when 

In this dialogue, we discuss issues around transgendered children playing sports in school.  We conceptually separate the issue of children playing sports and the separate issues of transgendered adults in sports and the idea that some deviant sociopaths are attempting to take advantage of changing attitudes around transgender identity to hurt people.  The main thesis is that children ought to be able to participate in sports in schools regardless of gender considerations, and that focusing on gender and transgender issues is a distraction to the larger ideas that kids should be able to participate in school sports,  regardless of their gender identification.  We also discuss ways that the society can change to begin accommodating those of a different gender identity, for the sake of kids having an opportunity to participate fully in the experience of being a kid.

In this week's dialogue, we begin the discussion about the different ways that bicycles are treated on the roadways of the US.  The dialogue was originally intended to explore a metaphor of the exclusion of the bikes from equal consideration by the rest of the society and the treating of those who ride bikes as second class citizens, in much the same way that minorities have been treated.  But the dialogue soon veers off that course and into more of a discussion about the weighing of safety and accessibility.  This is a much larger discussion than we could have in one episode, and the topic might be revisited in a future episode.

In this week's dialogue, we utilize an extended metaphor of the ability of wolves to separate sheep from the flock to catch and eat them.  We discuss how this metaphor is applicable to the strategies employed by people in the society, who should be herding together to protect them all from existential doom, but instead either scatter, eliminating the advantage of the herd entirely and handing it over to the wolves, or actively sacrificing others to the wolf to ensure that they themselves feel safer from the wolf attack.  Only if people unite and and realize that 1) there are always more sheep than wolves, and 2) that they can actually beat the wolves with collective action, will they ever stand a chance of successfully fending off the wolves and surviving.

In this dialogue, we discuss the tendency of people to misperceive the comments made by other people.  In so many instances, very often on social media, people tend to assume that the strange, out of the ordinary things they do, which attract attention of other people, are in fact very normal, and present it in a public place as if it is perfectly normal.  When another person inevitably makes a comment on the strange thing they see, the person exhibiting a strange trait feels that they have been some how slighted or insulted.  They themselves think they are doing something mundane, like driving an unremarkable vehicle, but in fact their are attracting attention the way a Ferrari would, and are surprised that others would notice their oddity.  A lot of this misperception and miscommunication tends to feed cancel culture.  We encourage people to take a step back, consider how their own personal strangeness, the things they do to very publicly stand out, will attract attention and will attract comment, and if that attention and comment offends, perhaps the problem lies with the person who attracted the attention, and not with the one who commented.

In this Dialogue, the Marine and the Hippie discuss the role that God plays in the world.  Far too often, God is invoked to justify the actions of man, whether for good or evil.  We discuss this notion that whatever people think of God, our actions in this world are our own.  And far too often, we say God did this or inspired that, but it is important to remember that ultimately the action itself, whether it be the writing of some religious text or the genocide of a people, falls upon the shoulders of the men (and women) who did the action.  God does not speak, or act in the world.  And it is immoral for us to claim that we can oppress some people, or deny some people basic necessities simply because we claim that God did or did not command us to do it.  Ultimately it is up to us as people to act in the world, because God, if God exists, simply IS.  It is always people who DO, or don't do.

In this dialogue, we explore the concept of the Minimum:  the idea that what we are willing to accept is far lower than what we need to survive, and Americans are taught that we shouldn't ask for any more than that from our government or society.  For example, we discuss what should be basic tools to ensure survival, things like medical care for all, environmental legislation and a Universal Basic Income, which are guaranteed to most around the world, but for some reason not to the people of the United States.  We are unwilling to demand it from our government, and as a result, we do not see a return on our investment which we make in the form of taxes.  The result is bad government making bad policy which helps only a tiny segment of the population while the vast majority of us are left out in the cold.  To overcome this, we need to start demanding a return on our investment in the form of responsible and socially oriented spending of our tax dollars, and the installation of socially oriented government policy.

In this dialogue, We explore the ways that people teach and the ways that people learn.  If the three different words, Through, Thru, and Threw make the same sound, is it really wrong of a student to use the inappropriate spelling when writing it out?  Or is the goal of education not to teach kids how to use the tools they have available to solve some problem, in this case, communication of an idea, but to force them into a box which limits their thinking and merely replicates the environment and the system that the instructor his or her self experienced when they themselves were learning?  We look here at how education should be about allowing a student to learn how to learn something, which will ultimately set them up to learn how to learn anything, as opposed to the notion that education exists for the teacher to impart knowledge and the student to merely regurgitate it back to the teacher in a test environment

In this dialogue we discuss the political spectrum in the United States and visualize it as a globe, rather than a straight line.  In the center at the top are the politically motivated:  Actors who are interested for one reason or another on performing the job of politics in the US, and getting candidates funded and elected.  This group is generally undifferentiated, and often come from the same backgrounds, the same schools, and the same class.  Around the outside of this group are those who Dylan called the Sentry forces, which are die hard supporters of their chosen candidates, and who exist to try to pull in from the majority of the population to help their individual candidates win.  And then, across the remainder of the political sphere, are those who are just trying to live their lives, who may be somewhat interested in politics but for all intents and purposes are depoliticized.  We begin a dialogue about how to create a society where the people at the top of the sphere begin working for the benefit of those at the bottom, rather than just themselves.  Its a simple concept to describe a very complex mechanism, but it does provide a new way of thinking about the political positions we hold in this country.

In this dialogue, we talk about the meaning of the Flag.  For a long time, the Right has laid claim to the Flag as a symbol and to patriotism.  But in doing so, they end up excluding half the population from consideration as "patriots".  To what degree then is the Left complicit in letting them define what the Flag means, to the degree that it becomes a symbol not for unity and pride, but of hatred and division?  We discuss between ourselves differences in interpretations for the meaning of this symbol and begin to consider how to make it a symbol of pride for the broader population of our Country.

In this dialogue, we take on the Sinking ship that is American society.  As the ship goes down, we have people in the society that take the position of the happy nihilist who feel that everything is screwed up so bad, they may as well just enjoy the bonfire.  But a better alternative is to take steps to unite with the rest of the people on board and try to fix the ship.  We look at how modern identity politics on both the left and the right tend to exacerbate the divide and prevent us from uniting around a common cause, which is fixing the sinking ship, and we talk about how to look past that to a day when we get the opportunity to try to figure out how to live in the same place with people who disagree with us.

On this episode, we discuss the concept of the Lion and the Antelopes.  It begins with a discussion about the need to provide help to the weak antelopes in the herd to help them avoid being food for the lion, but moves to the idea that when we try to describe society in these terms, we run into problems because the "antelopes" in society do not act like a herd, they do not want to be a part of the herd, and they all see themselves as the lion.  All of these features of our society privilege the lion by making it easier for the lion to devour any member of the herd he likes.

Until we can rebuild the herd, which serves the function of reducing our individual marginal probability of being caught, we still need to work to make sure that we are working together to help the weaker antelopes to survive the lion attack.

Today we talk about the problems that can be caused when resources in society dry up.  We focus specifically on the effect that denying people the opportunity to obtain resources for mental health has on our society.  We also look at the effect that the lack of those resources has on children who, except for access to the sort of intervention that would be needed in schools, often grow up to become adults with mental health issues.  Finally we consider the effect that the "lack of sharp edges" and the "rubber room" will have on this generation who is growing up now, who are afraid to lose, to get hurt, and to fail.

On this episode, The Marine and the Hippy do some left dragging, as we attempt to examine the sources of the Right's hegemonic control over the discourse and levers of political power in this country:  the real problem is Leftist disunity and the Left's unwillingness to acknowledge differences of opinion on core issues, compared to the Right's unity and willingness to compromise internally for the sake of Power.  If the Left wants to have any meaningful seat at the table, the first thing they must do is figure out how to live with one another and unite into a common direction, but it appears highly unlikely that that will ever happen.

In this episode, we look at echo chambers and information silos, which lead to group think and unreasonable expectations 1) that individuals have complete information and 2) that this information conforms exactly to the same information that I have, and if you fail to meet these two criteria, you are shunned by the echo chamber environment.  We discuss about some ways to address this insular sort of communication and to work toward education rather than exclusion.  We also talk about Taylor Swift.

In this episode, we discuss cheating, and the ability of some to escape without consequences.  We discuss the differences between those who cheat out of necessity and those who cheat just to gain more fame and money, and how in our society, those in the second category are usually rewarded for their efforts.  We use the Lance Armstrong doping controversy to describe the current state of American politics where our former president seems to get away with doing dastardly things, and it seems he is more popular for all of it nonetheless.  And we ask ourselves whether the minimum we accept from our public officials is really enough.

In this episode, we discuss the difficulty in meeting basic needs, and contrast our so-called civilized life with the life of those in tropical zones of the planets who can literally go pick food off of trees when they are hungry.  We also discuss the role that moving off the farm and into the city has allowed bosses to charge their workers for the privilege of remaining alive.

In this episode we discuss the concept of the Minumum:  Whether it is the minumum that we need to survive, or the minimum that we can get, one way or another, our conception of that term has to change if we are to survive, and if it will not without systemic change, perhaps we ought to refuse to continue to play the game.