.jpg)
United States of PTSD
Season One: Mental health concerns are on the rise in the United States. This podcast will look at the influencing factors contributing to the decline of our culture. With the rise of school shootings, political divisiveness, increasing levels of hate, and a chronic war of peoples' rights, we have entered a domestic war that never ends. Our podcast will look at whether this is done by design or is it an abject failure. We will discuss it from a clinical and common-sense perspective. Secondarily we will discuss ways to protect yourself from being further traumatized. Hosted by Matthew Boucher LICSW LCDP (licensed in RI) who has over 20 years of experience working with people who have addictions and trauma with a specialty of pregnant/postpartum women. Co-host Wendy Picard is a Learning and Development consultant with 15 years of experience, lifelong observer of the human condition, and diagnosed with PTSD in 1994.
Season Two: Is joined by Donna Gaudette and Julia Kirkpatrick BSW. Julia is currently working on obtaining her MSW and her LCSW. She is a welcome addition to the podcast.
Season Three: Cora Lee Kennedy provided research and worked as a temporary co-host. Dr. Erika Lin-Hendel joins as a co-host for season 3.
United States of PTSD
S 3 E: 12 Division By Design: How Capitalism Profits From Our Political Hostility
Matt and Mike explore cognitive dissonance in political values, examining how party loyalty often overrides moral consistency, particularly regarding responses to global genocides versus performative corporate boycotts.
• Discussion of selective outrage: boycotting companies for one day while ignoring ongoing genocides
• Examination of how political tribalism leads to moral inconsistencies
• Analysis of capitalism's role in keeping citizens divided against their own interests
• Consideration of how class warfare is disguised as partisan political conflict
• Reflection on meaningful versus performative activism
• Personal safety considerations when speaking out against powerful interests
• Practical suggestions for making impact while maintaining personal wellbeing
If you'd like to be a guest speaker on the show, please contact Matt with specific ideas rather than AI-generated pitches. We always appreciate listener feedback and suggestions for future episodes!
Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
https://uppbeat.io/t/hartzmann/no-time-to-die
License code: S4CEQWLNQXVZUMU4
Artwork and logo design by Misty Rae.
Special thanks to Joanna Roux for editing help.
Special thanks to the listeners and all the wonderful people who helped listen to and provide feedback on the episode's prerelease.
Please feel free to email Matt topics or suggestions, questions or feedback.
Matt@unitedstatesofPTSD.com
This podcast is not intended to serve as therapeutic advice or to replace any professional treatment. These opinions belong to us and do not reflect any company or agency. Hello everybody and welcome back to another episode of the United States of PTSD. I have Mike Thibault back with me again for this week's episode. Say hi to everybody.
Speaker 2:Thanks for having me back, Matt. It's good to be here.
Speaker 1:Of course, glad to have you back. I have a funny story I want to share. I just thought of it when I was rebooting because we had just tested the audio for those of you listening. So I have a lemon tree in my house that has one lemon on it that's been growing since May of last year because apparently it takes a really long time for them to grow. But interesting story is that so self-pollinating for those of you that have plants or trying to get into, uh, growing plants does not mean that they pollinate themselves without help.
Speaker 1:When I thought about that later on, it kind of made sense. But when they said self-pollinated, I really just assumed that they were going to do it right. Then I was talking to somebody. They're like no, you have to actually pollinate it on your own. So one of of the other. I have another lemon tree and if I had about I think a painting just fell down right yeah, I'll fix it in a minute I think about 10 flowers had bloomed and I pollinated it with a brush and now I have probably about 10 lemons growing on that tree. So valuable lesson out there, anybody?
Speaker 1:if you see self-pollinating it does not mean they magically self-pollinate. Oh, that's so funny. I know it sounds like an O'Brainer, but I certainly didn't think of that. So we're going to talk about the last episode that we did. We're going to talk more about that the problems with capitalism. But the other thing I wanted to talk about was having recently been grading a lot of papers. I am so sick of AI usage. I have to tell you it's so bad. And even for the podcast, I get maybe 10 emails a week, maybe from people who want to come on the show, but all of the emails are written by the same AI program because they almost say verbatim. It'll say something like oh, the riveting and captivating episode for last week with so-and-so caught my attention. Then, of course, when I email them back and say what specifically did the speaker say that caught your attention, one of them said oh sorry, I have the flu. I'll get back to you in a week. It's so annoying, I don't know. What are your thoughts on AI and the usage of it?
Speaker 2:I really think it's to the detriment of everybody. I mean, I think there are certain benefits of AI, I think it can help with proofreading, things like that, but I mean, if you're using it to actually create your content or your material, I mean it's only to your detriment and then to everybody who consumes that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it's becoming a huge problem and you can't we can't necessarily prove it. That's the other issue. I can tell you. I know the difference. I've been reading papers for 14 years now and as a writer myself, I know. When I'm reading AI, I know it. There are certain words that just you know populate among these papers that people are writing, but you can't prove it and my concern is that it's really adding to dumbing down of our population. And then, when you look at things like in our particular profession, they decided to pilot a program where they got rid of the licensing exam for two years on top of people using AI to graduate is really terrifying for our future. That's my concern about that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I get really worried with the use of AI in classes, specifically as a student myself. In general, I mean, I don't understand how you're supposed to enter the workforce and, especially in social work, do this kind of work that is. It's really impactful to people and I don't I worry for the competence of workers in the future if they're using AI to complete all their assignments.
Speaker 1:What you said earlier, and I think this is a good use of AI. I use AI in writing a description for the podcast, but I'm but I'm you, like you and I are doing the podcast, so it's not used as like a dictating process and of course, I proofread it afterwards. What you had said about using it as a way to create an outline or to check something or to look for references I think those are all positive uses of it, much like a calculator and math, like using it to double check your work. But if the calculator fails, you need to know how to do the work and I'm concerned that this. What we are seeing, is a people who fundamentally do not have the ability to do the work, that are not given an exam to test them, and are now going to be practicing.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely, and I mean I can only hope that it's something that you know professors are on top of and catching, as it happens, and you know responding to appropriately. But of course I mean that puts a lot of faith in the system.
Speaker 1:And it's hard to prove. I mean otherwise than knowing, when you read it, that it's it's fake. I mean, you can run, you can run a paper through three different detectors and get three different percentages as to what it is. I mean, and they they apparently are not as accurate as they used to be, but it's a concern. I never, I never thought that I would spend more time trying to figure out if people are cheating than actually providing quality feedback like that's, and I'm super concerned about it.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely. I mean, that's a really good point too, where it's taking away from your ability to actually reflect upon the work that people are handing in, because ultimately, you know, I personally find the feedback that I get from my professors to be one of the most useful things to improving, which I mean in general, I guess is applicable to most things. You know, if you don't get criticism or feedback, how are you supposed to do any better? And if that feedback A isn't even on your work but B is also kind of, you know, restrained, in the sense that most of your time has been used just determining if it was even their work in the first place, I mean, it's both the professor and the student who are at a disadvantage here by the use of AI.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I agree it's very alarming and I think we're going to see it get worse and worse and worse over time. And the other thing that's really difficult, too, is if it's a well-written paper that's completely written by an AI. There's a certain amount of being disingenuous that goes into giving feedback because I know they didn't read it I mean, they didn't write it so but there's nothing substantial that I can say. Okay, here is, you know, here's feedback, because they don't care.
Speaker 2:It's really disappointing.
Speaker 1:It's super disappointing, but anyway, that's not what our topic was about today, but I just I had to go down that rabbit hole for a second. Maybe later on we'll. We'll explore that in the future. But we were going to talk about the. Was it the abandonment of values for the abandonment of personal values for a party, for party alignment? Can you?
Speaker 2:talk a little bit about that, mike. Yeah, I think this is something that we've seen on both sides of the political spectrum where, especially in the past few elections, I think, voters, individuals, have really become staunch in their alignment with their party, whether that's Democrat or Republican, speaking specifically to America, obviously, and I think with that there's been the abandonment of personal morals and values that are, you know, supposed life and promoting well-being of all people. You know, I don't know how you can align with candidates who support genocide and then, in the same breath, have human life be your argument for voting for that candidate.
Speaker 1:I agree with you. For people who actively listen to the show, they know we talk about the topic of genocide quite often and we certainly have a couple of guest speakers coming on. They're going to talk more about it in the next couple of weeks and I'm not going to stop talking about it because we can't stop talking about it. I think right now it is one of the most pressing issues that are going on, and there's multiple genocides going on. We have the genocide in the Congo, the Sudan, palestine, I mean they just they keep happening and we keep, as a country, ignoring it. Some of us individually are looking at it and certainly it's impossible to put as much effort into every single problem as one person. We only have a certain amount of energy. So we certainly even on the podcast we could be talking about the other ones, but I don't know if I have the time to do all of that.
Speaker 2:With the ability of each and every person. I mean, everybody has their own lives going on and is is under immense stress right now, whether it be economically, socially, politically, to your own capacity, be involved to whatever, wherever you can. But I also, you know, I don't mean to imply that, and so with that too. I also think you know it shouldn't mean to imply that, and so with that too. I also think you know it shouldn't be about necessarily abandoning all of your, you know, personal responsibilities and issues just to, you know, promote the, the political causes that you're passionate about or the social causes that you're passionate about, but to whatever capacity you're able to. You know, ultimately we have our own things going on and I think it's important to fit in the social, political stuff where you can, but it doesn't have to be your whole life really.
Speaker 1:I can call myself out for saying this too, about being busy. I mean I am busy, but again, there's a certain amount of privilege in also saying like I don't have to deal with all these issues, I'm just going to deal with the ones that are most relevant, and we all have to be fully aware of that. That, but to your point as well, we cannot, we can't take everything on, and I've seen some people right now who are making really big mistakes where they're. They are failing in the self care department and, you know, based on what we do for a living and based on just just humans in general, we can't help take care of somebody if we're not taking care of ourselves.
Speaker 1:And I've seen a few people I know fall into this trap where they just can't get off social media. They are just fixated on it and they're like responding to everything and they get sucked in. And there is no, as we talked about in our last episode, there is no neutrality. Both sides are toxic, both sides are lying, both sides have an agenda that they are pulling people in. It's just clickbait on everything right, like you'll read a title of some super provocative article, and we've all been guilty of this with responding and not really looking the article up and seeing what the truth behind it is. But I just I'm seeing more and more people fall into that trap and they don't even realize both the hypocrisy and the irony and some of the stuff that they're talking about.
Speaker 2:I totally agree. I don't at all mean to say that that we shouldn't be involved or that you shouldn't be paying attention, but rather that you know, like you'd said there, there is a certain privilege to not paying attention, but I also think there's a certain privilege to having the time and the resource to engage with these issues.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I was actually calling myself out. I wasn't even in my own narrative. I was like you know, if it's really we have to make time for, at least I have to make time for it in my, in my personal life, because it is really important to me. But you know, I don't think everybody can do that oh yeah, no, non-taken, uh.
Speaker 2:And then to your second point. I I totally agree that you know, if you ultimately are not taking care of yourself, it is really ineffective to be engaged with these issues. Um, ultimately, I think it is very like it's very easy to to go down the rabbit hole and to uh kind of spiral as you learn more and more about these things and kind of get that sense of hopelessness or or a sense of inability, which I think is very easy when you are down the holes. Um, and you know, with that. I think that's why a certain distance from it is is important, just to maintain your own ability to even engage with them in the first place.
Speaker 1:And it. Sometimes it's disappointing too. So, for example, we the first, the last episode we did we did before the February 28th blackout for purchasing stuff, and I know Target has been a huge target right now because of the removal of the DEI initiatives, and people were posting all over Facebook about not buying any products on that one particular date to make a statement against Target. When I saw it, it's all these people that I'm friends with and all these people who I think are well-meaning and well-intentioned, and the first thing I thought is you have been silent the entire time. A genocide has been going on.
Speaker 1:None of you have said a damn word, and now, because of DEI initiatives being rolled back, you're going to boycott target. Now here's my problem with that. These are also the same people who are unequivocally supporting Ukraine and putting up Ukraine flags, and I'm not not supporting Ukraine, but I want to point out the difference. So you are supporting Ukraine and you are angry at Target for removing DEI initiatives. Meanwhile, you have three different genocides happening in three different countries that you're ignoring, and I wonder what the difference between the populations of those countries and the Ukraine.
Speaker 2:Hmm, that's a juicy one. I have a lot I want to say about that.
Speaker 1:Because it's glaringly obvious they're white unwavering.
Speaker 2:Meanwhile, to even get a mainstream media outlet to like acknowledge that that Palestinians are being murdered and not just, you know, randomly killed, is such a challenge. And then I mean, I also want to address your point about the target boycott, because I think it goes back into our last episode's topic of oh gosh, what was the term we used?
Speaker 1:Selective outrage.
Speaker 2:Selective outrage. Yes, thank you, because I do think that ultimately, if you really you know, I mean if you really mean to make an impactful difference, then you should be boycotting these companies, like by and large across the board, not simply for one day, and that's something that we've been engaging, and I know, you and me personally and a lot of others uh, in terms of boycotting companies who have supported the genocide, and that's been going on for over a year now, unfortunately. Um, and with that I don't mean to criticize activism, because I mean I think it's it's a fine line between, um, the set, like that self-righteous kind of activism versus really impactful stuff. But ultimately, I mean, if you're boycotting a company for one day to make a statement and then you go back the next day and shop there again, I mean, how does that really align with your values? If you're saying that this company isn't aligning with your values, yeah, which is performative.
Speaker 1:I mean, that's what we talked about last episode was some. I don't even think people really understand what they're doing right. So if you are, I mean the point. The reason why people are boycotting DEI is because they're saying that the removal of it is racist and it is not factoring in for equality and diversity and equity. Okay, I get that. That makes sense.
Speaker 1:But then if you're also saying that you are for diversity, equity and inclusion, but then single-handedly ignoring genocide not war genocide because the difference with Ukraine is they have a functioning army and the amount of people that are dying in Ukraine not that I'm justifying anybody dying is far less than the people that are dying in any of these genocides that are dying in ukraine.
Speaker 1:Not that I'm justifying anybody dying is far less than the people that are dying in any of these, these genocides that were happening, that that are happening in countries that do not have armies, and these countries are black, brown and indigenous people.
Speaker 1:So how can you, in one breath, say you are for diversity and equity and inclusion and then ignore the fundamental slaughter of the same people that you were claiming to care about? And that, to me, was I was disgusted when I saw it actually, because these are people that I generally respect. And then, and I'm thinking to myself are you so blind that you're drinking the Kool-Aid that you can't even see that exactly what you were claiming to do is exactly what you're not doing? And I agree with you, like boycotting for one day, who cares? And then you know people are patting themselves on the back and they're like I boycotted Target for a whole day, let's do it for a whole month. Really, I've been boycotting country companies for over a year and those are companies I'm never going to go back to doing business with Never, because they are still funding genocide and they don't get a pass. I'm never going to go back to business with them ever.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think that's very well said. Ultimately, I think, if your actions do not align with these broader fundamental ideologies or values that you claim to hold like, for example, with the Target boycott if you're saying that your values are aligned with supporting DEI diversity, equity, inclusion and you care about these black and brown lives, black and brown businesses, then how are you, in the same breath, going to support the genocide of brown people in the Middle East? Because, ultimately, I think the dissonance there is really really too big to ignore.
Speaker 1:And when I call people out on it, they don't even respond. They just look at me blankly because I mentioned it on Facebook, don't even respond. They just look at me blankly because I mentioned it on Facebook. I had said can you please explain for the people who are boycotting Target, can you please explain to me why you are not boycotting genocide? And not one person responded. Because it is such a level of dissonance.
Speaker 1:Now, I had sort of been boycotting Target all along because target has starbucks in it, and I've boycotted starbucks since october of last year no, the year before, right two years now. Yeah, it was october of the year before, correct? So I've been boycotting it since then. And because starbucks is in target, I generally don't do a lot of business with target anyway. So you know.
Speaker 1:And then the other thing I've been hearing and I don't know if you've been hearing maybe we mentioned this on the last episode, I don't. I don't remember, but I do understand that some level of boycotting is privilege and people have said like, oh, I can't boycott things out of privilege. I get it when it comes to fundamental needs like clothing, food, things that you can afford, like certainly you have to shop within your, but you cannot tell me that boycotting Netflix and boycotting Disney and boycotting like all of those other companies is a privilege because they're privileged to have in the first place. There should be no issue in boycotting any of them and I don't want to hear anything about it being out of privilege.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I'm really glad you said that, because I do think it's important to acknowledge the fact that boycotting certain companies like Target, walmart, etc. It is a privilege to an extent, especially for people who are experiencing financial hardship right now and really don't have the means to shop locally or to go out of their way to shop at businesses who are more ethically aligned with them. But ultimately, I think a lot of people are in the position to do so and ultimately, if your boycott of those companies is only for a day, out of your own self-righteousness, I would really question whether or not that's actually an alignment of your personal value, or if it's more, so that you can feel good, or if it's more you know, so that you can feel good.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I often wonder the people who are being the most loud about patting themselves on the back if they're doing anything besides that, if they're contacting their senators and congressmen, although we know that they don't care, or if they're doing anything outside of just typing oh, I didn't go to Target today.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's a really good point too. Um, I mean, obviously you and me know that, unfortunately, writing to your state reps isn't not, um, isn't always the most effective thing that we have, because a lot of the times our words do fall on deaf ears. Uh, but with that I mean, if your only action is a single day boycott, I think we can do better, you know, and if you have the ability to engage with that in the first place, I don't want to be too assuming, but I mean, ultimately, I really feel like you probably could engage with more.
Speaker 1:I agree, and the divisiveness to you would you. I know you wanted to talk about the impact of capitalism and how that certainly does benefit from keeping us all divided, but what I, what I've also noticed, is and I hold, I'm certainly going to hold the democratic party a little bit more, I think, responsible in this because they are the ones that preach higher values. So if you're preaching higher values, you better be living up to higher values. But what I've noticed is that those they have no problem. They have no problem being mean and divisive to anybody who doesn't agree with them, while then yelling that people are not listening to them. And you can't do that. If you want to be listened to, then you have to listen to other people. You can't just start calling people all sorts of names and then expecting them to come to your cause. It doesn't work like that. You can't call people stupid and all of you know like inbred or whatever they're saying.
Speaker 1:Or my thing is, how many people and I'm going to be honest about this, I did this the first time Trump was in office how many people make fun of Melania based on like what she's wearing, or like what she's or like how she's presenting? So sexism is OK if it's from the democratic party, but if it's the other way around, like if they're making fun of michelle obama for the way she looks, it's both racist and sexist, but it's okay for the democratic party to do it because they're coming from a different place. That, to me, is mind-numbing, which is why I think both parties are ineffectively flawed. If there are even two parties, because I still don't even believe there are two parties I think we have one party, but I I don't know.
Speaker 2:That's the stuff that pisses me off yeah, I, I'm really glad you said that.
Speaker 2:Um, I think there is this certain moral high horse that comes with the democratic party that does not always align with their action.
Speaker 2:I think the example that you used of Melania is actually really, really good, and I would like to run with that a little more, even because I've seen, just anecdotally, like on Twitter and Instagram, you know, posts of her standing next to Trump or not holding his hand, or maybe she has, like a face of disdain, as it's perceived, and you know people will say, oh, she's so fed up with him, she's so done, blah, blah, blah.
Speaker 2:But she's the first lady of the United States. I mean, she, she is a fully capable, functioning person who could, you know, she could leave him at any point in time if she wanted to, and I think it's also womanizing to assume that she's just like this, like non-functioning, being, uh, being that that isn't capable of, like acting or thinking outside of, uh, just what her role is in terms of her marriage to this man, um, and I think, uh, in terms of, you know, like the uh, the criticism of the physical appearance of her as well in a lot of cases. I mean, that's a good comparison next to michelle obama, where I think both examples are sexist and with michelle Obama it is racist. But ultimately it's okay if the Democrats are doing it, because they're the moral high ground.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and another example of this that happened since our last episode remember when I was talking about Al Green and how the articles of impeachment he put in or that he was putting in, that happened before the incident recently where he got censured like it happened like maybe a couple days later and you know, people were. I remember people were very upset that he was censured because of his behavior and then compared it to marjorie taylor green and lauren bobert and their freaking, ridiculous antics and kind of saying like well, first of all, both sides are wrong, they shouldn't be doing it, right. So but if you say that, which I did automatically agree with, or they're pointing out like a hypocrisy and saying like hey, these two things can't coexist, because you can't say that you are, that you are against racism, while ignoring racist behavior, like you can't do that. You can't say that you're for, you're against sexism, but then engaging in sexist comments. You can't do that. And when you point that out to people, it's met with hostility and anger.
Speaker 2:Absolutely, and I do think that that sense of superiority does kind of put up a wall for a lot of people who identify with the Democratic Party, which is really unfortunate, because I think it really gets in the broader sense in terms of these identities and really analyze what that means and how those shared values are aligning with our actions, then ultimately it's a meaningless label and I don't think that there's any value in putting up that wall and simply standing your ground based on the idea that you do have this sense of superiority.
Speaker 1:I know you want to talk about the impact of capitalism. How do you think that ties into the stuff that we're seeing?
Speaker 2:Yeah, specifically as it applies to our party identities. I do think, ultimately, division is a tool of capitalism and I think that's very important to recognize. If we don't have a unified working class, a unified lower class of people, then our enemies are each other. Uh and, and I really believe that we should be viewing, um, our current circumstance as a people, as a class war and not as a party war. Um, I really agree with you when you talk about how, uh, two, the two parties are the same, they're two heads of the same beast, excuse me, and ultimately they're bought out by the same organizations like AIPAC.
Speaker 2:And I don't think that there's any value in us fighting against each other when really we don't have any. We don't at this moment, we don't have any sight of our common interest, which is that we are all struggling economically, we're all struggling socially. And I don't, at this moment, we don't have any sight of our common interests, which is that we are all struggling economically, we're all struggling socially, and I don't think that we should be continuing on the way we are with this type of division and having that sense of superiority or that sense of hatred towards each other only stifles any ability for us to work together towards a common interest.
Speaker 1:In terms of the capitalistic market. Do you think it benefits, or who does it benefit to keep us divided?
Speaker 2:privileges amongst groups, whether it be racially based, sexuality based orientation, ability or disability. Society is set up to really highlight those differences between us and create in groups and out groups. The way I see it, and when you have those formation of groups, we have flaws or perceived flaws to look at each other by and identify those as personal deficit rather than structural deficits within the way that we set up our society. And so when we're able to look at those deficits and point at each other as the problem, then ultimately there is no unity to work against that 1% that's constantly scalping our labor and scalping the efforts that we put in every single day for their profit.
Speaker 2:What do you think the solution is? It comes down to the acknowledgement of what our common interest is, which is, I know, easier said than done. I think, with the current state of division in this country, it's a really difficult and daunting task. I think there has to be a lot of putting aside of that sense of superiority between both parties and the highlighting of what our personal differences are in terms of our identities and our experiences. I don't think that it's an easy feat to accomplish, but I do think ultimately we have to recognize our common enemy which, in my opinion, are these bought out politicians and oligarchs who are continually getting more interfered with our government.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I 100% agree with you. I just don't know how that. I don't know how we're going to fix that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I think it's really. It's hard to say without saying anything that would get me put on a watch list.
Speaker 1:But yeah, we don't want to put on the watch list, neither one of us.
Speaker 2:No, probably not.
Speaker 1:It is really difficult to make changes, though, when the people who make those changes, the people who can impact it and fix these things, are the same people who are being funded by another country to cause division.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that's that's another really good point. You know, I do think it has. It has to be said that when you have another country, a foreign entity, who has so much influence over our not only our political ideology, but even laws and and I mean the policy that we have in place of course I am referring to Israel I mean it is to me, I mean I don't, I don't understand how people can justify that involvement as anything other than treason or corruption.
Speaker 1:I just found this out the other day that there's a person in our government who goes to work in it or went to work in an IDF uniform Like I don't even know how that is a thing and we have sitting members of Congress who have flags in their office that are not American flags. I don't know how we are pretending that that isn't happening.
Speaker 2:Right. I mean, I think even more than that. It's like beyond pretending that it isn't happening but pretending that it's okay and that it's completely acceptable. I mean, we're based on this idea of America first, supposedly with this new administration, and yet our state houses are filled with the flags of a foreign nation and our policies are fostered around the promotion of that foreign nation. How can you possibly say that your ideology is America first, whether or not and by the way, I'm not saying that I agree with that ideology? But if that's supposedly the track that we're heading on, the evidence does not suggest that we are.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the same, you know, and it's interesting too, because the same people get keep getting reelected. I think one of the one of the solutions is to get rid of every single and I've said this before, I said it before the election, I'll say it again is anybody who is an incumbent. Get rid of them, every single one of them, top to bottom. They all need to go. They have all failed systematically.
Speaker 2:Every single one of them is a failure, absolutely. And another thing, too is, I think and a majority of Americans agree with this whether you're Democrat or Republican or independent term limits need to be established, because, ultimately, career politicians are the problem, and when you have people who are in positions of power for extended periods of time across their entire life, where they have immense opportunity to garner whether it be social power, economic power, influence, they have the massive incentive to remain in office, and so, with that, there's no incentive to create legislation that limits their ability to stay there. So, ultimately, it's really difficult to accomplish that when the people who create these policies are the ones who benefit from being in power.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and they have one goal. That one goal is getting reelected. Their goal is not to actually fix anything If they did have term limits or if they could only serve for one term because I think there is. I think Ireland does that. I think it was Dublin when I went there they talked about it, I think it was the mayor only serves like one term their entire lifetime. Then the focus becomes about making change. It doesn't become about getting reelected, because they know they can't get reelected. But we both come from states where we have elected officials that have been in office for 20 plus years and continue to just get reelected with almost no competition. And if they do have competition, that competition disappears pretty quickly. The energy costs in Connecticut are like how high they are and how shady the politics behind that, where they're just they're getting more and more money by robbing or raping the constituents of Connecticut, Cause that's what they're doing by increasing energy costs.
Speaker 2:I mean they are outrageous? Yeah, absolutely. And I think when you have incumbents who have the uh, not only the like reputation around them, whether that be good or bad, but also the political support and, you know, the alignment with other candidates and people in power, it just becomes so difficult to actually propel a candidate who could actually do something better but also, you know, garner the amount of support needed to throw out an incumbent.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I mean again. I don't know what we're going to do about it. Otherwise, then vote them all out, but that doesn't seem to be working.
Speaker 2:No, unfortunately it does not.
Speaker 1:So, on a positive note, like what I know, people keep asking what, what we can do to make changes, and I personally think one of the things that we can each do is hold each other accountable. I personally think one of the things that we can each do is hold each other accountable. So if we see and not in a critical or insulting way, but if we see somebody doing two different things like with the boycotts, like here we have you saying this, but then doing that is to just show them like hey, these two things can't coexist. So we're never going to get out of that state of dissonance unless we start to confront it and realize that there is this level of dissonance going on.
Speaker 2:Totally Absolutely. And once we do that, I also do think that we need to collectively regarner our collective power as constituents and as voters, as just individuals. In the economy, I mean, division also serves a really good tool of kind of disrupting our ability to organize with each other. But I think we need to be out in the streets and protesting way more. I mean, you know, say what you will about France, but I always look at them as a really good example of people who know how to protest.
Speaker 2:They have one thing that doesn't go their way and they are out in the streets. Their economy is disrupted until they get what they want. And obviously France is a much smaller country than the United States. But even if you look at it like state by state, and if we were all protesting our state houses, I mean there is absolutely collective ability to disrupt these systems. I mean there is absolutely collective ability to disrupt these systems and if we took advantage of that, we would have so much more ability to create change than just relying on voting.
Speaker 1:I was thinking about that the other day with pilots. You know we had the you know the recent plane crashes or near crashes that we've had over the past couple of weeks, since a lot of jobs have been terminated. Could you imagine how quickly that would change if every pilot that worked in the United States stopped flying?
Speaker 2:Yeah, totally, I mean, and also um, reminds me of uh, um, the, the protests that were happening with truckers a few months back, where, you know, people were really, really scared and upset because truckers were were protesting, uhers were protesting for better working rights and that was a major disruption to the shipping routes all across America and the price of goods all across America. That's a prime example of the collective power that just one industry has. So imagine if multiple industries all came crashing down together in order to create this pressure on the political adversaries who oppose that sort of change, in order to create this pressure on the political adversaries who oppose that sort of change.
Speaker 1:I think the glaring problem that's fundamentally built into that is that the people who are affected immediately are the people who are doing it.
Speaker 1:So, with the truckers, or like if pilots all did say like you know what, we're not flying anymore until we have better air regulation and people working there to stop that stuff, they're the ones that aren't getting paid, so the ceos are not going to get the hit right away, and that prevents a lot of people from doing it, just like teachers or like any, or nurses or anybody else.
Speaker 1:I mean if they all said you know what I mean, health care is a shit show. And if every single health care provider said that's it done, like we're not providing any more care until you give us better working conditions and you know you pay us better and you, you, you fund more staff. Because the biggest issue, at least in this, in this in the states we live in, is agencies are way understaffed because they're underfunded and then mistakes happen and the people who work there are getting burnt out and at the same time claiming we have all these wonderful services that we really don't. And it's not for lack of trying because we know that if we did fund them they would work, because they didn't they have in the past. And you know, when people are treated well, they do their jobs well.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that is a really good point and I'm glad you said that, because there is definitely a certain privilege that comes with the ability to protest and, you know, I think ultimately asking people to put aside their careers and their means of living aside in order to promote these larger structural societal issues, it is a big ask for a lot of people, especially in the economic conditions that we're currently in.
Speaker 1:And so, with that, I think you know it was a bit privileged of me to frame it that way, and also to your point of yeah, and Mike, I wasn't and again, I wasn't calling you out on that by any means, because we all have great ideas and there's certainly it could work. It definitely could work if everybody was on the same page about it. I think with protests that's really scary for a lot of people too, because think about the laws that they're trying to pass now, where you now, where you can be expelled from college if you're protesting, or deported or all of these terrible things can happen to you. So sure you can go protest, but then if you're going to get arrested and then you're going to lose your job or never be able to work in the field that you work in, or get deported because you're protesting it, it obviously people aren't going to do it, no, or should they? Because they're putting themselves in really dangerous positions. But that just goes back to our I guess our encroaching fascism no, absolutely.
Speaker 2:I mean it is unfortunate because you're absolutely right, people do have to prioritize their self interests at the end of the day and and put themselves and their families at the front line of you know where they, where they decide to put their efforts. And so I think it is. It's a really big ask to ask someone to go against an entire industry, whether that be, you know, collectively with other workers or not. I think, like you said, if that bars them from the ability to make ends meet or to reenter that industry, you know, really it's a very, very daunting and real threat. So I don't think that it should be taken lightly and you know, I know you don't mean to call me out, but I do think I phrased that a bit inconsiderately.
Speaker 1:It's all learning. I mean that's what we are all doing. It's all learning, I mean that's what we are all doing. You also had and I don't want you to talk about the details of it at all, but I just want to kind of point out the general theme behind it.
Speaker 2:You were recently in a situation and I've commended you many times for taking a stand and really being very brave because you have but recently, you were in a situation where you couldn't take a stand on something because if you did you would have been in a lot of trouble, and you knew that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, um, I guess I don't want to really reveal too many, I guess I don't give away the details yeah, but um, uh, I was in a situation where, um, I will just say vaguely, in a class of mine. Uh, there was a situation where there was something glaringly against my morals that we were engaging with in class, but ultimately I really did not have the ability to speak out and say anything about it.
Speaker 1:Because it would not have been safe for you.
Speaker 2:No, it would not have been, it wouldn't have been safe for my standing in my education, in my career track. And you know, I think it's a very, very good example of what you just talked about, where it's a daunting threat that exists with this sort of protest or protest in general. And so with that, you know, there really is an unfortunate dichotomy that exists between, you know, prioritizing yourself versus the collective benefit of everybody, and it's really hard to find that middle ground. But I think it does come back to just that point of what your ability and capacity is to engage with this kind of stuff, and so to speak out where you can protest, where you can boycott, where you can, and, you know, keep it consistent. But if there's something that is threatening to your livelihood, then of course I think it's completely understandable to abstain.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I still think you're incredibly brave. I just want to say that, and I think the reason why I'm bringing that example up is because what I want everybody to hear is that you can make changes but also stay safe. So you know, you don't have to move mountains, because that may not be possible, but if you can do small changes, that'll help other people make small changes. I mean, I know, when I started the podcast, when we originally started this discussion in season one about the genocide, I was given warnings about not talking about it because they were, because people had. You know, if you talk about it, you're going to get into a lot of trouble. And and I said you know what? I don't care, I am not going to sit back and watch a genocide and pretend it's not happening, and if I get in trouble, I get in trouble, like, but I'm certainly not going to to ignore it.
Speaker 1:But there are definitely certain circumstances where I would not. I would do the exact same thing you would have done, where, like, I can't take stands on certain things because I know the impact will be far worse. So you do what you do, you do what you can do, but then you also say like, okay, like, here's the line. I know, if I cross that line, that if I get into enough trouble, then I'm not going to be helping anybody. So you have to. It's tough, it's really, it's really difficult.
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, very well said, I mean it's. I think it's a very difficult task to assess that risk, whether it's, you know, broadly, or situation by situation, to determine what your ability is. And with that you know, I don't. I don't think it it's, I don't think it's an easy thing to accomplish to, by and large, across the board, put your entire self or livelihood or stakes at risk. And I mean back to the point, I guess, of just engaging in what you can and remaining steadfast in the areas where you feel comfortable assuming the risk that comes with it. But if there's situations where you know that risk is, you know, if the deficit is too impactful to your life overall, then of course you know, I don't think it's unreasonable to not engage.
Speaker 1:If you would have ever asked me 10 years ago if I thought it would be risky to protest a genocide, I would have said no.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that's the crazy part. Really, I don't think we should be in the situation we're in at all. It's it's really kind of it's it's ghastly to think that you know, speaking out against a genocide is something that threatens your livelihood and threatens the ability for you to be in really any field, because it's becoming incredibly more obvious that this is impactful to really every field, no matter what industry you're in. Trey Lockerbie 1.0 and I know you talked to me about the other day the example of you know, if you've ever wondered what you would do during the Holocaust, you're doing it right now.
Speaker 1:Yep absolutely.
Speaker 2:And yeah, I think it's really, really shocking yeah, no, it is still shocking to even even like a year and a half later after the start of this, to look back and just see how people have engaged broadly with, with a modern day Holocaust. It's, it's pretty unfathomable to think that the state of our country, at least, is one that aligns with it and that speaking out against it is something that threatens you.
Speaker 1:But that you know, if you think about it, that was the same during the Holocaust too. I mean people who were people were being killed, who were fighting against it, and people and people. There were some people that were helping in ways that were beneficial, and then there were certain people that were helping in tremendous ways. So everybody can play a role in it. It's just what your comfort level is, but the one thing that we can't do is just be complicit and pretend it's not happening. So if you even did like one thing, if you even just wrote like one email to your Senator or your, your Congressman, or like anybody, or like talk to one person about it, that would still be some level of change. It doesn't have to be beyond that, it doesn't have to be. You know you're marching out on the streets, losing your job over it, but you can't. I mean you can, but I don't know how you live with yourself Like I.
Speaker 2:I don't know how you live with yourself. Like I, I couldn't do that, I couldn't just pretend something like that wasn't happening. Yeah, absolutely. Um, and I really liked that point too, because, I mean, I think there's a difference between, like that, self-righteous activism versus, um, the the levels to it of, of, you know, like you said, not being able to move mountains, but just in conversation, expressing your support, or in the spaces where you feel comfortable doing so. You know, I don't think that just because you're not making a large scale change means it's performative, and so I do think it's really important just to remain steadfast where you can and where you feel safe to.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the impact. I mean I had somebody tell me the other day, in a setting you know, they just said thank you, and I know they were saying thank you because I was giving them the space to talk about it that it wasn't being addressed anywhere else, and that's something right. Again, it doesn't have to be these massive things, absolutely. So, wow, that was a lot.
Speaker 2:Yeah, was there anything we forgot to talk about that that you wanted to add?
Speaker 2:I don't think so, but I mean, if we're kind of reaching the wrapping point, I mean I think I'd just like to end with with saying that we are in a class where, right now, I think the example of luigi mangione is actually, uh, still really relevant in that where there was a lot of bipartisan support for this man, and I think that is because people recognized how he you know, I mean he allegedly killed a CEO of a major corporation that actively causes harm to people every single day, and I think it was a manifestation of the larger scale issues that are happening.
Speaker 2:And I think also the response from the states, from the government, was also really telling of how that threat of our unison is so real to them. Because the scrambling that happened afterwards to create a narrative of this man as a terrorist and to create this idea that threatening a mega CEO is a threat to the average person, it really it's not just a falsehood, but it's such a it's very deceiving, and I think that's very intentional. So I think we need to keep in mind who our common enemy is, which really is the 1%, those who hoard wealth in this country and try our best to see across the bridge to identify that enemy.
Speaker 1:You know I meant to say this earlier. The parallel between the show Squid Games and the Beast Games just displays how much capitalism turns people against each other. So you have people with lots of money using money as a way to pit people against each other and then also having a sense of like they're getting off on it, you know, for their enjoyment. Much like the Roman Colosseum, right Like throwing in gladiators and like throwing in, you know, people to fight each other for the amusement of the rich people. That's right in our face. With these two shows it can't be any more obvious to watch them. You know, you see how some people do maintain their moral integrity, which I think is awesome, it's great to see. But then you see other people. Their moral integrity is so it just vacillates, based on their level of power, when in reality every single person in that that was on that show could have won some of that money. Do you know what I mean? Like it's just. It's just wild.
Speaker 2:Yeah, absolutely, and I think it actually reminds me of that idea that we were talking about in the post-election episode, when you spoke about the idea of people voting under duress in this country. And it's not just voting under duress but vindictive of each other. So easy, like exemplified with you know, the squid games or Mr Beast games. Uh, that we. It's so easy, when we're underneath that duress, to pinpoint each other as the enemy. When it's the stakeholders who are our enemy, they're the ones who are watching the show and scraping the resource off of our backs.
Speaker 2:So that the message is be like France, right, that's be like France get out in the streets and start flipping some cars over.
Speaker 1:Man. All right, everybody. Well, we do have. I am working with Dr Hendel, erika from a couple of the episodes that we did before, and they are lining up some awesome speakers, so I'm looking forward to even more exciting episodes coming up in the near future. So again, thank you for listening. I really appreciate everybody's support and feel free to email me any suggestions or ideas about other episodes you'd like to see, and I'm always looking for guest speakers who send me emails that are not written by ChatGBT. So if you would like to be a guest speaker on the show, certainly you can contact me. And again, thank you so much for listening and thank you, mike, for being here again.
Speaker 2:Thank you for having me back. It's been a pleasure.
Speaker 1:Hello everybody and thank you again for listening. This is just a reminder that no part of this podcast can be duplicated or copied without written consent from either myself or Wendy. Thank you again.
