Season 8, Epidose Two March 31, 2024

SPEAKER_01 0:03

This is the Listening Tube.

SPEAKER_03 0:09

Hello. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. I'm your host, Bob Woodley. On this episode, we'll hear about Typhoid Mary, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, and I'll chat with the founder of a political party that you might find meets your political desires.

SPEAKER_01 0:29

But first, not the headlines.

SPEAKER_03 0:33

When it comes to crime, the Republic of California has found itself in quite a pickle. Specifically, retail theft. It all began way back in 2011 when the California Supreme Court ruled that California's prisons were overpopulated and therefore a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution because it could be considered cruel and unusual punishment. As a result, three years later, California voters approved Proposition 47. Funny thing about California, if you can get enough signatures, you can get a proposition on the ballot. Sure, democracy is a good thing, but the ability to put something on the ballot sometimes encourages mob mentality. Or perhaps the side with the largest advertising budget wins, regardless of the side effects. Part of Proposition 47 modified the sentencing guidelines for thefts of retail merchandise up to $950 in value. To an average person, that's a lot of value. Gone were the days when stealing a pack of gum would get you into trouble. Even more, you can now shoplift a new towel set or queen size sheets or an air conditioner. So because California's prisons were overcrowded, they found ways to decriminalize certain offenses, including drug crimes. I have nothing against a guy who wants to smoke weed, but there are a lot of drugs out there that ruin lives. Removing the disincentives of being punished by the law can only lead to more drug use. An AP story by Tran Wynn says California will save one hundred thirteen million dollars this year, and the money will be given to local programs to fight recidivism. Simply by reducing the prison population. That's right, one hundred thirteen million dollars to keep people from going back to jail. I guess jail itself isn't enough of a deterrent. Maybe that's because the state is doing everything it can to make the stay as pleasant as possible. At least for those who commit a crime horrendous enough to get put in jail to begin with. Which seems difficult to do right now. All because the court said the jails were overcrowded. Were California prisons overcrowded? Well, I can tell you that around nineteen ninety one the Ventura County prison was overcrowded. You actually had to have seniority to get what little privacy a cell would provide. Us newbies had to sleep on bunk beds in the day roomslash dining area. There weren't even enough places for everyone to dine. I had to eat at my bunk. So yes, it was overcrowded. I was only in forty eight hours as a result of a DUI. I surrendered late on a Friday afternoon, and it took thirteen hours just to get from the front door to where I would sleep, so I only slept in jail for one Saturday night. Two, if you count the night I got arrested. Getting arrested and put in jail is bad enough, but waking up in jail is the worst. I open my eyes and I'm in a cell with two other guys. I was really thirsty, and the water fountain in the cell barely had any pressure. You couldn't drink out of it without licking it as the water dribbled down the side of the part where the water comes out. I asked the guard for a drink of water. He told me to drink from the fountain. When I explained that the water fountain was in disrepair, he seemed less than sympathetic. I realized that reasonably explaining my plight wasn't going to work. So I went in the other direction and demanded a drink of water. Not just that, but I wanted it in a tin cup that I could then use to bang on the bars of the cell after I drank the water. I don't remember the details about what was said next, but at one point the guard said, If you keep it up, you're going in the rubber room. Well, I was still without a drink, so I was still ornery. The next thing you know, the guard comes to the cell door, opens it, and tells me to step out. I step out. He points and says, Step over, I step over. He opens another door and says, Step in, I step in. As it turns out, the Port Waineme City Police Station did have a rubber room and I was alone in it. Suddenly for me, California jails were not overcrowded at all. I had the whole room to myself. In disbelief, I went, hmm. I immediately realized the room had wonderful sound qualities. I began to sing. Figaro, fe o figur, fing it off, fingero Ruxin You don't have to put on a red light. I sang until the door opened again. Thirsty as I was. It was time to let me out. The cop says, So you think you're Eddie Murphy? And I said, So you think you're Eric Estrada? After an argument over the color of my car, they had grey on the police report, and I insisted my car was in fact silver. They refused to change it, eventually returning my shoelaces and setting me free. I had to walk about a half mile back to where my car was parked from the night before, then drive home where I finally got that drink of water. Enough about me. The point is, California has been reaping what was sown. In an attempt to reduce criminality and prison population, more crime was created. We just didn't call them crimes anymore. To top it all off, liberal district attorneys turned a blind eye to all kinds of crime, allowing crime to flourish even more. They had different reasons for doing so other than prison overcrowding, but the result was the same. People getting away with committing petty crimes at first, then even more serious crimes become petty crimes. And pretty soon you can be arrested for murder and be out on the street the next day. It depends on what the DA had for breakfast, I guess. California's governor wants to keep Prop forty seven in place. He wants to focus on car thieves and the people who resell the stolen merchandise. Not the people stealing the merchandise. Being able to fence stolen goods is always an incentive, so taking out that avenue is a good idea. But if you're still able to steal up to nine hundred fifty bucks worth of stuff, you'll find a way to turn it into cash or something else you want. If the thefts become widespread enough, maybe an interstate bartering system will develop. Hey, I'll trade you some of my poise pads for a bottle of that mango cherry nail polish. But not to deter the theft in the first place won't help, and Prop forty seven doesn't deter the ground level theft. That's led to organized theft. Large groups of people storming a business all at once like a swarm of locusts gobbling up everything in their path, only to move on when the pickings become too thin. Helpless employees can only stand and watch. Any who try to intervene will be fired for violating company policy. Stores have been locking up displayed products requiring assistance to shop for personal items like deodorant and razors and over-the-counter drugs. Some stores have simply closed, moved out, abandoned the building, leaving once thriving shopping centers bordered up like ghost towns, ruining neighborhoods, all in an effort to lower the prison population. There are some who want to take another look at Prop 47 and see if it can be tweaked to stop the widespread shoplifting. Targeting repeat offenders by stacking the value of their individual crimes is one idea. Making online resellers verify their merchandise isn't stolen is another. In any case, the issue will probably end up at the ballot box again. There's a group working on a ballot initiative to address some of the issues, and if they get enough signatures by the April deadline, the mob will rule once again. Money does make a difference, though. California voters recently approved a measure that changes the way money allocated for mental health services will be spent. The money itself comes from a tax levied on millionaires in 2004, according to an associated press story. Individual counties were given the authority on how to best put the money to work. But now, Proposition 1 includes mandatory guidelines for spending the money. Now, two-thirds of that tax money has to be spent on housing the mentally ill. Now, when your mental health counselor asks, how you doing? They can also ask, Do you have a place to live? No? Well, you came to the right place. We're now required to spend a certain amount of money on housing whether we need it or not. If you're a brain dead meth addict in Bakersfield, you just might get a new house out of it. As for the more densely populated areas of the state, homelessness is a huge problem. That's what this measure is meant to address. So many parts of California's metropolitan areas have become inundated with tent cities popping up in various locations. Along the beaches of Los Angeles, wherever you can find a level spot in San Francisco. I once lived in the streets of LA, but none of us had the gall to pitch a tent on the sidewalk. I don't care if you were homeless in Century City or the Valley or the Hills. You couldn't get away with that until you were out in the desert a bit. But now California is in a homeless crisis. According to the story, since the current governor took over, twenty seven and a half billion dollars have already been committed to the homeless problem. But the problem isn't going away. So the logical response is to throw more money at the problem. Proposition one does just that. And it was money that got it over the hump. Proponents of the measure raised millions of dollars to launch an advertising campaign to encourage people to vote in favor. Opponents of the measure raised about a thousand dollars. Passed by fifty point two percent of the voters. It would be called bipartisan at the federal level. Prop one demonstrates how divided the homeless problem in California really is to those who are paying attention. People had different reasons for voting for or against it, but the reality is that just two-tenths of a percent in favor will now require counties to spend a majority of the tax money raised from millionaires to rent existing spaces or erect new ones for those who suffer from mental illness. Somehow, since the governor couldn't get more money to throw at the problem, they found a way to redirect money that was already being collected, in the hope that it would take a bite out of the homeless population. In a normal economy, building more houses would bring down the cost of a house. But in California, building more houses will attract more people, causing a need for even more housing that the state will have to build in order to fix the homeless problem. It's a never-ending cycle that can only be stopped by disincentivizing a reliance on the government as provided through the taxpayers. There just might come a time when the beautiful weather and scantily clad hard bodies aren't enough to keep taxpayers in California. It seems like the current governor is doing everything he can to hasten that time

Let's Go Back

SPEAKER_03 14:01

limit.

SPEAKER_01 14:07

Let's go back through the listening tube for this week in history.

SPEAKER_03 14:15

This week in 1910, the U.S. Congress passes an amendment to the 1907 Immigration Act, barring criminals, paupers, anarchists, and carriers of disease from settling in the U.S. 111 years later, during the height of a global pandemic, while people were told to wear masks and keep six feet away from each other, thousands of people each week were spilling across the southern border of the United States without so much as a temperature check. As for criminals, paupers, and anarchists, well, we'll just have to hope we got lucky enough that they didn't want to come here anyway. After all, we are a capitalist society and a nation of laws, right?

Not the Headlines

SPEAKER_03 15:07

This week in nineteen fifteen, typhoid Mary, whose actual name is Mary Mallon, becomes the first healthy carrier of the disease ever identified in the United States. She is put in quarantine, where she would remain for the rest of her life. One hundred years later, in 2015, 12.5 million cases were reported worldwide, according to Wikipedia. About 400 cases are reported each year in the United States. Today, typhoid Mary would be told to wash her hands more often and be given a vaccine. This week in 1975, construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System begins. According to Wikipedia, the two worst spills in its history were both caused by people shooting holes in it. It's withstood earthquakes and other natural phenomena with very few leaks and no real catastrophes. Still, President Biden stopped construction of the Keystone Pipeline within his first few breaths as president due to environmental activism.

SPEAKER_01 16:23

The listening tube will return at the speed of sound.

Interview with Evan Juaqua

SPEAKER_01 16:31

Contact the listening tube by calling 570-601-1101 or email thelistening tube at outlook.com.

SPEAKER_03 16:43

My guest on this episode of the Listening Tube is a man who created a new political party with the hope that it may someday put an end to political parties as we know them. Joining us from his home in the Pacific Northwest is founder of the Solutions Party, Evan Joaqua.

SPEAKER_00 17:04

You're exactly right. And also, you know, I think it's really important to uh remember what George Washington said about political parties. He he was very much against them because uh they tend to become corrupted, they tend to become institutionalized, and they tend to place their own priorities ahead of the priorities of the of the country. And I think we're seeing that now. And uh I think one of the things that I would like to see is where we actually sunset political parties after a certain number of election cycles and and uh require that any government recognize political party. Would have to uh have new leadership because the the leaders of the previous parties could not just basically make a refried version of the old one. And uh that way we we try to keep trying to minimize the uh the tribalism that we're seeing now that uh is so so destructive to our country.

SPEAKER_03 17:54

It is worth noting that neither of our first two presidents belonged to a political party. So what what was the inspiration for the solutions party?

SPEAKER_00 18:06

Well, it comes down to very basically this. Uh Ronald Reagan said that uh government is not the solution, government is the problem. And I think that that's I think that that was partially right, but I think that it's more fundamental. I think our problem are our politicians. And when you think of politicians, not only here but worldwide, one of the things that is really evident, and one of the things that I think has been scientifically proven is that power is uh probably the most addictive thing that there is. And our politicians uh get addicted to power, just as John Boehnert, the um the former speaker of the house, said you know, people get a little bit of power and they completely change, just like somebody who uh gets uh dependency on alcohol can completely change, or dependency on drugs, or and a gambling addiction. And so people get power and they don't want to give it up, and that becomes the priority, staying in power. One congressman said that all of our budgets are basically, you know, that they that they do in Washington are basically with the idea of uh keeping the powerful in power. And so what happens is that our uh what becomes the priority are their partisan interests and keeping control of the House or keeping control of the Senate or winning the White House. Now, I personally don't think that we should have elected officials whose first priority is staying in office. And I think the only way to deal with that is the way you would deal with any addictive substance. If a doctor has to give you a prescription for a highly addictive medication, the way to minimize the possibility you're gonna get addicted is to give it in very limited portions spread out. So I think that we should just have our politicians limited to one term, and you cannot run for another office immediately after the ending of your term in office because what'll happen is they'll use that time to basically prepare for their next campaign. So we don't want them in campaign mode. So you get one chance to make a difference, one opportunity to uh to go in and uh you know uh make your mark on history. But after that, you can never run for that same office again. You can run for another office, say two years after the ending of your of your uh your term, but you cannot run for that office ever again. And so I think that would allow um our politicians, the people with our elected officials, to concentrate on what they should be concentrating on, and that is doing their job. So that's the very fundamental idea that started this. I think we have to just eliminate re-election so that we don't have this uh uh this uh situation where our politicians are placing their own political careers and partisan interests ahead of the interests of the country.

SPEAKER_03 21:03

Now, when did the solutions party get started?

SPEAKER_00 21:06

Well, I've been formulating this idea, these ideas for for the last three for four years, and um I've just decided I've I've been kind of getting my ideas organized because I think it's more than just uh any re-election. I've made a bunch of uh proposals on my blog, and so I'm just actually starting it now. I'm hoping to get others interested. I'm hoping to get some people who might even uh present themselves as candidates. I think the country is ready for a real change. I think people are so sick and tired of the of the tribalism, of the rancor, of the uh the bitterness. And it's very threatening. It's you know, you don't want people just automatically voting for one party or the other, uh, regardless of the ideas being presented. We want our elections based on ideas, not on tribalism. So that's that's sort of a long-winded answer to your question.

SPEAKER_03 22:03

As a political party, I know you do call yourself the non-political party party. Right. But in in order to make these changes of which you speak, would require the cooperation of Congress to begin with. Now, would the solutions party present candidates and then just have them voluntarily drop out after one term to set an example? Or how how else would you implement this plan?

SPEAKER_00 22:36

Well, that's exactly right. We've got to have people who are going to go to uh, you know, if they get elected, we'll go precisely to make these changes. Since it has not been codified in in law that you know you can only serve one term, yes, people would have to agree and they would have to campaign and make promises that they're only going to serve one term. They're going to be concentrating on just getting these, you know, these priorities implemented. And then, yes, that they would uh then uh not seek re-election. And so uh, you know, I know if I were personally running for office, I haven't decided if I wanted to, but yes, I would do it exactly with that. I'm not going to say that I'm against re-election, except when it comes to myself, and then I want re-election. And so, yes, it would require people who buy into this idea of having our elected officials serve just one term and then moving on and concentrating during that one term on getting things done, not on your next campaign.

SPEAKER_03 23:40

Now, let's say, for example, that suddenly Congress agrees that that's a good idea. So after four or five years, there will be no one left with more than a year of experience in office, any office. So whose responsibility will it be to remember and enforce protocol and the rules of the House and Senate?

SPEAKER_00 24:07

You know, I think that um we have to ask, you know, what are our politicians, uh, our experienced politicians, what are they really experienced at? Well, they're experienced at being in constant campaign mode, they're experienced at uh, you know, playing politics and advancing their partisan interests. Are they really experienced at getting things done? And I don't think that they are. I think what matters more than experience is having your having ideas and and and the willingness to um talk with others and reach compromise for the good of the country. When uh Congress, a congressperson or whatever is presented with different ideas about different bills, about different aspects in our society, none of them are experts in every field. All of them require advisors, all of them require uh access to experts that give them uh you know advice about how they should potentially uh approach an issue. And I think that experience in those sorts of matters could be made up by having access to neutral advisors and and um and and others who could help guide them through some of the uh some of the things that require maybe some uh the understanding of the more nuts and bolts aspects of governing.

SPEAKER_03 25:27

I saw this advisory committee idea on your website, and uh but I I can't help but wonder, you you use the term bring them together uh as a sort of advisory board, but what I don't know is how would you bring them together? What would be the impetus there with who who would who would get chosen? How would it would you actually be creating another level of bureaucracy?

SPEAKER_00 25:54

Um I don't believe so. I think that you know how you would how a given politician would put together their own advisory committee, I think uh, you know, there could be lots of ways that that that could be implemented. You know, there could be that could even be AI generated, for example, if politician who had who needs an advisory committee for, for example, for it has to do with uh with uh regulating social media. Uh how are they gonna pick their experts? How are they gonna pick that? That could be a list of potential candidates for their advisory committee, who, by the way, would come from a variety of backgrounds. You don't want just technical people, you want people who can approach the issue from from a variety of points of view. Uh, that could be generated um automatically, not not necessarily specifically the people that they they're gonna choose, but a list of people that they could potentially choose. And so, and and they could have you know people with their their staff, their chief of staff could help put together that advisory committee. But I don't think that that would be an insurmountable problem. And I don't think that you know the advisory committee are necessarily going to become another bureaucracy because they would be, you know, on an issue-by-issue basis.

SPEAKER_03 27:06

Okay, I I was under the impression that there would be one advisory committee to advise all uh incoming new office holders. But what from what you're saying is each individual office holder would be responsible for creating their own advisory committee.

SPEAKER_00 27:21

Yes, it would be from a recommended list, and and the idea would be to not to try to get a variety of points of view, to try to make it a diverse uh advisory committee, because we don't want just uh you know a very biased advisory committee that that has a certain agenda. We want diversity of thought, we want diversity of ideas, because that that's going to better serve the the office holder.

SPEAKER_03 27:48

So, what prevents the advisory committees from becoming corrupted? If our politicians are subject to corruption and we're trying to eliminate that by replacing them with an advisory committee, who has access to the advisory committee and who can who can then sway their opinions?

SPEAKER_00 28:09

Well, I think that you know these these advisory committees are are just temporary. So I think that it'd be harder. That that's one of the things that would make them harder to corrupt, because they're not people who are going to be in positions of power influence for extended periods of time. When we think of corruption, we think of a special interest group, maybe trying to influence one or the other. But I don't think that is such a high possibility if these advisory committees are number one, just temporary. And number two, it's not necessarily uh information that's going to be made public, you know, who's serving on the advisory committee. And and besides that, because it's from a variety of individuals, even if uh a special interest is able to influence one, that's not necessarily going to influence the entire entire committee. I think having the diversity in the committee is key. And I think that that would be much harder to corrupt than um a long-term committee where the members are known and uh would be potentially uh susceptible to uh to being influenced.

SPEAKER_03 29:18

Am I correct in assuming that each individual lawmaker would have a budget with which to hire these people?

SPEAKER_00 29:27

Oh yes, definitely. I mean, right now they have budgets for their entire staff, and so this would just be uh an an extension of that.

SPEAKER_03 29:37

Okay. Now um speaking of budgets, uh how might a one-term limit affect fundraising and not just on the micro level, but also on the macro level.

SPEAKER_00 29:52

In other words, fundraising for a campaign?

SPEAKER_03 29:55

Yes, sir. Well, I think for example, just how how much how much money would someone agree to invest to get a one-term job?

SPEAKER_00 30:11

Well, when we're talking about a one-term job, we're talking about a job that in it through which one has the opportunity to do something very special, and that is uh make their mark on history. And so I don't believe that uh, you know, elected office would be what it should be for people who want to make a difference, who want to make a positive change in history. And so I don't think that uh, you know, the idea that it's just going to be one term, if you have a uh a sincere desire to uh serve the public, serve the people, I don't think that uh, you know, the one term is is the is the issue here. It's really what is your motivation? And if your motivation is to help the country move forward and help build a better future for for everybody, then um I don't think you know people are going to think, well, gosh, why do I want to do all this work just for one term? It's more like, yes, I want to do this work, get elected, make my mark, and then move on.

SPEAKER_03 31:18

Okay, that's the perspective from the candidates' point of view. But what about the donors? What about the political action committees, the super PACs? Um, what what effect would uh a one-term Congress have on those types of uh fundraising activities?

SPEAKER_00 31:34

Well well, that's exactly what we want to uh we want to get rid of is having uh political action committees and special interests funding our campaigns with the idea that the of this is this quid pro quo. It's exactly what we we want to get rid of. And so if if somebody wants to contribute to a political campaign, suppose uh some special interest groups, you know, they're welcome to do it, but the candidate is not going to have any obligation to necessarily uh look out for their or or advocate for their interests. You know, people get into office, and right now the way we have it is that they get into office and the special interests uh through direct donations and through their ways to influence their constituents can hold our politicians hostage. And that's why, you know, once they get in office, they align themselves so closely with the special interest group because they are worried about not getting re-elected, about being primaried out of the uh out of office. And so I um, you know, this is I don't think this is necessarily going to uh eliminate special interests and political action committees uh donations to a candidate. But the candidate, the big difference is that the candidate's not going to uh I don't know if held hostage is the right word, but I'll use it in this case, it'd be held hostage to these special interests uh so that they can continue to be re-elected.

SPEAKER_03 33:06

Well, you know, very few people on an individual basis have the wherewithal to finance a campaign. I mean pretty much every politician relies on donations from constituents and other interested parties. So if if we did away with a lot of that, where would the money come from? And would it only be rich people who could run for office?

SPEAKER_00 33:32

I don't believe so. I think that uh we could have special funds available for people who uh you know want to run for office and uh you know meet certain certain qualifications. But uh I don't I don't believe that we have to have a system where only rich people could run. Yeah, it sometimes you have to you know bootstrap your way up and you do so by you know talking to people and and getting people interested. I don't believe that uh that um having to be rich would be uh a qualification or be the only way that one could get uh into office. I think there could when somebody wants to get uh wants to uh when somebody's determined to make their mark and want to get elected, I think that they they can find ways to to raise that money.

SPEAKER_03 34:22

You know, I do I do like the idea, mostly because I think it would bring uh each individual uh office holder back to their roots and become more of a representative of their constituents rather than a representative of the special interest groups of which you speak or the political party to which they belong. So if that were to happen, if we were to be able to go to this one-term type of policy, do you think it would last, or would people say, you know, I I I wanted to get more done, but I I just couldn't? Um are you talking about the elected officials? Yes, sir.

SPEAKER_00 35:04

That's one thing. You do you have one chance to make your difference, and you know, you do your best. And if you're able to accomplish a lot, uh that's great. But if you can't, then um you can say what you had hoped to accomplish. This is what your your uh goals were, you weren't able to do it. But then the next candidate for that very office could say, I promise to continue and build on the work of uh of my uh predecessor. I don't I think that you know, this idea that we've got to have the same person in office, uh, you know, election after election, election, is is bogus. I think that, you know, if you like uh the policies, if you like the ideas of a certain candidate, they've only been in office once, well then vote for somebody who promises to continue that work and to build on the uh the ideas that the uh candidate who's leaving office um had had developed.

SPEAKER_03 35:57

I know the the wheels of government already turn very slowly. Do you think this would slow down an already slow process?

SPEAKER_00 36:06

No, I think it would be exactly the opposite. I think what is really happening, why don't things get done? I mean, look at our our our Congress right now. Uh we uh you know if you get the politics out of it and you concentrate on the ideas and on uh moving forward, I think things will move much quicker than they do now. I think things move at a look at look at all the budget issues we keep having because of all the political nonsense that that is going on. I think so I believe it'd be exactly the opposite. I think right now it the uh obsession with uh getting re-elected and the uh the obsession with partisan interests is what's slowing things down now and impeding progress.

SPEAKER_03 36:52

So the president, too, would be limited to one term.

SPEAKER_00 36:56

Yes. And I think that one of the things that should be considered is maybe making the term five years instead of four for Congress, maybe three years instead of two. I think six years is enough for Senate. But you know, I I think two years right now, what what we have the with uh the House, House members are in constant campaign mode with this two-year uh term. And uh we don't want politicians in constant campaign mode. We want politicians concentrating on moving the country forward. Now, yeah, I've been in one of the reasons why I've started this is also I've lived in different countries around the world, including uh China, the communist country, and uh in other and other places. And you know, our our way of government should be far better. I mean, in in uh our way uh should be more, far more efficient. In those countries, you know, you only uh in fact a Chinese friend once told me one of the great things they love about living in America is the freedom of thought. In countries like China, North Korea, there is no freedom of thought, and that's a great weakness. Our greatest strength is our diversity of our ideas. They're great ideas across the political spectrum. And, you know, we've got to stop demonizing people because they have different ways of approaching things. And I think once we get the tribalism out of the picture, once we get the the rancor and the out-of-control emotions out of the picture, and we focus on the ideas, we're gonna blow them out of the water. We're going to show that we're we're gonna have a uh we're gonna have a democracy that enables freedom and enables prosperity. And that freedom prosperity gap will eventually, just like it did with the Soviet Union, uh, win the day. And uh and so I I think that uh this is one of the reasons why we've got to uh get this unproductive bickering and uh and all these uh negative emotions out of our politics. And emotion manipulation, in fact, our uh our elections have become more about manipulating emotions than they have become about ideas, which is uh not the way it should be.

SPEAKER_03 39:04

I agree with you there. If we were going to change the length of terms and still limit it to just one, then that would require changes to the constitution. How do you see that happening?

SPEAKER_00 39:19

Well, the good thing about our country is that change to the constitution can occur if we all agree, or a certain certain uh percentage of us, uh significant percentage of us agree on what how we want to change things. And uh I think that right now it's absolutely uh unfathomable to change the constitution given the tribalism, given the rancor, given the division. And by the way, the enemies of democracy are around the world are celebrating uh our dysfunction. They're celebrating this out-of-control tribalism and our our uh the bitterness. Some people have said that you know we might even end up in a civil war. And this is to the delight of the autocrats around the world. And you know, we've we've got to really put an end to that. The future of democracy really depends on it. I've spent a lot of time in South America, and in South America you have refugees from Venezuela and from Nicaragua and from other countries. And these these uh autocrats are out to uh they're out to destroy democracy because democracy is uh a great threat to their little tim pot empires. And so uh this is a critical time to uh you know make change in our country. And I think that once you get the tribalism and the emotions out of the picture and people focusing on ideas, changes, even changes to the constitution can occur.

SPEAKER_03 40:49

How soon do you think you might see a solutions party candidate on a ballot?

SPEAKER_00 40:55

Well, I'm hoping as soon as possible. I'm just getting started here. Um, but I believe, I really believe that there the country is ripe for these ideas. I think that we're all you know increasingly sick and tired of the uh of how things are functioning or dysfunctioning now. I think we're all tired of the politics. I think we're tired of uh politicians who will just say anything to get elected and stay in office. And uh I I think that once these ideas are more known, and by the way, uh these are just proposals. Um, I think the important thing is taking the best ideas from different people and and combining them to make something even better. And so I I think that I'm optimistic that the country is uh is ripe for for this kind of change.

SPEAKER_03 41:44

Well, for those who may be interested, where where would they go? What would they do? How would they find out more or even get involved?

SPEAKER_00 41:54

First step would be just the website uh uh www.solutionsparty.org. There I've got um contact, and um uh the first thing to do is just contact me and let's uh let's start joining together and uh organizing and making things happen. And I think that the change, once once you get some momentum built up, I really believe that uh uh that uh things will uh come together quickly.

SPEAKER_03 42:20

What kind of people are you looking for? Who what do you want them to bring to the table?

SPEAKER_00 42:24

The most important thing to me is uh number one, just buying into these ideas of, you know, let's let's look at, let's accept what the problems with our politicians and our politics is now, and let's look at ways that we can solve it. And let's, for example, as I've said, the addiction to power, the obsession with uh partisan interests that are so crippling our country. So people who basically buy into these ideas, but who also come from a different set of points of view. I have friends across the political spectrum. I have people who are freedom party, you know, or I have people who are um, you know, MAGA supporters on the one hand, I have people who are uh practically socialists on the other. And uh, you know, one of the things I like to say is or tell people is that I went to a small uh liberal arts college and it was uh liberal in every sense of the word. Now I was a Republican capitalist, and so um I got into a lot of uh emotionally charged discussions with uh with my uh classmates. Um, but I can I can say this that after all the uh heated uh arguing, after all the uh points and counterpoints have been made, after the all the uh intense debating, you know, we could still go and have lunch together or dinner together or go study together, have coffee together, because even though we all had different ideas, we all respected each other and we all knew that we had our hearts in the right place. And so that's what I think is important is that you know, we want a diversity of points of view. We have the great ideas across the political spectrum. So we need people who uh, you know, are open-minded, who have convictions, but are open-minded, are willing to debate their points of view with passion, but are also sincerely interested in hearing the other person's point of view and coming up with the let's let's pick the uh best ideas from from all sides and move forward.

SPEAKER_03 44:23

Is there anything that I didn't ask you about or anything that you would just want people to know about the solutions party?

SPEAKER_00 44:32

Yeah, I would say this: that the problems confronting our country are complex and there has to be uh it has to be approached in uh in a holistic sort of way. We've talked about re-election in this case, but I believe also that um we have to take measures to uh make our journalism and news organizations more robust and more trustworthy. We have to take measures to address some of the terrible social problems like epidemic drug use. We should re-reform our economy so that it's uh not based on uh a non-renewable resource. We should be looking for making our economy based on an infinite uh source of energy. So I would really be happy if people would look at the website and look at the different ideas because it's more than just uh reforming our politics through eliminating re-election. There has to be a whole series of things that we need to do to really get our country back on the right track. All right, Evan. Well, I really appreciate your time today. Well, thank you so much, Bob. It's been an honor to be on your show.

SPEAKER_03 45:46

The listening tube is written and produced by yours truly, copyright 2024. Thank you for putting your ear to the listening tube. Subscribe today. I'm your host, Bob Woodley, for Thou at Infinitum.