#176 Normal People Give Dunce Caps to Science Deniers

30 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

First-time readers, this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters. You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Jordan: “Matt, before the break you said there was hope for countering the science deniers. What did you mean?”

Matt: “If I didn’t say so, I should have said, ‘I think there is hope.’ By ‘think’ I mean the Revenge Revolution seems to have marginalized a lot of the more radical fringe groups. Real adults are starting to be in charge. The adults are giving dunce caps to the whiny brats and forcing them to sit in the corner.”

Jordan: “I agree putting the whiny brats in the corner has been a major step forward. But what about your book? Is it still relevant?”

Matt: “Yes, think so. The emphasis might change a bit – from the impact of the science deniers to how normal people denied the deniers.”

Jordan: “I love the term ‘normal people.'”

Matt: “Well, I think that’s true. Normal people…or at least who and I consider normal people…are fairly logical.”

Jordan: “We might think we’re logical but aren’t you considered part of the so-called ‘liberal media’? How many years did you write for that bastion of liberalism?”

Matt: “You mean the dreaded New York Times?”

Jordan: “What I find most humorous is the most vociferous of those claiming bias of the ‘liberal media’ are the same one who frequently cite Fox News, the multitude of talk-radio shows and numerous websites as credible sources of information…but, of course, those sources are not part of the media. Can these guys connect even two dots?”

Matt: “For many conservatives a liberal media outlet is…or at least used to be…a source of information that does not toe the party line. By not toeing the party line, the outlet must be liberal…and therefore biased. Forget whether their outlet of choice reports only a fraction of the story…or even makes up the story. If the conservative disagrees with the reporting, the outlet must be liberal media.”

Jordan: “As you mentioned, on the plus side the Revenge Revolution seems to have quieted some of the alleged reporters on Fox News and talk radio.”

Matt: “We both know that Fox News and talk radio are entertainment outlets. Entertainment is tied to advertising. No one ever accused Rupert Murdock of being stupid about generating income. Borderline unethical in reporting? Probably. Stupid? No.”

Jordan: “My beef is that Fox and the talking heads claim to be credible news outlets, not just entertainment. When I was director of marketing for you know who, the only media programs I labeled as off-limits for advertising were TV and talk-radio shows that I considered grossly biased.”

Matt: “What about advertising on shows considered controversial?”

Jordan: “Controversial shows were OK as long as the information was reasonably accurate or not overtly racist or derogatory.”

Matt: “So I take that shows like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity and the like were off-limits?”

Jordan: “During my watch they were off-limits. In a competitive market, brand reputation does not need to be sullied based on some jerk on TV or radio. Enough things can go wrong with the product without some egomaniac flapping his or her lips.”

Matt: “But some of those shows are incredibly popular. You still think it was a good business decision to ban advertising on those shows?”

Jordan: “Matt, which companies…and organizations…last the longest? Those that operate with ethical standards or those that exploit the customer?”

Matt: “I hear you. But I still wonder whether investors and some customers really care?”

Jordan: “Look at what happened to VW after the diesel-emissions scandal. Sales dropped like a rock. It’s not clear whether VW can survive in this country and many countries worldwide.”

Matt: “Where does this conversation leave us…or lead us?”

Jordan: “We both agree…at least I think we do…that the Revenge Revolution in the US caused many people to put on their big-boy pants and start acting like adults.”

Matt: “And the adults banished the whiny children – the science deniers and fact deniers – to go to the corner and keep quiet…and keep on their dunce caps. What else?”

Jordan: “Groups and politicians on both sides of the aisle started working together to solve real problems.”

Matt: “So my book can have a happy ending, or at least an optimistic ending. The US might start solving big societal problems after all.”

Jordan: “Sounds as if you’ve got an interesting story to tell, Matt. Let me know if I can help.”

Matt: “You’ve been a great help already. I’ll keep you posted. Thanks for your time.”

Jordan: “You’re welcome Matt.”

#175 Dealing with the Science Deniers

27 Sunday Dec 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Education Issues, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

JC: “Jordan, looks as if you have another visitor. Check behind you.”

Jordan: “Matt, great to see you.”

Matt: “Jordan, nice to see you. When you’re finished, may I talk to you for a few minutes, please? Or, if better for you, I’ll catch up with you tomorrow.”

Jordan: “Let’s spend a few minutes now. Let me introduce two long-time friends of mine, Greenie and JC. Guys meet Matt…”

Greenie: “Excuse me, but aren’t you the reporter who wrote the book on General Motors?”

Matt: “Yes, how’d you like it?”

Greenie: “Fascinating. I’m not much into business but the way you wove in personal stories kept my attention. I really did like the book.”

Matt: “Thanks. JC, what about you? Read the book?”

JC: “Parts of it. But I also conned Jordan into telling me some of the details. GM was a remarkable success and a remarkable tragedy.”

Matt: “At least the company is on the rebound now.”

JC: “Speaking of rebounds, Greenie and I need to get out of here. Matt, nice to meet you. Jordan, enjoyed the conversation.”

Greenie: “Me, too, Jordan. Take care of yourself and we’ll talk soon.”

Jordan: “OK guys. Thanks for being nice to the old guy. See ya’.”

Matt: “So how long have you known Greenie and JC?”

Jordan: “We all went to the same grammar school, although we were a grade or two apart.”

Matt: “Wow, I’m impressed that you still keep in contact.”

Jordan: “Greenie and especially JC are much better at keeping in touch classmates than I am. Before we get started, do you want a glass of wine or cup of coffee?”

Matt: “Coffee would be great. I’ll use Greenie’s cup. Looks as if she didn’t touch it. Is the pot regular or no-lead?”

Jordan: “Half regular, half no-lead…decaf.”

Matt: “That’ll work. Now I need to pick your brain.”

Jordan: “About what?”

Matt: “Science deniers. I’m drafting an article, and maybe a book about why some seemingly intelligent people deny scientific evidence. They might as well believe in vodoo. The denial is even more baffling for those with some college, let alone a degree.”

Jordan: “You mean like people claiming global warming is a hoax. And then claiming that 3,000 scientists…or some large number of scientist worldwide got together to perpetuate the hoax? I know one guy with an advanced degree in one of the sciences that believes there is a hoax.”

Matt: “I’ve heard other people with advanced degrees flatly deny mounds of empirical evidence for say certain economic theories. Why is that?”

Jordan: “Two reasons, and you just mentioned one – the use of the word ‘theory.'”

Matt: “You mean that in science, the use of the word ‘theory’ means a way of explaining behavior, given a certain amount of evidence. The theory can be used to predict other events, or outcomes.”

Jordan: “But for politicians, pundits and many in the public, theory means you have an idea but it does not need to be based on evidence or observations. To these people, a theory can be a wild-ass guess – a WAG, if you will. They like to give the finger to science. For this group, a scientific theory is like some Mickey-Mouse idea that can be discarded and even belittled.”

Matt: “What’s the second point?”

Jordan: “The only real sciences are chemistry and physics. The deniers claim chemistry and physics are real because some of them completed an experiment in a high school lab.”

Matt: “But the other sciences – climate science, economics, social sciences, etc.…you can’t do some lab experiment. The results aren’t the same every time like chemistry and physics lab experiments so someone is just guessing at the outcome. Those ‘other’ sciences are squishy — like a tennis ball — and therefore not real science. Think how often the weather man is wrong. So what climatologists know about global warming?”

Jordan: “The irony is that the so-called ‘hard sciences’ – chemistry and physics – are just as squishy. But to the ideologues why ruin a good argument? Claim the other sciences are really not sciences and therefore discount or discard all results that don’t fit the ideologue’s position. So Matt, how do you (i) capture in a book the phenomenon of denial among seemingly intelligent people and more importantly, (ii) make the book interesting?

Matt: “That’s why I need some help. I really want to point out why public policy should be based as much as possible on science, even if the scientific theories are being challenged and tweaked over time.”

Jordan: “To me the most important issue for any public policy is relevance. By that I mean, understanding the consequences of action or inaction. If something is out of balance, fix it.

Matt: “Tell me more about what you mean.”

Jordan: “The issue with global warming, for example, is not determining exactly how much extra CO2 is generated by say coal-fired power plants. We know coal-fired plants are a out-of-balance contributor to global warming. So the policy should be replace coal asap with less polluting approaches to generating electricity.”

Matt: “What about focusing on measuring the amount of global warming from coal plants, rather than the claiming plants as a major contributor?”

Jordan: “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? The exact amount becomes an academic argument that does not solve the problem. Science-deniers will claim global warming, for example, is due from multiple causes and therefore nothing can be done.”

Matt: “Are you saying just focus instead on what solutions can help solve the problem?”

Jordan: “Matt, to me focusing only on solutions takes us full circle and does not really help solve problems.”

Matt: “Why so?”

Jordan: “Because without a real understanding of the cause of the problem — even if the amount contributing to the problem is not exact — then the deniers will offer solutions that fit their fantasy world and not address the issue.”

Matt: “Have an example other than global warming?”

Jordan: “How ’bout economic policy? The deniers continue to refuse to accept mounds of empirical evidence demonstrating that in a recession the central government needs to increase expenditures, not decrease expenditures. The deniers’ solution is exactly the opposite of the evidence.”

Matt: “I need a break. But I also want to say I think there is hope.”

Jordan: “Good. I can’t wait to hear your logic.”

#174 Sense Check. On Track for the Revenge Revolution?

16 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ 79 Comments

Scene: JC, Greenie, and Jordan sitting outside at a restaurant near Jordan’s office. Conversation starts #169.

Greenie: “Jordan, didn’t you start a blog predicting the Revenge Revolution?”

JC: “When did you start the blog, Jordan? Seems like a long time ago.”

Jordan: “The first entry was late fall 2013. I’ve forgotten the exact date. The first time I wrote about a revolution was about 2010 but that paper never was published.”

Greenie: “Did you ever think you might be crazy thinking there would be another revolution? Ever step back and just ask, ‘Am I off in the weeds or does this make sense?'”

Jordan: “As you guys know well, if you read only the information that supports your argument, you start to believe your argument, no matter how whacko. Tried to avoid that and, in fact, published ‘sense checks’ about once a year.”

JC: “Any way to download one now? If you can, I’d like to see the one from 2015 — before the presidential election. There were lots of crazy things going on.”

Jordan: “Here’s the download.”

December 16, 2015

In late 2013 I published the first entry in this blog. Its time for a sense check.

The premise of the blog – the US will experience another revolution sometime after the year 2020 — still seems valid. One needs to be careful about self-evaluation but I believe an objective assessment of the level of negative attitudes among American populous will confirm my belief.

One can argue whether the increase in negative attitudes has been exacerbated by actions of President Obama, the lack of meaningful action by Congress (which rates right along used-car sales people for credibility), the media (whoever ‘they’ are), continued economic erosion of the middle class, increased tension in the Middle East…or any number of other factors. Whatever the cause, the result is clearly a deterioration in public confidence in government and increased hyperbole by various presidential candidates.

None of the aforementioned reasons should be the primary cause for a revolution. However, when combined, the social environment seems ripe for a revolt.

The blog URL includes “US Revolution 5” because by my count there have been four previous revolutions: (i) American Revolution, which finally ended following War of 1812; (ii) Civil War: (iii) Industrial Revolution with migration from the south and farms to industrial cities, primarily in the north; (iv) cultural revolution of the late 1960’s/early 1970’s. The period between each revolution is about 50 years. Whether coincidence or a cycle is hard to determine.

If a cycle, then the next revolution should start sometime between say the years 2020 and 2025. The consequence of this revolution, which I labeled the Revenge Revolution, could be a severe as the US Civil War. Why such a statement?

Economic dislocation is often an underlying cause of a revolution. Whatever one might think the cause, median incomes in the US, when adjusted for inflation, have declined for 15 years. Further, many workers no longer have a defined benefit pension program. Without such a pension, many people face markedly lower standards of living in retirement.

In addition, many Republicans have focused on dismantling the Affordable Care Act. Rather than fix the inevitable problems that occur with new comprehensive legislation, the Republicans have vowed to take away health care support for many Americans.

Such ‘take away’s’ do not bode well with a large percentage of the population that also had their incomes reduced.

Possibly the most important contributor to a revolution comes from analyzing the rationale of supporters of two 2016 presidential candidates – Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Watching a Trump political rally is like watching some of Hitler’s early speeches. Cruz is more subtle than Trump but the message is also scarier. Of those who have worked closely with Cruz in the past, there are few kind words and most seem to loathe him. Trump, while boisterous and some consider a blowhard, at least has been forced to work with different groups and governments in his real estate business.

Some Republicans might think such statements are over the top. Think what you want but I ask you to listen carefully to the statements and then analyze the crowd reaction. These events are not typical political rallies. The rallies are not football games or baseball games where the outcome has no impact on real life. These political rallies are ‘mind-bending’ events.

Ironically, the most vocal supporters of Trump and Cruz are also the most likely to lead the revolution. One day soon the supporters will awaken and realize that in their frenzy, they have been supporting a politician proposing policies that are contrary to the supporter’s best interest. The Republicans need to remember that ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.’ Along with the scorn, a very large portion of the Trump/Cruz supporters own firearms. The hyperbole spouted by certain politicians and talk-radio hosts has encouraged the owners of firearms to stock up on ammunition.

Well, enough writing. All seems on track for the 5^th US revolution, the Revenge Revolution. Don’t mean to spoil the holidays but just thought a good time for a sense check.”

JC: “Whadda think Greenie? Was he rational?”

Greenie: “I’m not sure Jordan is ever rational. Seriously, the logic seems ok. I just wish he’d been wrong and there had been no Revenge Revolution.”

Jordan: “I hear you Greenie. The one good thing about the Revenge Revolution – at least the country is changing for the better.”

JC: “I agree. Now, I need to break.”

#173 Observations of Former Speaker of the House

09 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Gov't Policy, Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: JC, Greenie, and Jordan sitting outside at a restaurant near Jordan’s office. Conversation starts #169.

Jordan: “Excuse me. I should be back shortly.”

JC: “Wonder where he’s going?”

Greenie: “Relax. It might be an old guy thing. You know…”

JC: “Greenie, turn around slowly and see who Jordan’s talking to.”

Greenie: “That’s the former Speaker of the House. What’s John Boy doing back in D.C.?

JC: “I don’t know but they are headed this way.”

Greenie: “Both of them?”

JC: “Yep. This should be interesting.”

Jordan: “John Boy, I’d like you to meet two long-time friends of mine, Greenie and JC.”

John Boy: “Nice to meet you both. How can two lovely young ladies hang around with an old guy like Jordan?”

JC: “Such a charmer. Very nice to meet you.”

Greenie: “Likewise. Nice to meet you. What brings you back to Washington? Aren’t you living in Ohio now?”

John Boy: “Living in Chillicothe…and loving it.”

JC: “I plead ignorance. Just where is Chillicothe?”

John Boy: “Southern half of Ohio, about midway and about an hour south of Columbus, the home of…Jordan, want to finish the sentence?”

Jordan: “Not on your life. Go Blue!”

Greenie: “OK boys, enough football rivalry. I have a question. Mr. Speaker…”

John Boy: “Greenie, cut the speaker crap. It’s ‘John Boy’, OK?”

Greenie: “OK, John Boy, why did you move back to Ohio? Why not stay in DC – lots of cushy jobs for the taking.”

John Boy: “First and foremost, Chillicothe has not one but two DQ’s. It’s hard to find one Dairy Queen in DC.”

JC: “Seriously, why back to Ohio?”

John Boy: “I grew up in that part of Ohio. The people were nice enough to elect me to Congress for 12 terms to the House. It was a great run. And the people there are real. I just got tired of all the BS in inside the Beltway.”

Jordan: “Don’t you miss the excitement of Congress?”

John Boy: “Congress is much like make-believe land, or at least it was when I was there. Maybe, just maybe, the Revenge Revolution will bring back some reality.”

Greenie: “If you don’t mind me asking, what was your biggest frustration in Congress?”

John Boy: “My party would not face reality. Republicans kept denying the empirical evidence, whether global warming, economic policy or the need for some type of rational gun control.”

Greenie: “Didn’t anyone study the data?”

John Boy: “If they did, it was dismissed out of hand. Plus, anyone who dared cite the data, no matter how credible the source, was branded a heretic.”

JC: “Congressional Republicans have not always been like that, have they?”

John Boy: “When I started in Congress, members actually studied the information before taking a position. I should say most members, not all. You know the old story about ‘Yellow Dog Democrats.'”

JC: “So what happened? When did ideology take over from rational thinking?”

John Boy: “This sounds terrible because I know so many mainstream Republicans like him, but the problem started with Ronald Reagan.”

Greenie: “You mean Reagan’s mantra of ‘Government is the problem, not the solution.’?”

John Boy: “Exactly, he kept saying it over and over and over. And people started ti believe him. I agree government is not always the best solution but its also not the problem all the time. I’d hate to have a private military.”

Greenie: “Anything else?”

John Boy: “Yes. About the same time the NRA started promoting the idea that people had a right to own any type of firearm, no matter how lethal. I mean, who needs a 50 caliber semi-automatic rifle? Have you seen a herd of rogue elephants attacking people in the US lately?”

JC: “What about Democrats? Republicans are not the only ones at fault.”

Greenie: “Is that you talking, JC, or you need to be exorcised?”

John Boy: “Look, Democrats deserve some of the blame. But Democrats got pushed farther left when the Republicans shifted right?”

Jordan: “That’s an interesting observation. Democrats shifted left because Republicans shifted right. Why so? If you were the Democratic Party, why not grab the middle? Seems kike a great way to expand the base.”

John Boy: “My view is Democrats feared that if they grabbed the middle, then a faction of those farther left would splinter and start a 3^rd party.”

Greenie: “And the 3^rd party would erode a good portion of the Democratic base and the old Democratic Party might be left holding an empty bag.”

John Boy: “Politics is no different from marketing a product. Your product…the political party…needs to have a clear positioning statement that people can understand easily.”

Greenie: “You think a positioning of being is the middle, as it were, makes it harder for people to understand what the party’s about. Is that right?”

John Boy: “Look at the Donald in 2015 and 2016. You might have abhorred his statements but his position was clear. Right or wrong, people understood…or at least thought they understood…what he intended to do.”

JC: “You agree with that idea Jordan? You’ve been unusually quiet.”

Jordan: “I agree. The Donald aside, try to think of a highly successful product that does not have a clear positioning statement. You have to stand for something.”

John Boy: “I’ll tell you what else caused the parties to shift, particularly Republicans shifting right.”

Greenie: “Media outlets?”

John Boy: “Starting with talk radio. You and I know that Limbaugh, Hannity and the other talking heads are entertainers…and certainly not scholars. But many…probably most of the listeners actually believe these jokers are credible.”

Greenie: “How can anyone believe the Rush Man? He dropped out of what was the name of that college?”

JC: “…something like Southeast Missouri State Teachers College.”

Greenie: “I think that’s the school. Then he was convicted of dealing drugs.”

John Boy: “Plea bargain, please. But all those facts don’t matter to his listeners. To them, whatever Rush says must be true.”

Greenie: “Your constituents believe him?”

John Boy: “Many did…but far fewer after the Revenge Revolution. Like a lot of people in the US, they’re beginning to demand that elected officials in this country start acting like adults and not whiny little children.”

Jordan: “By the way, John Boy, forgot to ask what brings you to town?”

John Boy: “We’re visiting my granddaughter, who’s a student at Georgetown.”

Jordan: “She’s not at the Ohio State University? Smart kid.”

John Boy: “Her choice, not mine. And, thanks for reminding me. I need to run. She and my supervisor went shopping and they are probably back by now.”

Jordan: “John Boy, nice to see you. Thanks for spending a few minutes with us.”

John Boy: “I enjoyed it. JC, Greenie – very nice to meet you. And stay away from Jordan, OK?”

JC and Greenie (in unison): “We’ll try.”

Greenie: “Interesting guy. Some insightful observations.”

JC: “Agreed. I really enjoyed it. And I’ll enjoy a break as well.”

#172 Humans: Peat, Repeat, Three-Peat?

05 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Innovative Thinking: Ideas and Products, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: JC, Greenie, and Jordan sitting outside at a restaurant near Jordan’s office. Conversation starts #169.

Greenie: “While we’re off on these wild tangents about time, space and where your soul goes, I had another thought.”

JC: “Only one? Surely you can do better.”

Jordan: “JC, be nice to Greenie…she’s your friend, remember?”

JC: “I know…but when will the conversation get back to the good stuff –like stupidity in Washington?”

Jordan: “Let’s stay on the make-believe for a little bit longer. Actually, we’re talking about real-world stuff now. Inside the Beltway is the make-believe world.”

Greenie: “Now, if you guys are finished. Here’s my question. ‘What if the world today is just a rerun from say 1,000,000 years ago…or even 5,000,000 years ago?’ We all agreed that 1,000,000 years is like still January 1^st in terms of how long the earth’s been around.”

JC: “Huh? 1,000,000 years ago there were dinosaurs…or big stuff like that anyway. Besides, the world was not very advanced then. How could this be a rerun…or repeat…for humans?”

Greenie: “How do you know humans were not advanced? Besides, maybe humans were dinosaurs with different kind of skin.”

JC: “You gone wacko?”

Greenie: “Really, who says tall buildings, lots of cars and trucks, polluted air and water is progress? Maybe humans are going backwards instead of forwards.”

Jordan: “So civilization could be stuck in reverse while everything else is in drive, right?”

Greenie: “Think about it. With global warming, we’re coming to the end for humans. What’s so advanced about that?”

JC: “Interesting Greenie. When did this idea hit you?”

Greenie: “It came together just now. When I look around, the human race seems to be going backwards. Really going the wrong way.”

Jordan: “Now there’s a thought. Humans are regressing and other animals are progressing.”

JC: “True that many animals live together in harmony. The animals protect one another, care for one another and even appear to mourn over the loss of one of their own.”

Greenie: “And what do humans do? Humans have refined the art of killing one another, stealing from one another and polluting the very place where we live. Seems sort of dumb, doesn’t it?”

Jordan: “Your analysis sounds very…something or other. I’m not sure of the exact word, but you know what I mean.”

JC: “You mean she sounds like a socialist…or some hippie left over from the 1960’s.”

Jordan: “No, I was thinking ‘utopian’ might work but it doesn’t really fit either.”

JC: “Alright, most people will say what I said a few minutes ago, ‘Greenie, are you wacko?’ However, I do find the observation very insightful. What do we do with it?”

Greenie: “Nothing, I guess. We’re just talking.”

Jordan: “There’s some real meat in what you said. Maybe we humans are looking at the world the wrong way.”

JC: “Are we trying to reincarnate Rod Serling and ‘The Twilight Zone'”?

Greenie: “Not really. But if there are four or five dimensions, not just three, why couldn’t one of them go in the opposite direction – like reverse?”

JC: “I guess it could. Sounds sort of goofy but it could. OK, but what about technology? Humans are far more advanced today than even 100 years ago, let along 1,000 years ago.”

Jordan: “One could argue that point. But on a practical scale, humans built some very sophisticated buildings thousands of years ago. Think about the pyramids.”

JC: “Guys, this is making my brain spin. I have a hard time thinking that humans are regressing and animals progressing. Makes no sense.”

Greenie: “OK, then. What if humans were on a repeat cycle? In Bush 43 terms, a ‘do-over.'”

JC: “I could buy that idea. Humans advanced up to say 1,000,000 years ago, then disappeared. Then, about 500,000 years ago whoever is managing the universe decides humans need a second chance, a ‘do-over’.”

Jordan: “I can buy into that idea, too. Besides, who’s to say it’s not right?”

JC: “So after ‘second-chance’ humans wipe themselves out in the next 300-400 years, I wonder if universe’s managing director will give humans yet another chance?”

Greenie: “Another do-over or better still a do-do-over?”

JC: “I like the term, ‘do-do-over’ but maybe the term ‘three-peat’ is a better.”

Jordan: “Well, why not a do-do-over, or three-peat as you say? We talked about all these souls floating around. The souls need some place to land.”

JC: “OK, that’s it. No more of this sci-fi stuff. You promised we would go back to talking about things I can understand – like stupid behavior in Washington.”

Greenie: “You really understand the Beltway BS?”

JC: “There is one thing I understand for certain. I could use another glass of wine.”

(Back to the causes of the 5th Revolution, the Revenge Revolution, next segment.)

#171 Where Does the Soul Go?

02 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Jordan Abel in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: JC, Greenie, and Jordan sitting outside at a restaurant near Jordan’s office. Conversation starts #169.

Greenie: “The story of Big Cat Clydesdale is fascinating. I would have loved to meet him. But I have a question.”

Jordan: “About Big Cat?”

Greenie: “More ethereal. Before you got those calls we were talking about the galaxies and the possibility of life on other planets…and other stuff. So, my question is when the physical body dies, where does the soul go?”

Jordan: “Not a new question but still a great question. Where does the soul go?”

JC: “Are you implying the soul might be connected to a 4^th or even 5^th dimension?”

Greenie: “You know there’s a 5^th Dimension – ‘Age of Aquarius‘, ‘Wedding Bell Blues‘ and a bunch of other really good songs”

JC: “Seriously, you think there is a 4^th or 5^th dimension?”

Jordan: “Yes, too many unexplained phenomena. What about your father visiting you that one night? And he’d been dead what, more than 20 years?”

JC: “He also visited my brother the same night, except my brother was about 1,000 miles away from where I was. I’m telling you guys that visit was real…and a bit scary in retrospect, although interestingly I was not scared at the time. It was really nice to see my father again. The other strange part of the visit was he was dressed as if he were in his early 30’s.”

Jordan: “I’ve never doubted your story. Most people, I think, have some experiences that just cannot be explained logically.”

Greenie: “Far be it from me to claim any scientific credentials but I understand some physicists are beginning to offer credible theories about how a 4^th and 5^th dimension could exist. Don’t ask me to explain the theories they seem plausible.”

JC: “Where is this conversation headed? Does it really matter where the soul goes? And, besides, who knows?”

Greenie: “JC, what’s happened to your intellectual curiosity? You been hanging around with some right-wing Republicans?”

JC: “You know that’s not the case. Maybe my curiosity is having a bad-hair day. But I admit the visit from my father was intriguing then and remains so today.”

Jordan: “What I find even more fascinating is your father visited you and your brother the same night.”

Greenie: “Me, too. I’ve forgotten how you found out that he visited your brother…because he never told you, right?”

JC: “He never told me. My sister-in-law told me, but only after I asked her an indirect question.”

Greenie: “Which was?”

JC: “I merely asked if anything unusual happened during the night of I think it was April 8^th.”

Greenie: “Her response?”

JC: “Big, wide eyes and flushed face. Then she told me the story my brother told her. The stories paralleled. It was only after she finished did I gave her any details of my experience.”

Greenie: “An amazing story. If I didn’t know you so well, I might not believe you. The visit obviously had a lasting impact…and the visit was about 10 years ago?”

JC: “OK, guys, I’ve changed my mind. Asking where the soul goes is a great question. But what if we had the answer? What would we do with it?”

Greenie: “You know, we probably have the answer right in front of us. But just haven’t opened our eyes to see it.”

JC: “That sounds like some story out of the Torah. Just open your eyes and look. C’mon guys, you seem to be off in the weeds…or maybe smoking weed…or both. How will we ever know where the soul goes?”

Jordan: “JC, just step back for a second. Greenie’s point is well taken. I’ll bet the answer is staring us in the face. And, aside from some Ultra-Orthodox fanatic, most people consider Torah as leading one on a spiritual journey. If you view Torah as a spiritual journey, then there’s probably more truth than fiction to ‘opening your eyes.'”

JC: “I’m still not sure what this conversation means but I am reminded of a cartoon I saw years ago.”

Jordan: “Must have been from the New Yorker. Only guys remember cartoons from Playboy.”

JC: “Probably the New Yorker. Anyway, this guy has died and now in line to get admitted to heaven. And Saint Peter…is Saint Peter the maître d’?”

Greenie: “I think so but it doesn’t matter. Keep going.”

JC: “Saint Peter points to a cute little dog and says, ‘…Rex here has been going on and on about you for the last 50 years.'”

Jordan: “See, JC, now it is important to know where your soul goes. I could see my dog from when I was growing up. She was one of the smartest dogs I’ve ever met.”

JC: “Greenie, that might be one of the few times he’s admitted women are smart. Let’s take a break.”

Jordan: “What did I do to deserve this treatment? OK, let’s break.”

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Monthly Archives: December 2015

#176 Normal People Give Dunce Caps to Science Deniers

#175 Dealing with the Science Deniers

#174 Sense Check. On Track for the Revenge Revolution?

#173 Observations of Former Speaker of the House

#172 Humans: Peat, Repeat, Three-Peat?

#171 Where Does the Soul Go?