RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
Ep 324 About Time...Some About Me
Episode 324 of RevolutionZ gets personal, a bit strange, I hope a bit humorous, perhaps even a bit helpful. After over six years of episodes, I subject myself as interviewee to myself as a very aggressive interviewer, much more aggressive and even abrasive, than I have been with anyone else. I pounce on me as guest. I challenge me about my motivations. I ask how I navigate the interplay of confidence and ignorance to discuss a wide range of topics that often go beyond what I have studied. Is it arrogance? Or what? I ask me how I select guests? How I choose topics? What's the balance between expertise, willingness to engage in unfamiliar conversations, and the importance of examining diverse non-expert perspectives? To get still more personal, I ask me rapid-fire questions meant to reveal my personal preferences from favorite athletes, scientists, movies, and writers to whimsical but purportedly revealing queries inspired by Colbert's questionnaire. I then even reflect on this episode's content when asked if I ever wonder why I did what I did. And so on looking behind the curtain. I will be curious to hear, I hope, whether anyone is horrified, amused, or edified, by this episode's approach and content.
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I'm the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our 324th consecutive episode. That means, since it has been almost always one episode per week, that this has been happening for over six years. I had a thought about that when considering what to do for this episode. It was that, I don't know, but I suspect that many, and perhaps even most, of you who hear episodes have done so for many, or perhaps even for all of those years. That shook me up a bit. I mean, if some of you, and maybe many of you, have heard 200 or even 300 episodes, well that is, as we used to say, a shitload. I realized also that in all that time, I don't think I have ever thanked any of you, much less all of you, for tuning in and, in some cases, for staying. That is nasty of me. I think Something about doing these episodes has gotten me into the groove of starting each off and ending each without addressing anything other than the topic at hand. On the one hand, I rarely even ask for donations or for help reaching out to grow the audience. That's a plus in some ways for you, I think, not having to hear such entreaties every week ways for you. I think not having to hear such entreaties every week, but my start and finish without ever going off topic probably also goes a way to explaining why there aren't more listeners. And my also never leaving the topic also means that I don't offer you my thanks for listening, I hope, for making use of the ideas and in some cases even for donating as well. In contemplating that, I decided it has been nasty, so I apologize. I should have done so and I now do so. Thank you Really. Thank you More.
Speaker 1:There may be a sense in which some of you have come to know me somewhat through all these episodes. Though I haven't tried for that, I think perhaps, maybe I should have. I mean, with all longevity should come some familiarity, at least I think. So what can I do about that? I guess maybe I could get a little personal. I'm not one for doing that in general. Well, sometimes I have. But well, even saying that is already a little personal, isn't it? I can't just rattle off. I feel this, I feel that I like this, I like that. On the other hand, I have a lot of practice answering questions, and when asked questions, I congenitally try to dodge nothing. I try to answer anything and everything that's asked, though sometimes in not quite wanted ways. So that gave me a strategy for introducing some about me. I need only come up with a bunch of questions, I thought, as a rather intrusive interviewer, with me then answering as the interviewee. I know it's a bit odd, but let's see how it goes.
Speaker 1:First, however, what about the two-way part of communications? What about my getting to know you more? So, in case it hasn't been obvious from lack of my repeatedly asserting it, I'd like to hear from you. How is that possible? There are two paths for two-way exchange. The Revolution Z Patreon site has each episode and you can append comments, perhaps better. Znet, which is at znetworkorg, hosts Revolution Z and it also hosts a Discord system including a channel for Revolution Z that you can access from Z-Net. Actually, I guess there's a third way too you can just write me an email.
Speaker 1:Okay, back to the title this time, which is About Time Some About Me as an interview. Here's the first question, you will note. I hope that the interviewer, who is also the interviewee, isn't tossing softballs. One, you are an old man, no, denying it, don't even try. Why the hell are you still radical, even revolutionary, for that matter.
Speaker 1:Why did you become one? Okay, let's start at the beginning. I have no fucking idea why I became one. That is, why does anyone become one, I feel like answering. Why is the sky blue? I don't know. Actually, I know more about why the sky is blue.
Speaker 1:My point is, I probably became radical way, way back, even before I knew what a radical was. At any rate, when I was a radical because I knew what it was it was because I looked around and I felt the world could be a lot better. The world is lacking in many respects in that people are hurting, people are suffering oppression, people are not fulfilling themselves as they might, and it isn't because people are lazy or people aren't trying or people are somehow flawed. It's because we live within systems that prevent optimal outcomes. So why is the sky blue? I became radical because it seemed like that was the right thing to do in response to the world I found myself in.
Speaker 1:So why am I still radical? Indeed, revolutionary? For exactly the same reason. I don't think it's changed. I look around and what I see says to me, me. Things are much, much worse than they need be. They could be really much, much better, really good? Isn't it part of what we are, who we are, to notice that and to act on that?
Speaker 1:Okay, two, why is your podcast all politics? Are you that obsessive? Don't you have other interests? All work and no play makes Mike a dull fellow, don't you think? Maybe so I'm not sure, but no, I do have other interests. I have a lot of other interests. No, I do have other interests. I have a lot of other interests and I'm as engaged with them at times as I am with politics. But I admit, politics is in command. That's the way we used to say it all the way back late 60s, early 70s. Politics in command meant what we were, what we did, how we thought, was largely dominated by our political desires and agendas. We had them in mind. Indeed, in some points, I think I have actually defined being revolutionary as having that as you are, when your makeup, your approach, your personality, your choices, your choices, your choices are dominated by thoughts about politics, about how to make the world a better place.
Speaker 1:As to making Mike Adele fellow, that's not for me to judge, but I suspect you're right about that. It probably is dull for many people to encounter someone who has politics in command, especially if it's all the time. For me, I have to say, it's not all the time. You know, I watch TV, I play Go, I watch chess. I do a lot of different things. I get as engaged with popular science and even not so popular science as I do with politics. In fact, truth be known, I read a lot more science, popular science, serious science and mysteries and thrillers than I do political books, and have for quite some time. So I have a lot of interests. But when it comes down to something like having a conversation with somebody, something like forming an agenda and trying to act on it, politics in command, all politics. Well, because that's what it's about. It's because it's a politics, politics, social change radical.
Speaker 1:I did a podcast about, I don't know, just AI. It wouldn't be well, wait a minute, truth be told, it would probably, with the exception of the quantum mechanics one, still be politics in demand. That is, I would look at Dylan's lyrics and his impact in terms of politics. I would look at all of it in terms of politics. So, okay, I'm a dull fellow Three.
Speaker 1:I have listened to a shitload of your episodes, starting about six years ago. Hell, being you, I couldn't escape. After six years, I bet you still agree with the first ones. In fact, if you took up the same topics now and you often do I bet you'd offer very nearly the same content. What's with that? Doesn't your mind ever change? Don't you ever learn anything? Are you the same guy now? You were six years ago, for that matter, are you the same guy now you were 50 years ago? Let me make my query totally clear Are you a delusional but stubborn fool? Okay, let's try to answer this, maybe a step at a time, toward that last part. Yes, you're right, I'm the same person I was six years ago and I'm the same person I was 70 years ago, at least in most respects.
Speaker 1:I once thought hard about this and asked what a person is, and I decided well, we're not cells. Those get replaced every few years. Even our brain gets replaced. All of it gets replaced. So we're information. We're some kind of combination of accumulated information and connections among it and desires, I guess. Am I the same as I was 50 years ago? No, my tastes have changed. You know, various things have changed. I hope I'm a little wiser. I hope I'm a little wiser.
Speaker 1:But if you're asking, has my politics fundamentally changed? No, I don't think so. I would say by the time I was out of college a few years, I had most of the same political inclinations I have now. Now they're better developed, there's a lot added to it, there's a lot of refinements and in some cases enlargements, but there hasn't been a reversal. I admit that there hasn't been.
Speaker 1:What's with that? Well, it either means I'm a stubborn, delusional fool or it means I had something right, and I suspect it's the latter, because I don't think this is rocket science. I think having generally good values in politics comes naturally, unless it gets beaten out of you or tricked out of you or manipulated out of you. And luckily I guess I've avoided that kind of coercion. Does my mind ever change? Sure, do I learn things, sure Does what I learn and the changes in my mind. Has that caused me, for example well, it's not 50 years, but a whole lot of years to change my views about participatory economics. Parts of those views, yes, but the overall commitment, no. I don't think that's sectarianism, I don't think that's delusion or stubbornness, because I continually re-evaluate. Stubborn would be not re-evaluating, it would be not hearing anything that was critical, it would be not being willing to debate with anything that was critical. I don't think that's true of me, but I'm not the one to judge.
Speaker 1:Four, okay, how do you choose guests to invite on your show? Or, when you don't have one, how do you choose what topic to take up? Do you ever finish an episode and wonder why you're bothered? Well, the way I choose guests is almost always not entirely, but almost always that something occurs, usually in the form of my reading something by someone or encountering someone by someone, something by someone, and deciding you know, this is good stuff, this deserves to be pursued further. Let me have this person on so that they can make their case to you, the Revolution Z audience, and so we can talk about it. That's usually what's going on. The invitation is usually something that was spontaneous within say, a week or two of the person being on. Every once in a while, somebody is on not because of a spontaneous, immediate reaction to something, but because of a long-term to something, but because of a long-term reaction.
Speaker 1:So I'll give you two examples. The next person on for next Sunday's episode is Rivera Sun. I'm not gonna give her whole bio now, but she's a novelist and a political activist and I read an article by her and I really liked it and I wrote her an email and she said yes and is on. I don't know her any other way than that, but the one after that, the guest after that, is going to be Steve Shalom. Well, he's been a friend for good Lord, 50 or 60 years, I guess, more like 50. I don't know 55 years. And he's on, not because I suddenly read something by him which once again told me he was a smart cookie who had good things to say. No, it's because I had an idea about something that I wanted to do a session about, an episode about, and he immediately came to mind as a great person to have on to do it with. So both those avenues to having a guest exist when I don't have one.
Speaker 1:How do you choose what topic to take up? Okay, now, that might be a little embarrassing. I basically, usually, the night before, think about it and think about some topic. Oftentimes it is similar. That is, while it's not a guest, it's something that has been on my mind or that I have noticed or read or reacted to, that has caused me to think that something is worth talking about. It's really just that simple.
Speaker 1:Do I ever finish an episode and wonder why I bothered. Well, I'm going to wonder why I bothered this one, I think. Are you going to wonder that, having asked me all these questions? And yes, I do sometimes, I suppose, but not often, and that might not be a good sign. Lydia, my partner for life, used to say that what amazed her about the 60s, when she was attracted to it and became involved, was the incredible confidence that some people had. She just couldn't fathom it. You know, how could a person, given all the things that she had experienced, people going through in families and the like, have such confidence? And it might be a bad sign, but I guess it's the case that I'm a person like that. I have a lot of confidence. It doesn't mean that I never question, but it does mean that most of the time when I finish an episode I go on to something else. I don't second guess it Five.
Speaker 1:I get that you have spent a whole lot of time thinking about investigating and otherwise, at least perhaps becoming equipped to address some topics, especially, for example, economic vision, even social vision and, okay, some aspects of strategy too. But don't you think it is fucking presumptuous to address things you haven't thought long and hard about To even just wing it at times. Ah, I think this is a better question than the first four. Of course, that could be just my opinion. Yes and no, we believe. I believe you and I believe, since you're me, in participation. We believe in something called participatory economics and participatory society. We believe people have a say in their own lives and circumstances and that people should express themselves regarding such matters. You can't have a say if you don't indicate the say, indicate the desires. Moreover, people should have people's insights, people's attitudes, people's views, people's assessments count. It isn't the case that only the assessments of somebody who has how did you put it? Spent a whole lot of time thinking about, investigating and otherwise at least perhaps becoming equipped to address some topics, deserves to have a say. It's important that people other than those people because those people might have a jaundiced say often it's important that people who are further from being immersed in something have a say about something. So, no, I don't think, capital T, that it's fucking presumptuous to address things that one hasn't thought long and hard about. I haven't thought long and hard about most of the questions you're asking. It's not presumptuous to address them, it's just honest. I acknowledge, however, that sometimes it can be presumptuous and sometimes it probably is presumptuous, and sometimes it probably is presumptuous when I do it.
Speaker 1:Six, why don't you invite guests whose views you don't like? Are you afraid to debate? That's another interesting question and this might be a bit idiosyncratic. I sort of view Revolution Z as having somebody over in my living room when it's a guest A guest, not an opponent, brought in to be beheaded. A guest, somebody who I appreciate, and so I don't invite on people with the purpose of trying to demonstrate that they're wrong. That doesn't mean I'm afraid to debate. I actually probably am too quick to debate. May like debating too much, not too little, but I don't like inviting people on to debate.
Speaker 1:Now, what makes this a bit weird is I don't mind being invited onto a podcast to debate. I wouldn't mind, you know, if it should only happen. What's his name? What the hell is his name? Mega podcaster, now supporting Trump? If he had me on, I would be happy. And I would be happy if he had me on in order to destroy me. That'd be fine. I would be happy to debate, so happy. If he had me on in order to destroy me. That'd be fine. I would be happy to debate. So no, it's not that I don't like to debate or I'm afraid to debate. Indeed, I've debated with a whole lot of people, including people who you know are quite prominent and have views that would just as soon see me disappear. I just don't like inviting somebody on my show to my living room for me to bludgeon Seven.
Speaker 1:You have mentioned that your audience is small. Maybe you should take a hint and do something else with your time. What do you think? Maybe you're right, I don't know. How do I know? How does anyone know? When you start to do something, maybe something quick, you know, go to a demonstration or maybe something that takes a whole lot of time, start writing a book, how do you know that it's going to be worth the effort? You don't. You make your best estimate when I I noticed my audience is small. It's true. If the audience was much larger I would be happy at that change, supposing everything else was unchanged.
Speaker 1:I remember when Lydia used to do theater. Sometimes she would do a play, you know, on a Friday night that she directed and was in, starred in and wrote, and sometimes it would be eight or ten people, and she would be upset by that and I would say to her you know, if there were a thousand people and they watched it and went home and were a little bit entertained, okay, and if there were ten people and one of them, just one of them, watched it and went home and was, you know, the next Rosa Parks or whatever, which is more important. So you have to pay attention when there are 10 and when there are a thousand. Do something else with my time. What? What am I going to do with my time? That is more valuable than doing these podcasts, I don't know. Somebody recommends something and perhaps I'll do it. Well, actually, let me say I just did have such a recommendation. Someone recommended that I do, instead of hour-long, roughly ballpark, most of the time podcasts that I do, you know, snippets, little short ones, all video, and I would have a much larger audience. This person felt Well, I had a couple of reactions to that.
Speaker 1:One was I don't think it's true. I don't think I would have a larger audience. I think that I probably would be not. However good or bad I am at what I'm doing now, I think I would probably be not particularly good at all at trying to be thoroughly engaging in one minute, and I also think that who cares? What does one minute accomplish? It's just not enough time to convey anything other than what is already in people's minds. You can convey pretty quickly. Same is true for a really short article. You can convey something that people are already aware of. But if you want to convey things that might change people's views or minds, well then that takes longer and that's what I prefer to do.
Speaker 1:Eight, do you ever feel like you were beating your head against the titanium wall? Why don't those feelings stop you? Getting more specific, don't you feel right now like what the fuck is happening? Your agenda is getting blasted. What gets you up each day? Anyhow, hell, what keeps you off the nearest bridge? Well, yes, of late not earlier very much, maybe even not at all do I feel like I'm beating my head against a titanium wall, but I will admit that of late I have had feelings that are more morose on that score or concerned about defeat on that score than I've had in the past. Why don't those feelings stop you? Well, who knows, maybe they will, but I hope not.
Speaker 1:I do feel like what the fuck is happening. I mean, on the one hand, we know what is happening After all, it's broadcast in 17,000 channels and flavors every day. Of course, there's so much noise that many of us don't see what might be the most important parts, but I think I pretty much see those most important parts and so I know what's going on. But at the same time, I don't know what's going on because it's completely unprecedented and berserk and it's very hard to pin it down. I try that's what I've been doing various podcasts about my agenda is getting blasted. Well, yes, it is.
Speaker 1:It isn't just that policies are being pursued which hurt the constituencies which I care about helping, which I care about rising up in anger. It's also that the whole structure of government, the whole structure of the political apparatus that we live with, is being not just blasted but reconstructed, which is worse, and reconstructed with an eye toward ends that are despicable, ruled by one and a bunch of buddies, or maybe it's ruled by a few. We don't really know how much is Trump in command? I don't know. Is it instead some of those billionaires not even Musk, the ones that we don't see? Some of those billionaires not even Musk, the ones that we don't see that are sitting around and governing things? Don't know, but we know what's going on and where it's headed.
Speaker 1:What gets me up each day anyhow? Well, I gotta tell you, if I'm gonna be honest with these questions, it's getting harder. I find myself sitting in bed well, lying in bed longer than I would ordinarily, and I think that is a sign of what you're asking about, that it's hard to face the day and it's hard to pursue what we believe in, to pursue what we believe in, but I do it. What keeps me off the nearest bridge? Okay, I'm going to be honest again.
Speaker 1:When I was maybe I don't know 22 or something, something like that, I broke up with somebody who I thought I was going to wind up with forever. It just happened and I went walking and I walked on the bridge that links Boston and Cambridge. It's actually called the Harvard Bridge, if I remember correctly. Yeah, it is. It's called the Harvard Bridge because when it was built, mit was in Boston, not in Cambridge, so the bridge was from Boston to Cambridge, where Harvard was. They never changed the name to the MIT Bridge, although I think people have tried to. It leads, you know, one side of it is directly is at MIT. It's on Massachusetts Avenue in Cambridge, anyway. So I'm walking across the bridge and I'm looking into the water and I'm wondering. That's the only time in my life that I ever sort of asked myself you know why not jump off? Probably I would have survived. What's the answer to that question? I don't know. You have to ask somebody a lot more I don't know, aware and understanding of human motivations and psychology than me to get an answer. But I didn't and I've never thought about it since Nine.
Speaker 1:This was supposed to be revelatory, a bit personal, a bit. You've done some of that, but some folks would think all the above isn't personal, it is just more politics. Isn't personal, it is just more politics. So okay, now answer quickly each question. Who is your favorite athlete ever? Willie Mays, and now, hmm, and now I guess I would say Steph Curry. Who's your favorite singer-songwriter? Bob Dylan, obviously Ever, yes, bob Dylan, and now, yes, bob Dylan. Sports team Ever the baseball giants, when they were in New York and San Francisco, and now I'm not sure I have one now, pretty recently the Warriors, the basketball team.
Speaker 1:But now I don't know your favorite novelistist, now and ever, or ever and now I don't know. I don't know what I'd say to that. I don't know favorite novelist. There was a period when I liked who's the guy who wrote the Herman Hesse? And then there was a period when I liked I don't know, I really don't know. Now you can see the devolution. It's. What's his name? Gresham, I like his mysteries. No-transcript.
Speaker 1:Your favorite actor ever and now, um yikes, how about I know who? Was he Butch Cassidy or was he the Sundance Kid? If you don't know who? That is Paul Newman, ever and now I don't know that. I have one now really Favorite actress ever Katharine Hepburn. Now probably Meryl Streep. And favorite scientist ever, or now, ever, I don't know, going by the amount of things I've read about the person. I guess Einstein, now Chomsky. Favorite comedian now or ever. What's his name? You know because he's the favorite, he's the best comedian that there has ever been, any time, anywhere, any place. He's just a complete genius. And I guess there are some others that are in the same ballpark, so you can choose for yourself. Now I don't really have any that I have enough interaction with. And now I want to go back and make one change. Also Famous actress ever Lydia Sargent. And now still, okay, I think we have a little more time.
Speaker 1:How about you answer, as more of question nine, colbert's questionnaire Uh, what you know from late night television. The questions he thinks reveal who his celebrity guests really are. He asked them the Colbert questionnaire Are you crazy? I'm not a celebrity. Tough, let's do it. Okay, but no follow-ups. You don't like my answers Too bad?
Speaker 1:On to the next Colbert question. Okay, but then you have to give some kind of answer to each. All right, what's the best sandwich For the sake of the audience who don't watch late night TV? Colbert really does this. These questions are really from him. He asks these questions to all kinds of celebrities you know, from Tom Hanks to, I mean, just all kinds of people.
Speaker 1:Alright, what's the best sandwich? Once I would have said pastrami with coleslaw and mustard on rye, but times change. How about Trump? Between two slices of musk burnt to a crisp not yet served. But you never know. What's one thing you own that you should really throw out, you as my interviewer.
Speaker 1:What is the scariest animal Lightning? All presidents, some more than others. Weren't you a president of the student body at MIT? Hmm, yes, I was. Hmm, maybe that's when you became a part of me. All right, next Colbert question Apples or oranges? Kumquats, colbert, can't be serious. Kenny, have you ever asked someone for their autograph? I don't think so. I don't remember, but I would have if I had access to Che, for example, or Bertrand Russell.
Speaker 1:I tend to ask for advice answers. Most often it's been from Chomsky. What do you think happens when we die? Pretty much what would have happened if we were still here, but without us? And the worms crawl in and the worms crawl out.
Speaker 1:Favorite action movie? Okay, I'll be honest. When I was a kid it was Shane. Later not so honest Help, or maybe Cool Hand Luke.
Speaker 1:Favorite smell what Truth is, I can't experience a smell, an image, a film or a video, not even a touch in my mind when it isn't present. So the smell of fascism Least favorite smell? Whoops, that was favorite smell, I made a mistake. Smell of freedom Least favorite smell? Okay, same reason, the smell of fascism. Window or aisle bathroom.
Speaker 1:Is Colbert embarrassed asking this stuff? You get one song to listen to for the rest of your life. You don't have to listen to it every minute, but whenever you listen to music you have to listen to this song. What is it? Probably Dylan's. When the ship comes in, at least until it does. Colbert asks next what number? Am I thinking of Infinity, or I guess maybe one or zero. I've got no shot at guessing. Otherwise, describe the rest of your life in five words, still trying.
Speaker 1:You knew that, ornery, aren't you? So, this being my last question, do you think your idea for this episode was a mistake? Do you think anyone will listen to this and somehow benefit? If not, did I waste my time asking you ten questions? I am ornery, yes, I suppose so. Is it arrogant, callous? Or maybe it's just who we are? I don't know. I think we can leave judging this weird exercise to the listeners. You made me think on the fly and we did something that's different, remember? You said I was getting boring. Well, this is outside the box, even if it's still boring. But that brings us back to the presumptuous question, doesn't it? Why ask questions like this and answer them at all? Presumptuous, jeez, this thing could become a song In that respect, like all along the Watchtower, but illiterate At any rate. All that said this is Michael Albert, interviewer and Michael Albert interviewee signing off until next time.