6/21 25:00 Exactly how do you think the Ukraine crisis should proceed?
It's pretty clear that we've been forced into a deadly game of chicken. (Regardless of who started it, Russia threw the first punch.) That's a fact. So how do you want this to turn out? Should we engage or not? I think we all agree that we have to do something. Doing nothing is not an option. Agree? If so, that's our first principle. - We must take action. We must engage. Then what action is the right action to take? If we engage, shouldn't we engage to win? And if that's the case, shouldn't our action be toward achieving our goal of engaging to win? What does engaging to win mean? It means winning on our terms. Winning on our terms is maintaining world influence and power with the least destruction of value possible. Right? So what action would direct us towards winning on our terms? In a game, fight, or conflict you are either focused mainly on offense or defense. It's impossible to be 50/50. So far we've been extremely offensive, save direct military intervention. Its been pretty consistent. So far all logical and true. As you point out, that policy is failing the US in it's goals to win on our terms. There are only two other actions available to pursue. More defense or more offense. More defense means less intense offense. Pure defense means no offense. Let's look at the first one. More defense less offense. How does winning work with less or no offense, especially when you aren't competing well? Unless you have a great strategy for full retreat and a repair and redeploy, then it doesn't. If you are advocating for a reduction in offense, you need to have a clear strategy for redeployment to a strategy for winning on your terms. Otherwise, you are advocating giving up and losing. That option is untenable. So what about increasing offense? If we've started at extremely aggressive offense there is little more we can do to increase offense without military violence. Mutually assured destruction makes this option untenable. So our only choices are to increase offense in the slim margin between where we are now and military intervention OR create a new winning strategy that will justify a retreat and redeployment. I don't see many people working hard on the second option as there is no clear path forward there. Maybe I'm wrong. So again I ask, how would this optimally play out in your mind?
Staffing Shortage
Why has it become so difficult for business owners to find work? Stimulus checks are long gone so how is the general unemployed population bringing in income? I am aware there the "boomer" generation is much larger and beginning to retire and leave the job market but what are the other reasons for such a significant staffing shortage?
Krystal on Bill Maher ratings and having you back.
I watched you on Bill Maher last week.. Go Krystall!!! Yay! What were the ratings like, Were you a hit liked I hoped and believe. I hope he has you on again, hopefully as the only guest. Its hard to get your point across without looking like you are monopolizing the conversation. all in all you did a great job. Even if none on my overtime questions came up ;-( How do you think you did, what would you have changed, what have you learned to make your appearance and viewpoint better for next time?
Electric Cars in California
I’ve been thinking about getting an electric car for a while now. Something that concerns me though is how easy it would be for some crazy mayor or governor to cut off people’s ability to travel by simply limiting the amount of power they can consume. I keep going back to how crazy things got at the beginning of Covid. I legitimately think that if a majority of people had electric cars, someone like Newsome would try to keep people from traveling by not allowing them to charge their cars.