E9. "The Truth About Thurman" - Is there a "better" decision, when both cause someone to die?

“Is there a better decision, when both cause someone to die?”

Kolby, Jeremy, and Jessica discuss the ethics in the terrorist driven short story, “The Truth About Thurman” by Jenean McBrearty.

Philosophy | Ethics Short Story Discussions - Podcast RSS

Transcription (By: Transcriptions Fast)

The Truth About Thurman

Kolby: Hi, and welcome back again to After Dinner Conversation; short stories for long discussions. I am your co-host Kolby.

Jeremy: I’m your co-host Jeremy.

Jessica: I am a co-host... is there such a thing at three co-hosts?

Kolby: Tri-hosts?

Jessica: I am a side-kick Jessica.

(laughter)

Kolby: And today we are talking about “The Truth About Thurman”...

Jessica: By Jeanean McBrearty.

Kolby: If you haven’t read it yet, you should read it ideally before listening to the podcast. You can get that at amazon.com, you can download it. If you like this podcast, feel free to “like” and “subscribe”. If you’ve got a story you want to submit, go to our website Afterdinnerconversation.com. You can submit stories, we’ll read them, if we love them, then they’ll be one of the ones we discuss someday.

Jessica: Where we at?

Kolby: We are at.... thank you.

Jessica: You’re welcome.

Kolby: We are at La Gattara, where they have cat rental. No, it’s not cat rental, they adopt cats out and they’ve always got loads of cats. We’ve had them... if you hear clicking and clacking in the background it’s not that Jeremy’s a bad sound guy, it’s that...

(laughter)

Jeremy: It could also be that too.

Jessica: It’s also Jeremy.

Kolby: There’s got to be like, what, 25-30 cats in here?

Jessica: There’s... I don’t know if there’s that many.

Jeremy: Maybe 20?

Kolby: There’s like a lot.

Jeremy:  High teens.

Kolby: High teens, yeah.

Jessica: And they are adorable. And you can come pay to come and sit and be with them and have them knock your stuff off the table or sit on your laptop, so if you’re missing a cat and you want to come and hang out, you can.

Jeremy: This is a great place.

Kolby: This is our 8th or 9th episode here. It’s really nice of them.

Jeremy: I’m glad you can count.

(laughter)

Kolby: I’m totally loosing count. I don’t know how the people are like, “I’ve done 200 episodes”, I’m like, “How would you even remember that dude?”

Jeremy: Because they write it down.

(laughter)

Jessica: It’s this thing called pen and paper Kolby.

Kolby: I should totally try that. Okay, so for the people that haven’t read “The Truth about Thurman”, Jessica would you, I’m sorry, Jeremy...

Jeremy: Yes.

Kolby: I just gave Jessica a heart attack because she hadn’t prepped the summary. Jeremy has prepped to do the summary.

Jessica: Jeremy does do good summaries.

Kolby: Jeremy, tell us about “The Truth About Thurman” for the people that didn’t read it.

Jeremy: So, as our story opens our protagonist, Captain Thurman, waits to see his commander. When he’s ushered in, they begin discussing the events that lead up to the capture or that led up to the capture of two American soldiers and the ultimatums from the captors. Apparently, the Jihadist captors want the military or the government to pick which soldier will die and which will be released. During these scenes Captain Thurman also displays several odd moments of misogyny, or what’s the other term?

Kolby: Misogyny.

Jeremy: No, anyways, they discuss the characteristics of the two soldiers presumably to find out the potential fallout of watching either of them be murdered by the jihadists. First soldier Whitcomb is gay; the second Chandler is a Jewish woman.

Kolby: Like this is a math problem.

Jeremy: The commander suggest that either way, someone will be offended and bring s up the movie “Sophie’s Choice” saying that no matter who they choose, the Jihadist’s will most likely kill them both. So, and the best thing they can do is ignore the request and work on a rescue. Thurman is unhappy with this response and spend the next 48 hours cleaning and repainting his apartment while watching “Sophie’s Choice” and trying not the think about the torture and violent end the two soldiers will undoubtedly face, as intelligence operators are unable to locate them for a rescue. So, once completed with the remodel of this apartment and the movie, Thurman agrees that his commander is correct: “to be chosen as the insignificant one would be another torturer.”

Kolby: Wow, you pulled that quote right from the story. That’s good.

Jeremy: Yeah. It’s a synopsis.

Kolby: But that’s a direct quote, that’s awesome.

Jeremy: All of this culminated with the reveal that Thurman and Chandler were engaged and he wonders if telling the commander that she was pregnant would have made any difference. The story ends with Thurman shooting himself just as the news reports the videos of the soldiers’ executions have been released.

Kolby: Okay.

Jessica: So, it’s a real light-hearted story. As they all are.

Kolby: Does he paint his entire house black or something, and black over all the mirrors? Velvet?

Jessica: Yeah.

Jeremy: Did he paint it? He was replacing everything with black velvet.

Jessica: I thought he was replaced everything with velvet. Which is covering all the mirrors and stuff is a Jewish tradition when somebody passes away.

Kolby: Jeremy, you have thoughts when you read it?

Jeremy: I mean, the topic they bring up is really good. The idea that to choose; again, “Sophie’s Choice” is a great example to bring into the story.

Kolby: It’s driving me nuts; I can’t remember the name of the term it’s based on. Yeah, I’m going to look it up.

Jeremy: I was thinking toxic masculinity; that was the other term.

Jessica: Toxic masculinity, oh, the commander guy. Yeah, he was kind of...

Jeremy: Well, even Thurman; they’re both a little steeped in that. I feel like the story is pretty well written. You do get the character’s motives and their thoughts in this and it’s an interesting perspective. The question it asked is very hard to answer; how do you choose?

Kolby: Hopsen’s choice.

Jessica: Hopsen’s choice.

Kolby: Yea, if you’re Wikipedia-ing something, Hobson’s choice is the thing you Wikipedia and then “Sophie’s Choice” is the movie that’s roughly based on it. Yeah, sorry, I was going to forget.

Jeremy: No, and don’t they bring it up in “Rick and Morty”, just to choose which of the...

(laughter)

Jessica: I don’t watch it guys.

Kolby: ”Rick and Morty” is good. It’s really good.

Jessica: Whatever.

Kolby: So, I’ll tell you one of the things I really liked about this story is it’s not particularly long, it’s, you know, 5-6 pages. You can read it...

Jeremy: ... in a sitting.

Kolby:  ... in not long. And it is kind of a one-trick pony. It’s the what do you do in “Sophie’s Choice” or Hobson’s choice scenario but it doesn’t stretch it out into 35 pages to ask me one questions. Right? And I really appreciated that, that I could be like, “yeah, just give me the...

Jeremy: ...“here’s the scenario”

Kolby: ...”Give me the sketch and give me the choice and let me have something I can decide what I think about it.” And I did appreciate that it was both did something interesting and did it in a brief way, so I didn’t feel like, ya know, I don’t need to know what color.

Jeremy: Right, and not too much character development.

Kolby: And for this kind of thing, I don’t think you necessarily need...

Jeremy: ...too much of that, yeah.

Kolby: yeah, in the same ways.

Jessica: I agree. I think the story does, in a very, you know, limited about of space gives us a kind of scenario for us to mull over. It did remind me, I do want to say before moving on, that “Sophie’s Choice” is a fantastic novel and does a ton of character development and its heart breaking and it makes you cry at the end.

Kolby: I haven’t even seen the movie.

Jessica: The movie is also really good.

Kolby: I skimmed the Wikipedia.

(laughter)

Kolby: I haven’t. I’ll watch it at some point.

Jessica: I’m just saying the character development isn’t bad, but I think for the purposes of discussing a really interesting moral problem. It also reminded me of “Black Mirror” just the concept of, like.... So, I have trouble watching “Black Mirror” so I don’t watch...

Kolby: You’ll have to give me a background, I don’t know “Black Mirror.”

Jessica: Oh, “Black Mirror” Is a show on Netflix.

Jeremy: It’s on Netflix.

Kolby: I thought they were all individual one-offs.

Jessica: They are.

Kolby: So, you can’t just say it reminds me of “Black Mirror” because I have to know what episode.

Jeremy: Sorry. I think the reason why it reminds me of “Black Mirror” in general is because I think at the end of “Black Mirror” perhaps, and my personal fault in this, I didn’t realize that it is really set up to have you these kind of same “After Dinner Conversation” discussions. Right?

Jeremy: Absolutely.

Kolby: That’s exactly what “Black Mirror” is.

Jessica: But, I have such a hard time just digesting the content that I don’t watch it because it’s too horrifying and I’m a horror writer.

(laughter)

Jessica: So, I find it funny that I just realized sitting that, “Oh, that’s exactly what the “Black Mirror” is doing””

Kolby: The other one is “Love, Death, and Robots” on HBO, also same thing. Each episode is 8-15 minutes. It’s animated.

Jessica: Really?

Kolby: And it’s really just a “here’s a one-trick pony” sort of story but, the trick is always really good.

Jessica: Ok, alright. So, Kolby, one of the things you said was you liked this story because it set up the situation and gave you something to think about on what choice you would have made in this situation. So, well, what did you disagree or did you agree with what happens at the end?

Kolby: Yea, I took I different tact. So, when I see these sort of situations I am of the opinion, and this is tangential to the story a little bit in that, when you pay a kidnapper...

(loud cat noises)

Kolby: Wow, holy cat fight.

Jeremy: Over the bathroom, of course.

Jessica: Again.

Kolby: Again over the bathroom with the litter box. When you pay a kidnapper, you’re telling people, “You should probably kidnap.” When you pay a pirate who steals a ship, to get your ship back, you’re telling them they should do something...

Jeremy: That it’s okay.

Kolby: If being the sort of...

Jeremy: You’re establishing a norm.

Kolby: You’re establishing it’s worth doing.

(cat meow)

Kolby: Wow.

Jessica: Again, we’re in a cat lounge, there’s cats.

Kolby: And so I think, even in this kind of case, if you’re doing it quote-unquote right, if the person says, “Look, we’ve got two people and we’re going to kill one of them”, I think you smart bomb the building that both of them are in and you’re like, “look...”

Jessica: But they couldn’t locate the building.

Kolby: Or in the case of the kidnappers or in the case of the pirate ship, if someone’s like, “How much will you give us for the pirate ship?” You blow up your own ship and you’re like, “Just so you’re not clear, you will never make money doing this.” And then you don’t get elected president again. Let’s also be clear.

(Laughter)

Jessica: Kolby is not running for president.

Kolby: No.

Jessica: So I think that’s a very interesting approach.

Kolby: It’s a logical approach, it’s not a very useful approach.

Jeremy:  Empathetic approach.

Kolby: It’s not an empathetic approach.

Jessica: Well, yeah, it might be hard, especially in this scenario. We don’t know where the kidnappers are or the hostages. But it is interesting when we talk about, like so, is this idea that giving terrorists or giving people that either pirates or jihadist or giving them airtime on social media.

Kolby: You’re giving them exactly what they way.

Jessica: Is exactly what they want; so that is the pay-off. And there’s this idea that if we can squash that, if we can remove them from social media, if we can remove, if we can get Twitter to do that or we can get YouTube to do that, they are not getting the payoff and recruitment that they were hoping to get by doing this, but then that also represses the horrors that are happening, and represses freedom of speech.

Kolby: So, one of the things that came up, I think it was New Zealand, they had their first mass shooter in ever, and all the newspapers and the press and everyone cooperatively agreed that they would never say the name of the person.

Jeremy: Right. And you’re starting to see that more often now. And that’s been one of the suggestions that psychologists or everybody has been making is this don’t release their name because this is promoting it to other people who would be copycats and make them before famous.

Kolby: I feel like they want to be famous for it. I think, it doesn’t really go into it in this story, but I think that’s why the terrorists in this story do this is they don’t really care if one person or two person dies, they care if they’re on the news having made the US government choose who dies. And so in that sense, I mean, I guess that they...

Jeremy: They made the right decision.

Kolby: They made the right choice. But, now do you want to be the one to make that phone call to either one of these people parents, families and be like, “hey, we made the good choice but bad news about your whatever?”

Jeremy: And that is one of the things near the end when Thurman is thinking about all these things is specifically that comes up, is who is going to tell the families of these people this is what happened.

Jessica: So, I want to throw some scenarios at your guys. So, would this story have been different if it was a soldier, a US soldier and a soldier from a different country?

Kolby: Shouldn’t be. I would say though, that if it was a soldier and a non-solider...

Jessica: The solider dies. We get that.

Kolby: Yeah, you signed up for that.

Jessica: You signed up for that.

Kolby: Yes, you get free college tuition.

Jessica: Thank you very much for your service. I’m not saying anything but... I think the soldier would also make that choice.

Kolby: Because they know what they signed up for.

Jessica: Right. Would it be any different if it was somebody with an outstanding service record and what’s-his-face, the, who is the director? BRR BRR BRR halt?

Kolby: Someone who defected.

Jessica: Yeah. Somebody who defected from the United States Army.

Kolby: To me, and this is why I think.... this part I didn’t care about this story... the idea that one person is gay, one person is a Jewish woman, I don’t care. You’re not worth more or less because you’re gay or a Jewish woman. I don’t care about that.

Jeremy: But I think they were doing that to begin that discussion, how do you choose? What are all the factors? And the commander says, “It doesn’t matter who you choose, somebody is going to be upset, so the only choice is to not make a choice.”

Jessica: I think it’s interesting. I think the writer did that intentionally to kind of lead us down this idea of evaluating soldiers with like, pro and con’s list and the story didn’t go that route. Which, I thought that was very good, that would make me very uncomfortable, but I, not that being uncomfortable is a bad thing, I love to be uncomfortable, but that we can’t, we to send us down that route of pro and con and they just say, “like it doesn’t really matter, we don’t negotiate.” But I do think about that pro and con list. Like, would it have made a difference had he said that she was pregnant? I don’t, I mean, I don’t know...

Kolby: That might’ve to me actually.

Jessica: Really?

Kolby: Yeah, because here’s, yea...

Jeremy: Because then an innocent civilian.

Jessica: I guess. It’s not an innocent fetus. It’s a clump of cells.

Kolby: Yeah, but, I know, but, and I understand that’s, but I just feel like it has the ability to become a person, it’s a whole thing. Like, I, yeah, I don’t know why that would’ve mattered to me.

Jessica: Huh.

Kolby: The thing that was disappointing to me, and I think it was written  to be disappointing to me, it’s not that the writing was disappointing, was that the military was interested in which one was the worse story and so their reason for non-participation wasn’t for the reason’s we’re discussing. It was, “Well, it’s a gay person and it’s a Jewish woman.” But if the person hadn’t been gay and it was just a Jewish person, they’re like, “Oh well, the fallout would be less.” The only reason they did nothing because the scale was balance in the PR fallout. Not because of what we’re discussing which was, a life is a life is a life. Unless you signed up for it, unless you sort of stepped forward in whatever form that you do.

Jessica: Right.

Kolby: And so that part, I think, falls into that sort of toxic masculinity. Just shows the government is just as the sort of blanket inept PR related entity.

Jeremy: Right. What’s the best of the worst case scenarios.

Jessica: And I think the line that you read in your summary Jeremy about...

Kolby: To be thought less.

Jessica: To be thought less. I also found that it was an interesting assumption that the jihadist wouldn’t say, “Oh, they picked you? Great. I’m going to kill this person and then kill them, just kidding they picked the other person, kill them.”

Jeremy: To force the government to make a choice.

Kolby: Why would they keep their word?

Jessica: Exactly.

Kolby: Because the PR goal is for them to have made a choice. Not that we follow through on your choice.

Jessica: Right. Correct. And yeah, I think that...

Kolby: So, one thing I didn’t understand about this story, and I think it since the story perfectly fine, It just didn’t make any sense to be, is the main character Captain Thurman, why he hills himself at the end? Like, obviously because, there’s the Jewish woman...

Jeremy: ...who he’s engaged too.

Kolby: Like, I get that, but like, people’s engaged died all the time.

Jeremy: But he doesn’t want to see her beheading.

Kolby: Sure. Don’t watch the YouTube video; I’m totally down with that.

Jessica: But, so, I disagree.

Kolby: I just don’t know why he killed himself at the end.

Jessica: I don’t think it’s because he doesn’t want to see her beheading, not that he wants to see her beheading....

Kolby: I thought it was because he didn’t tell the person in charge that he knew her.

Jessica: So, I wonder if it’s this deeper. So, there is some hints through the story of this kind of personal struggle to have a relationship and there’s like, the relationship...

Kolby: You’re a cat whisperer.

Jessica: I have a cat that’s sitting on my story. I can’t reference it, so I’m going to have to go from memory; it has a pink bowtie on. It’s very cute. So, from memory there’s a metal that’s...

Jeremy: Right, he has a triathlon metal.

Jessica: Oh it a triathlon metal. Encased in...

Jeremy: Plexiglas.

Jessica: On the mantle and that’s it. And the relationship with the mother is a little odd. His decision to get married seems to be based on that there is a metal there and it would look good with a diamond ring. I don’t know.

Jeremy: It’s a little...

Kolby: It’s a little hard to follow.

Jessica: So, I wonder if he has just a very difficult time...

Jeremy: Interacting with people in general.

Jessica: Interacting with people in general and then he finally finds somebody that he is in love with, and then he can’t act in a way to save her and withheld information and living with that, is too hard. This idea that, “I was involved in the decision and I did nothing and she dies and therefore, it’s...”

Jeremy: It’s his fault.

Jessica: It’s his fault.

Jeremy: I can see that.

Kolby: I also think that had he been doing this right, and maybe he even had an obligation to, I don’t know anything about the military, he should have told somebody. He shouldn’t have even been in those rooms, right?

Jessica: Yeah.

Kolby: He should’ve been like, “hey, by the way, I’m engaged to this person.” They’d be like, “We understand. We’re going to show you to the other room. We have somebody who’s going to fill your place for you. This is not your problem anymore.”

Jessica: Yeah.

Kolby: But, it doesn’t serve the story to do that.

Jeremy: Correct.

Jessica: What I would say is that, oh how to put this...

Kolby: You’re going to try to not get yourself in trouble?

Jessica: Yep. I think...

Kolby: Don’t be a disappointment to your daughter. Don’t be a disappointment to your daughter.

Jessica: I think a lot of white dudes think that they can act in a way that is unbiased in...

Jeremy: In those situations.

Jessica: In those situations.

Kolby: Because that’s the manly thing to do.

Jessica: Right. Going back to that idea that we we’re talking about with like toxic masculinity, Here’s, you know, he says some things that come from a place of toxic masculinity that, to me, he says I can. And he acts without bias for the most part.

Kolby: Until he blocks himself in the room by himself. But in public, he’s..

Jeremy: ...he’s compartmentalizing and...

Jessica: ...And he thinks, and this idea that, to go back to that idea of toxic masculinity, it is a societal problem that we do not allow men to say, like “Hey, this is going to personally effect me, I’m going to recues myself.” And we don’t let men do that. If women do it, and we allow women to do that, we absolutely do, we also think that’s very weak. Right, we’re like, “geez.”

Kolby: Man up.

Jessica: Uggh. Exactly. Man Up. Man Up.

Kolby: Grow a pair.

Jessica: Right. And so perhaps with the, maybe what we can say is that, the end of the story is perhaps a bit of a statement of the effect of toxic masculinity. This idea that you must be brave, you must be unbiased, and at the end it will kill you. Good luck white dude.

(laughter)

Kolby: I don’t know where I saw this from, it might’ve been a Simpson’s episode, I don’t know, but somebody is having a conversation with an old crusty old guy, and he said, “I don’t know what to do?” And he’s like, “You swallow that down, and you swallow it and you swallow it and you swallow it.” And he’s like, “really grandpa?” and he’s like, “yeah and then you get cancer in your stomach and you die.”

(Laughter)

Jessica: That is absolutely from the Simpsons. I totally remember that episode.

Kolby: But that’s, I think that is part of that culture of toxic masculinity of like, “I’m going to internalize and internalize and internalize because I have some societal obligation to take that on silently. And be the cowboy in the west or whatever.” As opposed to just being like, “Man, I had a hard day” or “I saw a Hallmark commercial and it made me cry.”

Jeremy: God, that Sarah McLachlan song.

Kolby: We went to the Musical Instrument Museum last night, and I’m watching this thing on the thing, and I’m like, “I’m going to cry”

Jessica: Kolby cried at the...

Kolby: I totally cried at the Musical Instrument Museum.

Jessica: Well, there was a really great exhibit about the kids, I don’t, it was Paraguay where kids were making instruments from trash.

Kolby: Literally going through a trash heap, and banging out and like getting....

Jessica: Beautiful violin and that cello, that was...

Kolby: They played better than you in a lot of ways.

Jessica: I mean, bar low.

(laughter)

Kolby: Out of a gas can by the way.

Jessica: And then I cried during Malory wedding ceremony, which I’ve seen that video literally a thousand times on YouTube, and still cry.

Jeremy: But you still cried.

Jessica: But very socially acceptable for me to boohoo through a museum...

Kolby:  ..but not for me.

Jessica: ...but not Kolby.

Kolby: Yeah, I don’t mind crying actually. I feel like that’s how you know you’re alive. Like, if you’ve had a good cry, that’s how you’re like, “You know what? I still am able to feel things that make me cry.”

Jessica: I wish that I was more okay with crying. I’m not. But I cry all the freaking time. All the time. Hallmark commercials, trailers, to really terrible movies, I cry all the time. I cry all the time. My daughter loves to stare at me while I’m crying.

Kolby: My wife does the same thing. She’s like, ‘Are you crying?’ And I’m like, “Of course I am. I cry at everything, shush up.”

Jeremy: You should watch “Grave of the Fireflies.”

Jessica: (gasp) No, you shouldn’t. It was the like first movie Jeremy recommended to me when we first met and I never will forgive him for it.

(laughter)

Kolby: Alright, anything else about this story you want to discuss?

Jeremy: One of your questions...

Kolby: What are the questions? Was there one you liked that you wanted to discuss a little bit?

Jeremy: Discuss because it reminded me, you said.

Kolby: Hobson’s choice, I did find it.

Jeremy: Hobson’s choice... something about, should there be a criteria, should there be a pecking order of who should get saved first?

Kolby: For me, it’s just you’re in the military or you’re not in the military.  

Jessica: Okay, but what about Titanic?

Jeremy: But, what this reminded me of, it references “The Radio Lab” or “This American Life”. There’s one of those about the hospital in New Orleans during Katrina where because of the fallout of this hospital, they, the medical community, has developed a process to choose who gets saved.

Kolby: Who gets taken out of the hospital in the event there’s a limited amount of time to do it?

Jeremy: Yes.

Kolby: I’m really glad it’s medical personnel who make that choice, but it has to be made.

Jeremy: Right.

Kolby: So, here’s the other one that I think has come up as well, is the concern about self-driving cars. That if they’re given a choice, you’re now relinquishing that choice of like, kid runs in front of the street, person on the side of the street riding a bicycle, and the car is now going to make this choice of which is more valuable or which has the higher percentage of safety of whatever. Do we want to remove these Hobson’s choice from our driving process? I’m going to take one quick tangent because I totally forgot about the questions. Are there times when you think, if it’s not a life or death Hobson’s choice, just the sort of you get one or you get neither, where it is okay to say I’ll take one? Like you can have pie or cake, but you can’t have both?

Jessica: Ok, so...

Kolby: I won’t take it away from the life or death scenario.

Jessica: Oh. I mean, that’s easy.

Kolby: Yes, the answer is yes?

Jessica: The answers cake.

Kolby: Okay. Alright

 (laughter)

Jessica: I mean, unless it’s a crème pie, because we can have a different discussion. But, yes.

Jeremy: That’s our next podcast.

(laughter)

Jessica: Pie or cake?

Kolby: Pie or cake! Pie or death? Cake or death?

Jessica: Cake or death.

(laughter)

Jessica: Uh... Cake?

(laughter)

Kolby: I’m going to go one other question for you then, what about if you’re the general guy or the guy making those decisions and one of them is a family member, one of the people that’s captured is a family member?

Jessica: Don’t you recues yourself?

Jeremy: You absolutely should.

Jessica: OK, well, if you’re asking me, as like....

Kolby: Do you still take the moral high ground or do you say like...

Jessica: I will give you a scenario that is similar, but maybe not exact.

Kolby: Okay.

Jessica: San Diego is where I’m from, well, not where I’m from-from, but it’s where I live, and we get riptides all the time. So my husband was with me, and his best friend was visiting from Kentucky and we were swimming and we were caught in a riptide. Yep. So, I had the choice...

Kolby: That’s something from a movie.

Jessica: Yea, riptides are actually very common and they’re super easy to get out of.

Kolby: You just sort of swim sideways, just don’t panic.

Jessica: You swim parallel to the beach until you’re out of the riptide and then you swim in. You don’t panic, Alex.

(Laughter)

Kolby: Did Alex panic and try to swim against the rip tide?

Jessica: Well, I don’t think either of them understood that they were in a riptide. I think that if you’ve never been in a riptide before you don’t necessarily. But, I hadn’t either but I am a swimmer, so I was confident in the water. And so I had this choice to stay with them and try to help them get to the beach, or get to the beach myself. And I knew, like I was close enough to it and I did tell them they were in a riptide.

Kolby: That they should swim sideways.

Jessica: I did. But I don’t think they quite understood, or maybe believed, I don’t know. And so, I had to make this choice of whether I tried to stay with them, and I 100,000% picked myself.

(laughter)

Jessica: I swim parallel to the beach and swam in. I passed a lifeguard on the way in.

Kolby: “By the way, my husband’s out there dying. I saved myself so that I could come here and tell you my husband’s out there dying”

Jeremy: “I told them but they’re toxic masculinity is keeping them out there.”

Kolby: They don’t like to listen to me because I’m a woman. I tried to get the guy next to me who was a man to tell, but he wouldn’t do it. I thought they might listen to him.

(laughter)

Jessica: But It was one of those moments I got to the beach and it was interesting because I think before that situation, I always thought that I...

Jeremy: ...I would help.

Jessica: I’m very much, I love other human beings, I’m very into other humans, I think we’re all so amazing, and I thought for sure I would try to save that person, and I was like, “Nope, me first. I will save myself” And I knew there is extenuating circumstance, I knew there was a lifeguard on duty, I knew she could come out and save them, and by the way she did not have to pull them in.

Kolby: Did you think to yourself, “90% chance they’ll figure this out, I’m going to go swim for shore”?

Jessica: I don’t know that I thought even 90%, I thought maybe...

Kolby:  70%?

Jessica: 70%.

(laughter)

Kolby: Oh my god.

Jeremy: The odds are still good.

Jessica: Odds are still good.

Kolby: The odds are still in your favor.

Jessica: Yeah, so I will say, I mean that I made that choice in real life and it was not the choice I thought I would make.

Kolby: Well, there ya go. You are listening to After Dinner Conversation with myself, with Jeremy, with Jessica. We’ve had a great time talking about our Hobson’s choice in this story, “The Truth About Thurman”. I think we’ve decided that Jessica is willing to let her family die.

Jessica: Not my family, just my husband guys.  

Kolby: Just her husband.

Jessica: I love you Alex.

(laugher)

Jessica: I swear, I would not let you die.

Kolby: And that because Jeremy has one, served in the military, we’d let him die first.

Jessica: Yeah.

Kolby: Because you signed up for life, right? You’re always, once you signed up your life, you’re the first one to go?

Jessica: I didn’t even think about that, but absolutely, but yea. Letting him die first.

Kolby: And we’re here in La Gattara with cats having a great times. We heard a couple of them having a disagreement over something. There’s probably a Hobson’s choice about the litter box. You either get one littler box or you get no litter box. And if you enjoyed this as much as we enjoy doing them, please  “like” and “subscribe”. We have a heck of a great time doing it. We’re glad that you’re watching and that allows us to continue doing it. Next week, we have another story. You have the email with the story list?

Jeremy:  The “Alpha Dye Shirt Factory”

Kolby: Oh the “Alpha Dye Shirt Factory.” This is a... I can’t tell if it’s a comedy or a tragedy, we’ll see, but the story is a fire breaks out, okay it’s a tragedy, out at a garment factory and one worker has to make a life or death choice. So, join us next week. And we’ll have that discussion and we’ll probably pick on each other a little bit more and pet some cats and have a great ‘ol time. Thank you for joining us. Bye.

E5. "Pretty Pragmatism" - Can a good idea come from a horrible source?

“Can a good idea come from a horrible source?”

Kolby, Jeremy, and Jessica discuss the ethics in the short story, “Pretty Pragmatism” by Jenean McBrearty.

Philosophy | Ethics Short Story Discussions - Podcast RSS

Transcript (By: Transcriptions Fast)

Pretty Pragmatism

Kolby: Hi and welcome back once again to After Dinner Conversation. After Dinner Conversation is a website and podcasts that promote critical thinking and socializing with your friends and talking about ethical things. We are once again today in La Gattara.

Jeremy: La Gattara.

Kolby: Finally, I’m getting it right. Where they have cats for adoption. I was going to say for purchase.

(laughter)

Kolby: Because you do have to pay for them; they don’t just give you the cats.

Jessica: It’s an adoption fee though.  

Kolby: Give me this cat. They’ve got this cute cat right here. Very cute kitty.

Jessica: It’s not cat trafficking.

Kolby: Yeah.

(laughter)

Kolby: Yes, it’s not cat trafficking. That would be terrible.

Jeremy: That might make a good story.

Kolby: That cat trafficker. So, we’ll continue to do this. If you enjoy it, please like or share as our cat goes right in our camera. Alright, you’re going to get demoted kitten. Please like or share, feel free to submit them. You can buy these e-books wherever e-books are sold, Amazon, whatever, all the places that they go, so you can read along with us. I am your co-host Kolby. I am here with Jeremy.

Jeremy: Hi, I’m Jeremy.

Kolby: I see you remembered to talk this time instead of just waving.

(laughter)

Kolby: It’s the worst podcast voice ever. And Jessica....

Jessica: Hello.

Kolby: …who is going to be joining us for the next bunch of episodes. Ashley is on, what we call sabbatical? What’s she doing? Triathlon stuff?

Jessica: She needs a break.

Kolby: She needs a break from Jeremy and I.

(laughter)

Kolby: But she’ll be back I’m sure to taunt us incessantly. Our story, it’s already that kind of day, so our story, “Pretty Pragmatism” by Jenean McBrearty.

Jessica: McBrearty.

Kolby: McBrearty.  We’re going to go with that, is our first story. And I think Jeremy you’ve got a story summary and you wrote your story summary.

Jeremy: I wrote a story summary this time. I was disappointed with our previous story summaries.

Kolby: Way to bring your A game there, man. Nice. Let’s hear it.

Jeremy: So, our story opens with Senator Sal Boundini talking to a senior staffer, Rob, about the merits of hiring a press secretary based on her looks and introducing a bill proposing compulsory national service.

Kolby: You got to talk slower dude. I’m barely following that.

Jeremy: Okay. Sal and Rob bounce between these seemingly unrelated topics as they prepare Sal for an appearance before the Senate Ethics Committee. Apparently the idea of requiring two years of public service...

Kolby: Are you going to read all that?

Jeremy: Yeah.

Kolby: Dude. Less...

Jessica: Let him read it.

Kolby: Alright, I’ll let him read it. That’s a lot dude. That’s a lot.

Jeremy: So apparently...

Jessica: Don’t be micromanager. Back off.

Kolby: Alright. Sorry.

Jeremy: Two years of public service in the National Parks isn’t sitting well with the Ethics Committee because it was founded by an Italian fascist and was the basis for Germany’s Hilter Jugend or Nazi Youth Party. Sal argues that rich people send their kids to summer camps, why can’t poor people do the same? But Rob counters that it’s not the idea that’s bad, but the source of the idea that’s bad. Rob ends a conversation with advice to not make Senator Whitcomb, presumably the committee chair, mad at Sal since she already thinks he’s a pig. The next scene opens at the end of Sal’s chewing out by the committee where they have basically accused him on proposing child servitude or prison indoctrination camps ending with Whitcomb questioning if Sal was lazy, stupid, a fascist, or all three. Nonplussed Sal spends the next two paragraphs arguing that all good policies spring from other people’s earlier good ideas, mixing examples from fascists and non-fascists alike. This is the crux of the story; can good ideas come from discredited sources? And secondarily, does this matter more in politics, where everything can be used against you in the election cycle? Scene ends with an unappeased Whitcomb recommending censure. In the final scene we see Sal pondering the potential implications of the committee decision. Next, a note from Rob that he’s fired Roxy, the aforementioned press secretary, prompting thoughts of retirement for Sal. Rob reappears then with news that due to a loss of votes, Senator Whitcomb is willing to drop the censure if he’ll vote for her budget bill. Elated, Sal and Rob celebrate his win ending with the revelation that Sal had dumped Whitcomb for Roxy tying our plot points together and adding additional motive for Sal’s proposed censure. The story ends with Sal adding to his Washington memoir equating the strength of good ideas with the strength of the writer of those ideas. 

Kolby: Wow.

Jessica: That is an excellent, excellent, excellent story.

Kolby: When you told me that it took you a half hour to write, I was like, “how could it take you a half hour to write a summary?” And now...

Jeremy: Because it’s a summary.

Jessica: Because it’s a summary.

Kolby: I totally, get, yeah. When it’s my turn to summarize, you need to have lower expectations.

(laughter)

Kolby: Much. You’re going to get, like, “it’s like Jaws in space”, that’s what you’re going to get from me.

Jeremy: Nice. That’s your summary.

Kolby: That’s “Alien” by the way.

Jeremy: Yes, it is.

Kolby: Okay. 

Jeremy: Wait, so who’s the old boat pilot?

Kolby: I don’t know. Sigourney Weaver? I’m not sure. No she can’t. I don’t know, man.

(Laughter)

Jeremy: That’s a different topic. Anyways...

Kolby: So, basically, it’s about a senator who tries to create mandatory two-year youth camps. Like, two-year service things.

Jeremy: Right. And it’s unclear whether it’s...

Kolby: And did he intentionally steal the idea from the Nazi Party or did he find out later, after he came up with the idea? Like, “Oh, yea, that’s what the Nazi party did.”

Jeremy: I think it was unclear. I think it was just an idea. It’s unclear whether he stole the idea or took the idea from earlier writings or came up on his own and just happens to match earlier good ideas.

Kolby: It’s interesting because Jessica and I were talking about this on the way in that she does a Girl Scout Troop.

Jessica: I do a Girl Scout Troop.

Kolby: And one of the things that this story reminded me of, is that people don’t really know.... see, even when I move my bag, the cat goes to my bag to vomit on it....

(laughter)

Kolby: …was that actually the Boy Scouts of America are, low and behold, formed right around World War II, because they are a response to Hilter’s youth things.

Jeremy: When I was doing research on this one, there was originally issues with the Boy Scout party at the same time because of that connection.

Jessica: Right.

Kolby: And it’s not like this is unprecedented. The Boy Scouts is a version of what they were doing in World War II. That’s interesting. At any rate, I’m curious what did you think Jessica? Welcome to the show by the way.

Jessica: Well, thank you Kolby.

Kolby: You’re a rock star.  We flew you in special.

Jessica: You did fly me in special.

Kolby: Like brie, right?

Jessica: I was going to say, “like a cleaner.”

Kolby: Oh yeah.

(laughter)

Jeremy: Like Jean Reno.

Jessica: Yeah

Jeremy: Here with your trench coat and bag of acid.

Jessica: To clean up with mess....

(laughter)

Jessica: I’m just kidding.

(laughter)

Jessica: I think it’s interesting. I have a former life in politics, so I have a lot of experience dealing with how…

Kolby: That’s right! You worked on people’s database things or whatever.

Jessica: Yea, I worked for a company that did database software for campaigns so I worked with a lot of politicians and you know, spin is a big part of that. Contributions and who’s contributing and how they’re going to spend that is a big part… do the ends justify the means kind of thing. And I think that story is a little bit at the heart of that. Especially when we have Whitcomb, the senator who is putting the censure on Senator Sal is, you know, at the end she is asking for a vote. She’s basically saying, “I will step aside and I will not censure you on something that I think is completely wrong as long as I get what I want in the end.”

Jeremy: As long as I get what II want for my constituents.

Jessica: Right.

Kolby: It’s still horse-trading.

Jessica: It’s still horse-trading and although there’s a romantic relationship that complicates the story as well, I think it’s a very interesting, like, my ethics are very strong until I need a vote to pass my bill. And then there’s always the question, is a censure worth people’s jobs? How do you value those ideas?  So, I think it’s an interesting story in that way. I struggle a lot with this subject because especially being a writer, we have lots of artists especially in the last 10 years, whose art has been brought into question because of sexual harassment, or because of pedophilia…

Kolby: Dropping like flies.

Jessica: Right. So, the question always comes us is like, “does the actions negate the art?” And I think a lot of times, when there’s a good idea, does the source of it negate the good idea-ness of it? And I think sometimes it absolutely does. I think one of the things this story reminds me of is in politics, when there is a quote-unquote good idea, but “oh, it was associated with something bad or someone bad”, a lot of times we don’t take it out of the, “oh, it was this person’s idea” and then talk about how did, for example, in the camps, Nazi youth camps aren’t a good idea. I don’t care.

(laughter)

Jeremy: Well when you put it that way.

Kolby: You can’t call it a Nazi youth camp; you have to call it a “Pre-World War II Exercise Facility.” You’ve got to rename it. It’s all branding.

Jessica: Right, but even in the re-branding, we don’t carry the four. So, mandatory youth camps are great if you’re completely able-bodied, you’re not homosexual, you’re not introverted, you’re not… right? All these things are great ideas until you carry the idea farther down and then it becomes, yes, the big reveal happens. So, yes, what a great idea. Summer camps.

Kolby: I think there are two things you’re talking about there. One is, can a good idea come from a bad source? And number two, in this story was having these camps even a good idea? And it sounds like you’re for sure on the having a mandatory camp isn’t a good idea.

Jessica: Correct.

Kolby: And I kind of agree with that. Although I do think mandatory service is not necessarily a bad thing. 

Jeremy: Not necessarily bad. And the whole idea from Sal’s point of view, it’s getting people out in the National Parks to do things. Maintenance of the parks, not necessarily a “youth camp.” But it depends on how you spin that and really what is the goal of the bill. Is it to national service where people are doing things for the common good?

Kolby: Like free labor for the government, for the common good?

Jeremy: Right.

Kolby: Maybe that’s what he should’ve called it, “Free labor for the government for the common good.”

(laughter)

Kolby: F-C-C-P whatever CA….

Jessica: I feel like no party would object at all to that.

Kolby: What about, does it it…

Jessica: Wait, wait, I want to add one thing. It’s not that I think this is a bad idea, although I do think it’s a terrible idea. What I’m saying though, is a lot of times is we don’t learn from our history so looking at the Nazi camps and Sal does in the story, he goes and he looks at those before and after pictures of those weakling kids and then at a 6 pack…

Kolby: And why are there 3 kids less? What? Weird? We started with 20 kids in the camp and we finished with 17. So odd.

Jessica: And I think that’s where we get lost.  A lot of times we’ll say, “oh, it’s a good idea no matter where it came from.” But we don’t explore the bad idea part of it in the historical context. Yeah, these were a bad idea and why and how could that play out in our version of this idea?

Jeremy: Really. And that’s the important part of, or what should be the important part of this discussion is what are the merits of the idea good and bad? As opposed to where it came from, which is a logical fallacy anyways.

Kolby: Which is what the story and all the politics is related and where the idea came from. There’s no discussion at all…

Jeremy: On if it’s a good idea.

Kolby: Right.

Jessica: Well, and I think, that’s just human nature. Every idea Kolby comes us with, I’m immediately going to say it’s a bad idea.

Kolby: It’s a terrible idea.

(laughter)

Jessica: You gotta argue with me that it’s a good idea.

Jessica: And yet, you still got on a plane.

(laughter)

Kolby: I’m going to tangent, half a tangent for a second, years ago a friend of mind was, I suppose they still are, an economist. And got PhD in economy and came here as a German guy, blah blah blah, whole thing. And I asked him, “look, I’ve never understood, in the middle of the great depression, a world-wide great depression the 1930s, the United States a wreck, Europe is a wreck, every place is a wreck, Hitler somehow creates economic policies that creates a massive, not just military, but recovered economy surrounded by shattered economies including the United States. And the only thing that gets the United Stated out of the Great Depression is the government spending on war efforts to fight Germany and fight Japan. So surely…

Jeremy: There’s a lesson in here.

Kolby: Yeah. Besides the fact of “don’t be horrible,” there must be some economic lesson on how you boot strap your own country out of a world-wide depression when there is nobody in the world to sell too because everyone’s in a bad shape. And so, I asked this German economist guy who’s staying with me at this time, I asked him, “how was this studied?”  And he said, “we don’t.” And I’m like, “what do you mean you don’t?” He’s like, “nobody studied it. It would be academic suicide to study something that the Hitler Germany did to understand why it was good.” He’s like, “so we don’t.”

Jeremy: Because there’s so much bad involved.

Kolby: Because there’s so much bad about it. So, I’m like, “You don’t even know how they did it?” He’s like, “Well, we roughly know.” I’m like, “did anyone get a PhD in figuring it out?” And he’s like, “no, probably not.”

Jessica: To be fair…

Kolby: I mean, he was German.

Jessica: To be fair, I think there’s also the human instinct to…

Kolby: The wretch instinct?

Jessica: I was going to say, to take something half-cocked and not understood and run with it as a platform, is so utterly scary, I absolutely wouldn’t study it, because some jerk is going pick that up and say, “hey, the way to economic recovery is to repress and genocide a bunch of people.” And some politicians, is going to be like, “yea, that’s not such a bad idea.”

 Jeremy: “I’d get on board with that because it keeps us in power.”

Kolby: That’s how you go from Darwin to eugenics.

Jessica: Exactly, this is exactly how you go from Darwin to eugenics.

Kolby: I think that’s fair.

Jessica: That’s fair. If I was Germany, I’d be like “guys, just shut it down.”

(Laughter)

Jessica: Whatever might have been good, I don’t even care. I don’t want anybody rehabilitating this movement. Of course, that did not work.

Kolby: Yet, you sent your kid to kindergarten. Let’s just be clear.

Jessica: Well, my kid goes to a German bi-lingual school so….

(laughter)

Kolby: Your political career is over!

Jessica: I was never going to get into politics anyways. I’m a horrible person.

Kolby: Jeremy, let me ask you a question. One of the things that comes up is the guy goes through a listing of good ideas from other sources.

Jeremy: Certainly.

Kolby: I think he talks about the autobahn and a couple other ones. There’s some he didn’t even mention, like the little BMW symbol is a helicopter, is a propeller, because they made war planes for German. I think it’s BMW, it might’ve been Mercedes.

Jeremy: Mercedes.

Kolby: Yeah. Do you think it’s okay to take ideas that are either military ideas or war ideas or all the sort of research that came out of human limitations that were done on concentration camp people, it’s still data, do you think they throw it away?

Jessica: Wait, how do you know its valid data?

Jeremy: Right, you don’t.

Jessica: We just know its data. We don’t know if its valid or not.

Kolby: That’s true. But the example they use in the story is the rocket technology. I want to be clear there was an American who did rocketry first and but Germany continued that from his work, and then we basically gave them all a free pass and was like, “look, if you’ll come to America, we’ll just say you were doing Nazi work and you didn’t have a choice.” And now we have a rocket program. Do you blank that to keep a clean moral slate, or you okay, like, “you were bad but you were bad but useful”?

Jeremy: That’s ethically questionable and the government is typically not very good at that, and they will just blanketly allow SS scientists to come to the US and work in the atomic program and the rocket programs, even though they did bad things.

Jessica: Although I think it’s defiantly more prevalent in government, I do think that’s true for a lot of sectors. Like the guy who invented cardiac catheters, the one that goes up the vein and into the heart, he did it on himself first.

Kolby: What?

Jessica: Yep, his name is Werner Forssmann.

Kolby: That’s Frankenstein stuff.

Jessica: Yeah. He got fired for it.

Kolby: And then he got a Nobel Prize for it, probably.

Jessica: He did! He did get a Nobel Prize for it! Shut the front door. Thank you “imager(?)” for reminding me of this. But he...

Kolby: I wonder how many people got a Nobel Prize for something they got fired for? He’s got to be it?

Jeremy: No. I’m sure there’s more.

Kolby: Madame Curie.

Jessica: But what I was going to say is that, he did that and then he joined the Nazi Party.

Kolby: Really?

Jessica: Right? And so, we as a medical community, of course, we’re not going to just be like, “hey, forget it, were not going to cardiac catheter, that’s probably not good because it came from a Nazi.”

Kolby: So, do you think there’s a distinction between medical and scientific sort of separation, versus political separation?  So, if you come up with the version of the something catheter…?

Jessica: Cardiac catheter.

Kolby: So, if you come up with the political theory version of the cardiac catheter, do you chuck that opinion out because it’s a different world in politics?

Jeremy: Politics and finances and economics. Which is what we’re saying…

Kolby: So, you’d say yes then?

Jeremy: Because they’re much more a public sector, there is a larger impression and it’s much more visible. In politics, because of the election cycle, everything you do it brought forth.

Kolby: Aren’t we kind of glad that scientists don’t follow that same rule otherwise you wouldn’t have a cardiac catheter?

Jeremy: We wouldn’t have a rocket program.

Kolby: Right. So, if it’s good enough for science, why isn’t that good enough for economics?

Jessica: Okay, but here’s the thing, we have to be careful even in science because they we start saying anything for science as long as it advances humanity, therefor it’s valid. And then we get Henrietta Lacks and the woman whose DNA, I’m going to mess this up, sorry internet, Henrietta Lacks, there’s a whole book on it, there’s a really great radio lab podcast on it.

Jeremy: I think I’ve heard this the same way.

Jessica: Her DNA, her cells in her body, she was dying of a disease, a uterine clot or something, and a sample was taken without consent, and it now is the basis of almost all the vaccine science in the world. Henrietta Lacks. She’s amazing. She died. Nothing was ever attributed to her, her family received no financial gain, she was a poor black woman, and she was taken advantage of.

Kolby: Of course, she was. Let me guess, in Alabama or something.

Jessica: Exactly. And so, again, it’s that anything for science. Without Henrietta Lacks, we would not be where we are today medically. However…

Jeremy: There’s still ethical issues with what they did.

Jessica: There’s still big ethical issues and we should have done it right and instead we did not. And so, that always is going to concern me. Yes, we should learn from bad people. Hello, there’s cat fighting.

Kolby: There’s cat fighting going on.

Jessica: They’re displeased with this line of inquiry.

Kolby: I feel like any cat not named Logan is a wasted opportunity. I gotta be honest.

(laughter)

Kolby: I’m just going to throw that out there right now.

Jessica: My nephew is names Logan.

Jeremy: But your nephew isn’t a cat.

Kolby: Or Krueger. Krueger would work too. Not the park, the horror guy. Sorry.

Jessica: Anyway, I think that’s a slippery-slope. I think that is to say, “oh, as long as it’s science or medicine,” because again, medicine is one of those, how much did we learn from horrible experimentation or the repression, especially black women in the United States, the whole OBGYN field is just marred with terrible atrocities that we never ever recognize. So, I think I have a problem with that.

Jeremy: Right, but the other side of the, basically critical thinking in the scientific process, is that you’re building on previous work and so people aren’t always, I would assume in science, looking at who did the work, they’re just looking at the work, reproducing the experiments, or building on that research. And so, there’s a disconnect between who did the research and the research itself.

Kolby: So, I don’t necessarily disagree, but I’m just going to throw blood in the water.

Jessica: We’ll tell you when you’re wrong.

Kolby: I feel like there’s an understanding then, that when it comes to physics, when it comes to medicine, that truth until we know better truth exists. Like, we know that Newtonian physics is correct until we get Einstein-ian physics and then we know that’s correct until we get…. And truth simply exists. So, I don’t know why that belief of like, “well truth exists but I’m going to take a pass on these other ideas because I don’t like where they came from because I question their motivation in gathering truth.”

Jessica: I think probably because the scientific method does exist.

Kolby: As opposed to politics where it’s just the sausage method.

Jeremy: Yes.

Jessica: Right, and it’s a lot of PR and a lot of spin and it’s a lot of what was society ready for at the time and what are they not? I think trying to apply that to art, why did Edgar Allen Poe die penniless and alone? Why did that happen when he was so popular later on?

Kolby: That makes sense in politics and art, truth is a much more fluid thing.

Jessica: And very nuanced and dependent on a lot of things. I still think that’s true for science. I just think we do a better of sussing it out. When you were talking about the data for the Holocaust victims and you said, “validated.” And I said, “how do we know it’s valid?”

Kolby: Sure. We try and reproduce it but we can’t.

Jessica: We can’t. So, I think it goes back to that as well.

Kolby: Jeremy, generally what did you think of the story? Like it, dislike it, did you find it interesting?

Jeremy: It’s pretty well written, the points that it brings up are good. I feel like there could have been more research done, or research presented in his argument as opposed to the pretty well-known ones that were provided.

Kolby: And nobody ever talks about the caffeine pills and all the speed that they gave all the pilots and the people in German.

Jeremy: Right, they were all on meth.

Kolby: I just read a stat a little while ago that when they figured out how many meth pills that they were giving out, that it worked out to like, 2 a week per soldier. Millions, hundreds of millions of them were produced. And we don’t really talk about any of that. What about the idea? Not necessarily the go away to camp, but the idea of some mandatory…

Jeremy: Mandatory national service.

Kolby: Mandatory national service. And that’s not necessarily saying that it has to be going to this guy’s idea, but you could go be a lifeguard or whatever the government thinks they need you for.

Jeremy: Exactly. And because the government is running it, it’s going to be fraught with problems.

(laughter)

Kolby: Yes, of course.

Jessica: I mean, way to bring some reality to it.

Kolby: And corruption and nepotism.

Jeremy: Yes. I’ve talked to people from Israel where they go through…

Kolby: Turkey also does mandatory service.

Jeremy: And there’s a lot of countries where people are involved with national service and sometimes it’s, honestly, I was in the Army and there’s a lot of…

Kolby: That could’ve been 2 years national service what you were doing, right?

Jeremy: Absolutely. It was not a glamorous job and really there’s too many people and it was fraught with issues as well, even though it wasn’t compulsory. So, because it’s run by the government.

Kolby: Sure…

(cat meow)

Jessica: Oh, did you guys hear that? There’s a cat fight.

Kolby: There’s a government fight going on over there.

Jessica: I think it’s a fight over the litter box? Which is a very bad scene.

Kolby: You don’t want to be the one waiting for the port-a-potty.

(laughter)

Kolby: You don’t want that world.

Jessica: Get into a fist fight waiting for the port-a-potty.

Kolby: I think, it’s particularly for Jessica and I, you’ll find an audience that’s like, “when government does something, it tends to be bloated and inefficient and corrupt.” But, does that mean it’s not worth doing? So even if you’ve only got 70% efficiency, you might still get the levee built.

Jeremy: Absolutely and I think you see that a lot in the depression area or the Roosevelt’s programs. There were a lot of good programs that came about from that, that were the same ideas. Some sort of national service work programs.

Kolby: I still see, every once in a while, when you walk on a sidewalk, you can see the stamp in the sidewalk, the CCC stamp or whatever, because the sidewalk was built as part of a work-labor program. But they didn’t wall it a labor-camp, they knew better.

(laughter)

Kolby: Yea, they knew better.

Jessica: What you’re talking about also was not just for young people coming out of high school.

Kolby: It was for unemployed adults, there an Unemployment Program.

Jessica: It’s a program which is very different from compulsory service.

Kolby: Yea, no, that’s right. I feel like there’s a branding issue with this for sure.

Jessica: And not even just a branding issue, but make compulsory… I don’t know if you met me, but you tell me that you want me to do something, my first instinct is to do the opposite. So, to tell me, “you have to do this thing for 2 years”… I love the national parks. If you told me I had to work in the national parks for 2 years, I’d be a jerk about it.

Kolby: Just because you told me too.

Jessica: Just because you told me too.

Kolby: Yeah. I feel that’s a very American trait.

Jessica: And whatever, it’s a very Jessica trait. But I don’t think the government shouldn’t be in a position to tell you what to do, especially for two very prime years of life.

Jeremy: Right. You could…

Kolby: Like 18-20 or something…

Jeremy: We could probably spend another half an hour arguing about ways to improve that program, but still, it’s not going to please everybody no matter what you do.

Jessica: Yeah.

Kolby: Alright, let me finish one last question. Jessica, you’re going to get it since you’re our new guest. Do you think that learning more about the person can diminish the legacy of their idea? So, Martin Luther King is famously, or maybe infamously, known as a womanizer that we found out later. That does not mean he’s not Martin Luther King. Henry Ford actually went and visited Hitler in Germany and talked about and he believe in eugenics and he believed in what he was doing, but that doesn’t mean we don’t build things on an assembly line.

Jessica: Correct.

Jeremy: And again, it’s a logical fallacy to condemn someone’s ideas because of who they are or what they’ve done outside of that idea. The idea has merit in itself.

Jessica: It does. What I will say is….

Kolby: Nobody is going to be listening to R-kelly pretty soon.

Jessica: We can only hope.

(laughter)

Kolby: Agreed. I actually didn’t even know who he was.

Jessica: I think the thing that we have to steer away from, is I feel like it’s this binary.

Kolby: Bad guys or good guys.

Jessica: Either it’s 100% their ideas and the person are amazing, or they’re all trash. And I think that…

Kolby: The Christopher Columbus sort of thing.

Jessica: We have to get away from heroes. Heroes is the biggest problem we have. Martin Luther King and his womanizing, should be part of…

Jeremy: His legacy.

Jessica: The whole story of Martin Luther King. Dr. Seuss had cheated on his first wife, she committed suicide over it.

Kolby: Really?

Jessica: Yep. Theodor Geisel. He married his second wife and lived a very long, loving life with her. And I don’t judge, I don’t know that situation, I don’t judge that, but knowing that history gives me a full complete picture, a fuller completer picture or Theodor Geisel than just Dr. Seuss who just wrote books.

Kolby: Let me ask a follow up question. That was going to be the last question, but that’s such a good answer, I want to ask one follow up question. What about the fact that learning history and learning our past is a little bit of an onion process in that when you’re in second grade you don’t say, “Columbus discovered American and  genocide and rape and disease and wiped out a 1/3 of the population, brought back people to show off as objects, and died thinking that he had found India because he literally didn’t know he’d found a new continent on his deathbed.” You don’t cram all that into a 2nd grader.

Jessica: No, but I think, and Jeremy I’ll let you answer as well, sorry, I just totally ran into…. I think….

Kolby: Can you start off with “Columbus started America” and then just by 9th and 10th grade be like “and he was a horrible human being”?

Jessica: I think you have to tease a little. Like, when Jeremy was reading the story and he talked about the research on it, that was because something peaked his interested. He was like, “I wanna learn a little bit more.” I think you can tell as a mom of a 3rd grader; you can tell the Christopher Columbus story and the terrible things that happened with Christopher Columbus and the Native Americans.

Kolby: You just start getting that in at age appropriate level.

Jessica: Absolutely. You don’t have to go and tell horrible…

Jeremy: In an age-appropriate way.

Jessica: You don’t have to go into horrible detail, but you have to give them… because here’s what happens:  they grow up and think you lied to them and that’s a much worse place to be. Whereas instead, you were like, “remember when I told you about Christopher Columbus and the horrible stuff that happened to the Native American’s because of his arrival? Great. Let’s move onto the next…” right? And that’s more intriguing to them than “Christopher Columbus was the best!”

Kolby: Jeremy, you’re nodding yes?

Jeremy: Yes. I would agree. It’s the same way. There are age-appropriate ways to introduce that information and it should all be presented in that fashion.

Kolby: From that start in an age-appropriate way.

Jeremy: Yea, I think so.

Kolby: That’s fair.

Jeremy: And I think it would be very good for, again, from a hero perspective that if we were presented all of these people we get from history, every single one of them did questionable things.

Jessica: Absolutely!

Kolby: Then doesn’t that make studying something like this and the Senator’s idea… if it wasn’t heroes and villains, then his idea is no longer lumped in the villain category, and then it can be discussed in a more rational way.

Jeremy: Exactly.

Jessica: It’s still a bad idea.

Kolby: And Jessica is working at a national park.

Jessica: No, I’m not.

Kolby: Alright. Well, we’re going to wrap it up there. You’ve been listening to After Dinner Conversation with myself Kolby and Jeremy and Jessica. After Dinner Conversation is a series of short stories for long discussions about ethics and morality and all the things we’ve been doing today. We hope that you have the same conversations that we have with your friends. All of these stories can be purchased and reviewed on e-books, at Amazon, you can get these podcasts at all sorts of place where podcasts are, I think they’re everywhere now. And if you’ve enjoyed this, please subscribe, please like this. One, it makes us feel good but also it gives us the ability to do more of these and to leverage this and to have more exciting topics that we talk about. It really does help and adopt a cat.

Jessica: Adopt a cat.

Kolby: Adopt a cat.

Jessica: And what’s the website?

Kolby: That’s a great question. Afterdinnerconversation.com and if you go on Amazon and type in “After Dinner Conversation”, a whole array, there’s dozens of these books up now. And next week, I forgot, we’re talking about “As You Wish” and Jessica you’re going to go our summary. Did you type up a 3-paragraph summary for next week?

(laughter)

Jessica: I will for next week.

Kolby: You will for next week?

Jessica: I will for next week.

Kolby: “As You Wish” is a story of an elderly woman who finds a trunk of tattered stuffed animals and makes a promise to fix them all. It’s a genuinely a children’s story, unlike the one we just did. So, join us next episode. Thank you.