October 7, 2024 • 42 mins
The exciting end you been waiting for to this riveting trilogy. No, maybe exciting and riveting is over selling it a little. It's not really the end either, and it's definitely not a trilogy. So let's try, the conclusion you could have lived with or without to this tetralogy has arrived. Thanks for listening!
Enjoying Revelizations and don't know what to do next? Let me offer a suggestion: Grab a device capable of playing a podcast along with some earbuds, turn on an episode of Revelizations, place the earbuds in the ears of your loved ones, and watch with joy as they thank you endlessly for introducing them to the Revelizations podcast. While you're at it feel free to leave a review on whatever platform you're listening to this podcast and follow/subscribe so you never miss an episode.
Not enjoying Revelizations and don't know what you do next? Let me offer a suggestion: Grab your loudest portable speaker capable of pairing with a device that can play a podcast, go to a densely populated area with great acoustics, turn on an episode of Revelizations, crank up the volume, and laugh manically as the unsuspecting population looks around in confusion and bliss to the situation they are in. While you're at it feel free to leave a review on whatever platform you're forcing everyone to listen to the Revelizations podcast and follow/subscribe so you don't miss these types of opportunities in the future.
Thanks to today's sponsor: Privacy Shrubs
Be sure to use code Revelizations at any and all checkouts. Probably nothing will happen, but it is worth a shot.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
This episode is brought to you by Privacy Shrub.
(00:15):
Tired of having rituals in your backyard to only have your nosy, voyeur neighbor watch
but not pay the entrance fee?
Or worse, show up with the cops?
With privacy shrubs, those days will be as common as a rich old dude dating someone his
age.
It isn't going to happen.
Unlike those other knockoff privacy plant businesses, with our patent and plant growing
(00:36):
technology, our shrubs don't just grow horizontally, but vertically too.
Privacy shrubs have been certified for use for birthday parties, Sunday grill outs, bar
mitzvahs, bat mitzvahs, illuminati functions, swinger parties, ayahuasca ceremonies, gender
reveal parties, and much, much more.
So go ahead and be as freaky as you want, we won't judge you, and neither will your
(00:58):
neighbors because we won't see a thing.
With privacy shrubs, our business is keeping your business private.
Not intended for outdoor use.
(01:28):
Hi, I'm Brian James.
Welcome to Revelizations.
Here we are at the end of the road.
I guess not really the end of the road, but a fork in the road.
(01:51):
There are a few different ways that I can go.
First, the most well-worn path.
I can come up with a creative reason why I need to postpone working on my podcast.
Actually, it doesn't even have to be creative.
It can just be that it's too windy outside, or that I feel off my game since I sneezed
that really big sneeze earlier last week.
The second path is a familiar one too, like a hit song that you used to love but over-listened
(02:16):
to it and now you don't really like it anymore.
The option being stopping entirely, which would tie quite nicely with my opening comment
about the end of the road since that would take me to the end of my podcasting road.
Or third, a brand new path full of new obstacles, unknown dangers, and maybe even some treasure.
If I go down this road, I can follow through on something that I've wanted to do for a
(02:39):
long time.
You may be thinking, Mr. James, we know what you choose.
We are listening to the podcast right now.
First, thank you for listening, but that level of formality is unwarranted.
It's too familiar.
It's Mr. Brian James, host of the generational defining podcast, Revelizations.
(02:59):
It's a mouthful but in the same way that people put their Instagram names on the back of their
personal vehicles in hopes that people will be curious enough to look them up, even though
we know no one will, I'm hoping people will overhear my legally changed name, look me
up in whatever app they listen to podcast, and give me a listen.
Here I stand, at the fork, not sure if I'm going to follow through with posting these
(03:21):
episodes online.
The same fear, the same voices telling me that, who are you for people to care about
what you think?
This is a waste of time.
You will give up again, are always hanging around.
Still, I'm going to continue with what may amount to be nothing more than a creative
writing exercise, if for no other reason, it's fun to speak in the third person.
(03:42):
Now where did we leave Brian on the last episode of Revelizations?
I believe that if I follow these huge puddles of anxiety death sweats, he will be close.
Ah, yes, and there he is.
On the last episode of Revelizations, Brian was left dealing with the consequences of
living an unfulfilled life while ignoring what could bring his life more balance before
(04:03):
it reached a fever pitch no longer ignorable.
Learning that he isn't dying in the near future, let's see what he does to fill in the time
between now and the big sunset.
I began to notice something.
I noticed my lack of noticing that once ever present mental burden that at any moment I
may have an anxiety attack.
(04:23):
I was free to focus on other things in my life.
What was going to draw my attention now that I wasn't focused on my heart trying to escape
from my chest cavity.
I could be more present without the present from my brain of an explosive hormone cocktail
mimicking a heart attack.
This led to my creativity beginning to express itself in different ways.
Instead of it putting a spotlight on the many different scenarios of how my dead body would
(04:46):
be discovered and by whom, I could brood on fun stuff like a different future.
I realize I'm being heavy handed.
Maybe four is enough references to feel like I'm going to die from a panic attack.
I'm with you.
That was the last one.
As happy as you are that I won't make another panic attack reference, I'm even happier knowing
that part of my life is behind me.
(05:07):
For the…
I don't even know.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to keep track, but for the many-ienth time, I began
dreaming of a different future.
One where I wasn't just scraping by delivering packages.
In that dreaming, wouldn't you know it, there was podcasting.
Again, waiting for me patiently, a little condescending, but patient all the same.
(05:29):
My mental health was continuing on an upward trajectory, which gave me the mental capacity
to go back to the drawing board and consider what kind of podcast did I want to create.
At least I would have if the noise of politics and the many spins a current event could
take wasn't drawing my attention.
The circumstances in time when I was trying to figure out a podcast direction were probably
(05:50):
similar to the time you find yourself in now, whenever it is you may be listening to this.
A politically charged, hyper-partisan time in the country where the other side of the
aisle is the flesh incarnate of evil itself.
Everything in the news had a political bend, if not covertly, then overtly beating you
in the face with how the media wanted you to perceive the particular current event that
(06:11):
they were covering.
This was exhausting and even led to a personal temporary moratorium on the news.
I felt, and truthfully still feel, that the news has gone from objective to now everything
is editorialized.
This is true on both sides of the political spectrum.
No one is trying to inform you.
They are trying to persuade you to see everything the way that they want you to while simultaneously
(06:32):
masquerading as impartial dispensers of absolute truth.
No major news outlet is completely honest.
How can they be when they are beholden to investors, advertisers, and donors?
This exhaustion coupled with a podcast episode by one of my favorite podcast hosts, Stuff
You Should Know, The Fairness Doctrine, got the wheels turning on what could be next for
me.
(06:53):
Briefly, The Fairness Doctrine was a time in U.S. media history, 1949-1987, where the
government mandated that if you were a licensed broadcaster, that should you decide to cover
a topic with multiple sides, then you had to cover all the sides.
What does that look like practically?
Let's take, for example, gun rights.
If the broadcaster was explaining why gun rights should be restricted, then there would
(07:16):
have to be another segment why gun regulations should be maintained.
If the network only covered one side of the argument, conceivably, the government regulatory
body in charge of broadcasters, the FCC, could intervene with a fine or even strip the licensure
from the broadcaster.
The Stuff You Should Know host did a great job covering this topic.
If you're interested in learning more about The Fairness Doctrine, go check out their
(07:37):
episode titled, How The Fairness Doctrine Worked.
The episode was released July 2019.
That podcast put to words the fatigue that I was having with how the news was being presented.
The issue is that only one side of the argument is being given while ignoring or even vilifying
the other.
Typically, news outlets are so good at covering one side that you would think the whole story
(07:58):
was being provided to you when counterpoints or more context is missing, resulting in what
could amount to be a completely false narrative disguised as stone cold vetted facts.
Pretty sneaky sis.
This ubiquitous style of editorialized news put the burden of due diligence on the consumer
in order to get the whole story.
The onus is completely flipped.
(08:19):
To be fully informed, the individual has to look into multiple sources from different
political leanings to see if the story they were originally given is consistent with the
same story given by other news outlets.
You would need to rummage through the presented narratives to then separate fact from colorful
storytelling.
Confused?
Yeah.
Me too.
I think.
(08:40):
Maybe you don't care about how the news disseminates information.
That's over there and you're over here.
That doesn't impact you.
Let's look at this deeper and why it does matter.
Imagine, as perfect of a human being that you are, someone comes out and makes an inflammatory
claim against you.
From here, the responsibility is then on the accuser to provide evidence of the prior claim
(09:01):
against you.
This is called the burden of proof.
They have a responsibility to provide evidence to the assertion against you.
They made a claim.
Now it's their duty to provide evidence to the legitimacy of the claim.
They say, hey, I have receipts that proves Travis was at the grocery store two years
ago.
You say, yeah, I've been known on occasion to go to the store from time to time.
(09:23):
They continue, uh, hey, shut up.
I wasn't done talking yet.
While he was there, he stole some fruit.
Not cool, Travis.
With the burden of proof flipped, it is now up to you, Travis, to provide evidence to
vindicate yourself from this claim.
After all, they do have the receipt that places you at the store.
This would be analogous to what I was saying earlier, how the news outlet provides some
(09:46):
facts to support their narrative.
The story that, while at the store, you bought some items and stole others.
You now have to prove what you were doing on that alleged, fateful, fruitful day.
You set out to prove your innocence.
A trip to the grocery store is a good starting point.
You arrive at the store to see if they have security footage from that day.
(10:06):
From two years ago?
That's long been deleted.
Well, I guess you're guilty.
Someone pointed a finger and it landed on you.
This is why the burden of proof is not on the accused, rather the accuser, and on a
related note, why innocent until proven guilty is such an important foundation for our judicial
system.
When this burden gets flipped around, it can be a very effective and dishonest tactic to
(10:29):
overwhelm the person you're bringing the grievance against.
The reason why is because the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of
magnitude bigger than to produce it.
This is a famous quote from Alberto Brandolini.
It is commonly referred to as Brandolini's Law.
Practically in debates and broadcasts, this looks like a presenter or participant in a
debate giving an abundance of half-truths and misinformation that the receiver of the
(10:54):
berating can't possibly hope to defend against or even grasp all of the falsities being hurled
at them.
Then you, the viewer, not knowing how disingenuous this is, think that the person making all
these false claims won the debate.
In reality, no topic of substance was ever addressed.
When in a debate, this tactic is known as the Gish Gallop.
It is an effective and intellectually dishonest means of confusing, overwhelming, and ultimately
(11:18):
shutting down conversation.
This is a tried and true strategy in political debates.
Tying this back to the news outlets.
In my opinion, this is what the majority, if not all major media news outlets do to
their audience, giving out information in a way that presents the story with a narrative
rather than objectively delivering facts of an event, conflating how they perceive the
(11:39):
incident and how it factually happened.
How is something contemporaneous happening, but there are so many different takes of the
event depending on what channel of TV you watch.
This is the difference between a non-fiction biography or a movie based on the biography.
There may be some elements of truth in the movie, but ultimately, the movie is there
to deliver entertainment.
(11:59):
Modern day news isn't the non-fiction biography, it's the movie loosely based off of real
life events.
They are there to tell you a story with an angle that makes you feel something, whether
it be happiness, outrage, or anything in between, because that is what is going to keep you
coming back day after day.
You can't blame them too much.
The news is a for-profit industry and keeping your eyes gobbling up those advertisements
(12:22):
is what keeps the lights on.
They tell you a story and you decide what to do with it next.
The viewer has a few options:
The unrealistic weight of going to multiple sources to see if the same story lines up throughout
when they inevitably don't, then you need secondary trusted sources to help put together
the complete story and so on.
Another option, a personal favorite, is closing your eyes, plugging your ears while you hum
(12:45):
your favorite song.
If you can't hear it or see it, then it isn't happening.
The last choice is outsourcing that critical thinking part of your brain to the news outlets
you politically align with and assume everything they are telling you is the truth, which is
what a lot of people do and why they only have one news channel that they trust.
Of course they do.
People have so much going on in their lives and they don't want to add fact-checking
(13:08):
the news on their to-do list.
Who would?
Ta-da!
Just like that, I fell into my next podcast idea.
I could be the intermediary for people.
I could be the one to refute the bullshit.
No, even better.
I could have a podcast where I have two well-informed individuals of opposing viewpoints discuss
their opinions with one another.
(13:29):
I would have them sit down to have an intellectually honest and most importantly good-faith conversation
where they talk with one another, listen, and respond while not speaking over the other.
Give the guests a large block of time to have the thoughtful exchange where ideas can really
be teased out in their entirety.
Contrast to the common format that you see on news networks, a panel of five guests who
(13:50):
are given three minutes to get their point across lists why their respective opinion
is better than the other four while the host of the show pours gasoline on the topic, lights
the match, and goes out for a cigarette break.
I don't want to be too bold and project my shortcomings on you.
I will keep this next part a little bit more me-focused.
Personally, I am suggestible.
Very suggestible.
(14:11):
If a person purports that they are an authority on something, I will typically default to
giving more weight to their opinion, especially if they are talking about a subject that they
claim to have accumulated more knowledge than the average person.
I don't even need to see credentials.
This could be as innocuous as a person in a commercial wearing a lab coat.
Oh, wow.
They must be a researcher or maybe even a doctor.
(14:33):
Hey, you!
The commercial starts.
You're not as happy as you could be.
Who?
Me?
I bashfully respond.
Yes, you.
The one with the stupid face.
If you would only supplement your life with turn-that-frown-upside-down-trademark-pending-pills,
then your life, too, could be full of laughter and slow motion spinning while at a beach.
(14:55):
Sign me up Doc! For better or worse, I am suggestible.
This isn't necessarily always a bad thing.
It is good to not be rigid in your thinking and allow outside voices to help inform your
view of the world, but we need to not be complacent when selecting those voices.
For example, you're outside of a grocery store.
You see a table with snacks and people by the entrance.
(15:16):
You think to yourself, jackpot, Girl Scout cookie season.
Except, you don't see cookies in the person's hand.
Instead, it's a clipboard and what you can only assume is a petition fastened to it.
Whoopsies.
While practicing basic human courtesy, you created an opening for them to talk to you
when you made the briefest moment of eye contact acknowledging their existence.
(15:38):
You're trapped.
You now have strange empathy for your dog.
You've been on the other side of this scenario countless times.
You take the treat, toss it into the kennel, your dog, full of unconditional love and trust,
goes into the kennel to eat the treat thinking, this time will be different, surely the door
will not be locked with me still in it, only to have the kennel latched behind them like
(15:59):
every other time.
Promise of cookies is what led you both to your uncomfortable situations.
Hi, he says as he steps in between you and the entrance of the store.
No foreplay, he gets right into the pitch.
Crime is going through the roof.
In 2018, there were over 39,000 people in the United States that were victims of gun
(16:20):
violence.
Sensing the weakness in you that you're not assertive enough to tell them, no thanks and
keep walking, the person continues while making note of your brightly colored, slightly bedazzled
Adele shirt you're wearing.
Did you know that Adele is vehemently against guns?
So much so that she has said she flicks gun enthusiasts in the forehead and tells them
to bugger off.
(16:42):
Oi!
Bugga’ off!
Just like that.
You hold your forehead as he proceeds.
He now appeals to your patriotism, because not only are you proudly wearing your favorite
shirt with Adele's face shining from shoulder to shoulder, it's Adele's brilliant face
glowing like a lighthouse to the backdrop of the American flag.
Which is a little confusing because isn't the angelic voice Adele British?
(17:04):
Not skipping a beat.
Look, I love America and the Constitution almost as much as I love Adele, but our founding
had muskets as weapons when they were drafting the Constitution.
A weapon where once loaded, you could place your hand firmly on the gun's muzzle, pull
the trigger, and the bullet would miss your hand by at least five feet.
A weapon at its most deadly when you would physically throw it at someone rather than
(17:27):
using it to shoot bullets, unlike the weapons we have today that can shoot through three
feet of concrete and still have the accuracy to take off the wings of a fly hundreds of
yards away.
Confident that you've been persuaded, he holds out a pen and the petition to you.
He's right.
Frankly, everything after he said Adele doesn't like guns was unnecessary.
(17:48):
You sign it.
You're now free to go about your day, walking a little lighter knowing you've done something
to curb gun violence.
Let's break down this completely fabricated encounter and couldn't have possibly come
from a real-life interaction I had with an activist outside of a Trader Joe's on the
way to buying my favorite gummy snack so I could properly enjoy watching Jurassic Park
for the third time that day when I got home.
(18:09):
Point one.
In 2018, 39,000 people were victims of gun violence.
This is a real statistic that I got off of gunviolencearchive.com.
When I hear gun violence, and maybe you'll agree with me, especially when it's framed
with crime is going through the roof like our activist friend said, I think of gang
violence, domestic abuse situations, and other criminal activity like robberies and muggings.
(18:32):
These are definitely factored into that 39,000 statistic, but what if I told you that an
overwhelming majority of that gun violence number is self-inflicted?
That over 21,000 victims of gun violence in 2018 were cases of people dying by suicide.
That is tragic and can't be overstated.
It also changes the nature of the conversation.
(18:54):
It frames the statistic in a way that makes it more nuanced.
Something that people tend to shy away from when they're trying to convince you to change
your stance on the subject.
Point two.
Adele is against guns.
I truly don't know if Adele has a public stance on guns.
I wouldn't want to hazard a guess either.
The tactic the activist was employing in this example is called appealing to authority.
(19:16):
It's a dishonest strategy where someone is trying to convince you that you should change
your mind because a person of authority or influence has a certain opinion, and that
should be enough reason.
If Adele thinks this way, then who are you to disagree with all of your zero-hit songs?
I believe it's important to point out this is different from referencing someone and
they have expertise in the field of the topic at hand.
(19:37):
An example is you're painting with a friend.
You mess up while painting a tree.
Oh no!
You lament.
I messed up while trying to paint this tree.
Your friend looks over reassuring you.
There are no mistakes, just happy accidents.
That's what Bob Ross says.
Well then, that's not the logical fallacy known as appealing to authority.
That's just good advice from a good dude.
(20:00):
Sidebar, if you don't know who Bob Ross is, he's an accomplished American artist who hosted a
show on TV that guided his viewers on a journey from blank canvas to a finished beautiful
landscape masterpiece.
A relentless source of wholesomeness, and the world is dimmer without him here.
Third point.
Referencing the fathers of the Constitution, I object.
This is absolute conjecture, your honor.
(20:23):
There is no way of knowing how the founding fathers would feel about modern-day guns and
private ownership.
Perhaps they would agree.
Maybe not.
It is possible that they would stand by the idea that a private citizen should be able
to defend themselves from an overreaching authoritarian government.
Maybe it's better to have a handgun against a tank than a hand towel coupled with bad
(20:44):
intentions.
Again, maybe not.
That's the thing about conjecture.
No one really knows.
You'd have to go to the founding fathers directly to find out.
In a world where everyone is trying to convince you that their personal viewpoints are correct
while using whatever nefarious tactics they have at their disposal to accomplish that,
you're lucky to have me.
Which is why I need you to swear you'll blindly believe whatever I tell you no matter how
(21:07):
outlandish.
What do you mean unreasonable?
Okay, then how about I create a space where two well-informed individuals with differing
opinions have a conversation, and you can make up your own mind.
In my podcast, I wanted to provide a place where those good-faith conversations could
take place between people of adversarial viewpoints, where they would sit down and
(21:28):
talk in long-form conversations while debating the merits of the other's viewpoints.
I'd create the opportunity for the listeners to hear people who are well-educated on a
particular subject yet landed on different conclusions, where the people debating would
confront the Tin Man arguments, not create a straw man misrepresentation of the argument
making it look like you'd have to be foolish to think any other way than them.
(21:51):
Because if they were to try and implement a misleading tactic, then the other guests
would be quick to push back.
That was the mission, and I accepted.
I got to work, but not before giving myself another obstacle to overcome.
I needed a new microphone for this kind of podcast.
The microphone needed to hook up to my laptop so I could record my audio while also recording
the audio of the guest.
(22:12):
Oh no, is this going to be another distraction?
Yes!
But painfully short if you have grown to love my exhausting tangents where I overthink everything.
From previously agonizing over what mic to buy, this turned what would normally be a
half a year side quest into a very minor speed bump.
This time it only took a week or two to research, finalize my decision, and have the product
(22:34):
in hand.
In case you've been wondering what mic I am using to deliver these velvety smooth words
to your ears, it's a Blue Yeti.
Moving forward with the idea, I began making a list of divisive subjects that I thought
would be entertaining and informative to listen to people with expertise hash out.
After looking for topics online, I settled on two classically contentious ones.
(22:55):
Abortion and gun rights.
Abortion because I don't know any other subject where both sides ravenously hate each other,
doing everything they can to misframe the other side's viewpoints.
Then gun rights, as it was not too long after the terror attacks in Las Vegas.
Having my own opinion, I was really interested in listening to a gun rights activist express
In light of a national tragedy, how gun ownership should remain as it is in the United States.
(23:20):
I began reaching out to pro and anti-gun organizations along with pro-life and pro-choice advocacy
groups.
I was really swinging for the fences, NRA and Planned Parenthood to name a couple.
To my absolute surprise, a lot of people were receptive and willing to talk to me.
You may be thinking, surely the way I approached them was too good to refuse.
(23:42):
Au contraire, mon frère.
I think it was borderline pathetic, like a passer-by witnessing a wounded, helpless puppy
on the side of the road.
They couldn't be helped but to be stirred to action.
Hi, my name is Brian.
I was wondering if you'd be willing to sit down and have a conversation with me about
a topic you're passionate about.
That part is acceptable.
(24:03):
Then, I went on making it clear how I wasn't super informed on the subject matter or even
that I was a successful podcast host.
Something they probably figured out immediately after I told them I don't even have a name
for my podcast yet.
I was brand spanking new to the podcasting game, sort of.
I was new to following through on a podcast idea.
(24:23):
With all the information I was giving, it was almost like I was listing all the reasons
why they should be compelled to say no to me.
Still, despite my best efforts, I got two yeses for an episode on abortion.
One yes I got was from the founder of a non-profit.
She was my pro-life guest.
I even told her that I was surprised she would talk to me.
She had a reply that sticks with me years later.
(24:44):
She said,
You can't change people's hearts and minds if you're not willing to sit down and have
a conversation.
The other guest was the founder of a non-profit, Pro-Choice Foundation.
I called her my unicorn.
Not to her face, but when I would tell people about her.
She was part of an organization that had religious roots but was pro-choice.
Typically, religion and pro-choice are water and oil.
(25:07):
They don't mix, except with this person they did.
I was very excited to talk to her further and learn about her opinions.
The story of the unicorn is fun how it all worked out.
The way I would find guests to ask if they wanted to be on my podcast was through Google.
I'd put in keywords, see what organizations got populated, click on links, find available
bios, read them, and then reach out if I thought they sounded interesting.
(25:30):
That's exactly what I did with the pro-choice organization.
I was reading about them and really wanted to talk to them, specifically one person.
I was reading her bio and everything that was written about her I found rather fascinating.
I dreamed a dream where I could interview her for my podcast.
Shortly after reaching out to the organization, someone responded to me.
The email began with an, I'm sorry, a notice of rejection.
(25:54):
Bummer.
That's alright.
Thanks for getting back to me.
But wait!
When I continued reading, it said she regretfully is informing me that she isn't the media
relations person and couldn't be interviewed for my podcast.
However, she was happy to forward my information to the individual that would be able to talk
to me and wouldn't you know it.
It was the exact person that I wanted to talk to.
(26:16):
My unicorn.
After a few email exchanges and a brief introductory video meeting, she agreed to be on my podcast.
Completely reasonable.
After all, I had no internet presence and the only evidence that I existed as far as
she was concerned was the email exchanges that we originally shared.
She was accommodating and affable throughout the whole process.
(26:37):
Even more so after she verified that I wasn't a zealot of one persuasion or another and whatever
else she may have been screening me for.
I had all the ingredients for my first conversation.
Two people with differing views on a shared subject.
All I needed to do now was mix them.
This is where I realized I had a huge blind spot with this podcast idea.
Time scarcity and busy schedules don't play well together.
(27:00):
This podcast is a side hobby for me.
I had a full-time job and only two days a week where I had almost full autonomy of my
schedule.
Combine that with two activists who run organizations with jam-packed schedules who would see my
two days off as a long-forgotten luxury.
How was I going to find three openings in three different people's lives where I didn't
have to schedule it out a decade in advance?
(27:22):
The answer was that I couldn't.
So I called them separately to let them know that, due to scheduling conflicts, I was canceling
the interviews.
No!
Of course not.
I was absolutely jazzer-sized to get this podcast going and get these interviews in
the books.
I had two busy people willing to accommodate me as much as they already had, so I decided
(27:44):
to make a snap decision in the format of my podcast.
I got rid of the debate approach.
Now it was going to be more of an interview conversation style where I would take the
counterpoint view of my guests.
This would be more work for me.
Instead of keeping the conversation honest and civil between the two guests, now I needed
to study a little, become more informed to provide a structure of opposition so that
(28:05):
when my guests present their stances, it has something to crash into.
I would be the bulwark.
If I can't easily dismantle their points, then they at least have some merit.
I scheduled the interviews, studied studiously, sat down to two separate conversations, and
They were rough.
In no part because of the guests.
They were both kind, informative, patient, and intelligent.
(28:29):
The interviews were rough because of me.
I was nervous and it showed.
I stumbled over my words, put my foot in my mouth, and had moments of deafening silence
as I would move on from one question to the next.
I remember one instance in a conversation where my brain stalled.
It was in the very beginning when the pro-life activist identified herself and the organization
(28:50):
she created as secular.
The only time I have ever heard secular used was in the sphere of Christianity.
I told her that and she said, it's quite a common word not exclusive to religious parameters.
I, wanting to make it abundantly clear that I wasn't being rude or antagonistic, then
belabored the point on how I just didn't know.
(29:10):
This is so interesting.
All the while stammering through my words with a lot of silence in between as I would
circle back to reiterate again how I've only come into contact with the word secular
in Christian circles.
I just didn't know.
This is so interesting.
All I had to do was say something like, well how about that, then continue the conversation.
If only.
(29:31):
Like I said, my guests were patient and kind.
Both times after saying thank you and goodbye to my guests, I would then re-listen to the
interviews because surely they couldn't have been as bad as I thought they were.
I'm being too critical.
Nope.
Upon another listen, they were that bad.
Perhaps even worse than I originally thought.
(29:51):
It's possible, in the heat of the interviews, my mind turned off the recording feature of
my brain in hopes to mitigate traumatizing myself.
Regardless, I had my first podcast episode recorded.
Next, I needed to polish everything in post-production.
Editing the conversations down, adding theme music, add introductions of my guests, and
wrapping up the podcast with final thoughts.
(30:12):
It's about that time, folks.
If you've been keeping notes, you know what is about to happen next.
I stopped.
I was too embarrassed with myself.
I didn't have the grace for myself that I should have had.
I didn't let myself be a beginner.
This is where I was starting, not where I would stay.
Instead, I chose to be too unforgiving and cast the podcast out into purgatory with the
(30:35):
other incarnations.
I waded in place, allowing my podcast to again be carried away without me.
I still feel that this most recent podcast idea that I abandoned is a good concept.
Luckily, so do other people who have actually followed through with it.
That idea exists out there, and you can find several great examples in the form of podcast
and YouTube videos.
(30:56):
Honestly, that was part of the reason why I didn't pursue the idea further.
I saw how well other people were doing it and convinced myself I couldn't compare.
What I should have done is not compare in the first place.
Don't compare your day one to someone else's day 1000, or even their day one to your day one.
We all have our own journeys and starting points.
(31:16):
Allow yourself to be a beginner and be graceful when you inevitably make mistakes.
Months went by uneventfully.
Occasionally, wind would blow from here to there to briefly lift my sails.
I'd get a moment of inspiration and consider finishing the first episode of my podcast.
The inspiration would always leave as quickly as it arrived, until one particularly strong
(31:37):
gust came from an unexpected source.
I was at the dinner table and put on a movie as I ate.
It was a Quentin Tarantino film called Kill Bill Volume 1.
This wasn't the first time that I watched the movie.
I saw it originally when it first came out.
For those unfamiliar with Quentin Tarantino, he writes and directs his own movies and they
are usually pretty unique and quirky in their own ways.
(31:59):
As I was sitting at the dinner table watching the movie, I was hit unexpectedly with a massive
appreciation for the film.
Not because it's the best movie ever made, but the revelization that it was the exact
film that he wanted to make.
It was his own movie, but you could see which films influenced him in the making of Kill Bill.
I believe that was his goal.
(32:20):
He was paying homage to the films that inspired him.
The yellow jumpsuit Uma Thurman was wearing and the big fight scene referencing Bruce
Lee sticks out.
Or the subtle nod to the old black and white samurai films and the moments when a limb
would get cut off and buckets of blood would fly out from where the limb once was like
a burst fire hydrant.
This film he made was a love letter to those older films that inspired him.
(32:43):
There I was at the table watching this movie, thinking how over the top it is and appreciating
this is exactly what he wanted his movie to be.
He wasn't creating anything new per se, but he was putting his own thumbprint on a genre
he had always admired.
Not wanting to waste this moment of inspiration, I followed it.
It led me to create a new podcast introduction.
(33:04):
That introduction cascaded into me changing what kind of podcast I wanted to create all
together, which then snowballed into me confronting my motivations and expectations for podcasting.
I may have been setting myself up for failure without realizing it.
Why did I want to make a podcast?
I was desperate to get out of the work situation I was in.
Truthfully, I was hopeful that podcasting would be the vehicle to get me out.
(33:27):
This is something you the listener may be painfully aware of, but this is the first
time I acknowledged what a heavy burden I was placing on my podcast ambitions.
My expectation was that I was going to put out a podcast and be able to leave my job
because now podcasting was going to pay the bills.
I think this is why I aborted my abortion episode and every other attempt in starting
(33:47):
my podcast.
It was too amateur.
It wasn't at the level that I thought that it needed to be in order for me to be a podcast
that could somehow attract a lot of people to listen to it, which may or may not, but
definitely was true.
What an unreasonable expectation I made for myself.
That’s like someone who is new to an instrument writing their first song, it being a travesty,
(34:09):
and just giving up.
Not celebrating the victory of creating something, but because the song isn't a number one smash
hit on the charts, they scrap it, pile up their instrument and accessories, light them
on fire, and tell their parents if they smell smoke, that's just their imagination.
I needed to change both my expectation and motivation when it came to podcasting, otherwise
(34:30):
every podcast venture would end exactly the same.
It would never start.
I wanted to create a podcast even if it had no other value than it is something that I
wanted to create.
Now, what kind of podcast did I want to create?
Is it possible to answer a question with another question?
Let's give it a shot.
I asked myself, what kind of podcast would I want to listen to?
(34:54):
What kind of podcast was I already listening to?
Despite what I thought about myself throughout all of my academic career, I like to learn.
Learning was at the foundation of all my podcast ideas, whether that was learning about an
individual or about a topic.
I have a general curiosity with the world around me.
I wanted to have a podcast where I could pursue knowledge all while sitting behind a microphone
(35:17):
talking with people who hold it.
I didn't want it to be a contentious conversation like it would have been in my previous iteration.
I wanted it to be a conversation among two people who share a common interest of wanting
to learn and inform.
This would be my next podcast.
Having conversations with people who hold knowledge I want to learn more about and sharing
those insights with whoever wants to listen.
(35:39):
For so long, a stumbling block for me has been that I'm creating nothing new.
The podcast that I can produce has been made countless times by other people.
And arguably, they've made something better than what I could ever make.
I can stay paralyzed in that or I can accept it.
Use what once anchored me in place to help propel me forward.
I can proudly wear all the podcasts that have inspired me to make my own while leaving
(36:03):
my thumbprint on an entertainment medium that I've admired for some time now.
In the same way Quentin Tarantino made Kill Bill his own original movie while paying tribute
to the movies that inspired him along the way, I too would use that philosophy to make
my own podcast that would pay tribute to the podcast that inspired me.
Here we go again.
(36:24):
I started making a list of topics that I found interesting.
I would also write down my own musings, thoughts that I would have that felt profound.
I wanted to build a backlog to cushion the start of my podcast.
Another fear that kept me frozen is the thought that when I do start releasing episodes, I'll
run out of topics.
This is a possibility, but it's a big world we live in, sitting in an even bigger galaxy
(36:48):
surrounded by a whole universe.
People make careers specializing in one specific subject, maybe even a subject within a subject
to add one drop of knowledge to an ocean of already existing information.
This fear is another obstacle that I put in my way to try and protect myself from failing.
I am grateful for my self-preservation instinct.
(37:10):
It has kept me safe, but it has also kept me in place.
I'm ready.
If failure is waiting for me, then that must mean I never started because that's my only
definition of failure at this point.
I guess all that's left is to officially welcome you to the…
COVID-19 Podcast?
Wait, that's not the name of my podcast.
(37:32):
What's COVID-19?
We've arrived at March of 2020.
A worldwide pandemic had been unleashed.
There went a year of my life.
Two years of my life.
The delivery job that I had and still had when I originally wrote this became the busiest
it has ever been.
For the upteenth time, my podcasts had been shelved.
(37:53):
I'm grateful that a chunk of time is all that I lost.
So many lost so much more.
As greedy and as much as COVID took, it was a teacher, too.
It showed us that normal life is a balancing act of everything going the way it is expected
to go, except life never goes the way you think it's going to go.
Normal is an illusion that never has its moment.
(38:14):
Even with COVID-19, what would you expect normal to look like during a pandemic?
A public supply decrease of protective personal equipment like latex gloves, surgical masks,
disinfectant products, right?
How about toilet paper?
Is that normal?
Of all the things for people to hoard, who would have expected toilet paper to be at
the tippity top of the need pyramid?
(38:35):
Each time it happened, it caught me off guard.
For multiple outbreaks, toilet paper was one of the first resources to get depleted.
It was so bad that people were observing their pets' technique when they would scoot their
butts on the carpet.
Incase times got really desperate.
Not all lessons were novel like the novel COVID-19 virus.
Some lessons were reintroduced to us after having been forgotten.
(38:58):
Like how fragile life is.
There is always an invisible force out there in the ether trying to kill us.
Okay, maybe not actively seeking you out.
Yet the lesson is sound.
We never know when our time is up for this adventure and we'll be moving on to our next.
It's through that realization, a revelation that I've had so many times, spurs me on
(39:18):
to dust off my ambitions to become a podcast host once again.
I want to live a life where I'm not merely navigating through the gray days.
I'm going to choose the paths I walk, injecting color as I go.
I don't have any champagne to break over this podcast to properly christen it, except
I think that's the point I'm trying to make.
There is never a perfect scenario or perfect time.
(39:40):
Like the Chinese proverb asks, when is the best time to plant a tree?
Twenty years ago.
When is the second best time?
Now.
So start now.
I may not have champagne, but I have water.
So I lift my glass and toast to realizations and revelations.
Or as I like to say, revelizations.
Join me and go live the life you want to live.
(40:02):
Take advantage of today since today will never have another chance at being today.
While you do, I hope you let me tag along in the form of a podcast where I talk to
interesting people about fascinating subjects while sharing some insights along the way.
I'm beyond excited to finally, finally take this dream from thought to reality.
(40:22):
I'm humbled you're here to experience it with me.
Thanks for listening and making a dreamer's dreams come true.
Uh, I can't imagine my life going back to how it was before I found privacy shrubs.
(41:03):
I would have these parties and, uh, clothes were optional.
It was never really an issue because we live a good distance from any neighbors, except
I began noticing a glare from one of my neighbor's houses.
He was leering at us using something he called binoculars.
As if that wasn't bad enough, he began inviting himself over and there was nothing we could
(41:27):
do about it.
That was what we thought before we found privacy shrubs.
After installing privacy shrubs, our home was once again shrouded in mystery.
Now we can have all the parties we want without him stopping by uninvited.
Plus, with all the shade that the shrubs make, we can be as shady as we want.
(41:48):
Thanks privacy shrub.
Privacy shrubs, our business is keeping your business private, not intended for outdoor
use.
This episode is brought to you by Privacy Shrub.
(00:15):
Tired of having rituals in your backyard to only have your nosy, voyeur neighbor watch
but not pay the entrance fee?
Or worse, show up with the cops?
With privacy shrubs, those days will be as common as a rich old dude dating someone his
age.
It isn't going to happen.
Unlike those other knockoff privacy plant businesses, with our patent and plant growing
(00:36):
technology, our shrubs don't just grow horizontally, but vertically too.
Privacy shrubs have been certified for use for birthday parties, Sunday grill outs, bar
mitzvahs, bat mitzvahs, illuminati functions, swinger parties, ayahuasca ceremonies, gender
reveal parties, and much, much more.
So go ahead and be as freaky as you want, we won't judge you, and neither will your
(00:58):
neighbors because we won't see a thing.
With privacy shrubs, our business is keeping your business private.
Not intended for outdoor use.
(01:28):
Hi, I'm Brian James.
Welcome to Revelizations.
Here we are at the end of the road.
I guess not really the end of the road, but a fork in the road.
(01:51):
There are a few different ways that I can go.
First, the most well-worn path.
I can come up with a creative reason why I need to postpone working on my podcast.
Actually, it doesn't even have to be creative.
It can just be that it's too windy outside, or that I feel off my game since I sneezed
that really big sneeze earlier last week.
The second path is a familiar one too, like a hit song that you used to love but over-listened
(02:16):
to it and now you don't really like it anymore.
The option being stopping entirely, which would tie quite nicely with my opening comment
about the end of the road since that would take me to the end of my podcasting road.
Or third, a brand new path full of new obstacles, unknown dangers, and maybe even some treasure.
If I go down this road, I can follow through on something that I've wanted to do for a
(02:39):
long time.
You may be thinking, Mr. James, we know what you choose.
We are listening to the podcast right now.
First, thank you for listening, but that level of formality is unwarranted.
It's too familiar.
It's Mr. Brian James, host of the generational defining podcast, Revelizations.
(02:59):
It's a mouthful but in the same way that people put their Instagram names on the back of their
personal vehicles in hopes that people will be curious enough to look them up, even though
we know no one will, I'm hoping people will overhear my legally changed name, look me
up in whatever app they listen to podcast, and give me a listen.
Here I stand, at the fork, not sure if I'm going to follow through with posting these
(03:21):
episodes online.
The same fear, the same voices telling me that, who are you for people to care about
what you think?
This is a waste of time.
You will give up again, are always hanging around.
Still, I'm going to continue with what may amount to be nothing more than a creative
writing exercise, if for no other reason, it's fun to speak in the third person.
(03:42):
Now where did we leave Brian on the last episode of Revelizations?
I believe that if I follow these huge puddles of anxiety death sweats, he will be close.
Ah, yes, and there he is.
On the last episode of Revelizations, Brian was left dealing with the consequences of
living an unfulfilled life while ignoring what could bring his life more balance before
(04:03):
it reached a fever pitch no longer ignorable.
Learning that he isn't dying in the near future, let's see what he does to fill in the time
between now and the big sunset.
I began to notice something.
I noticed my lack of noticing that once ever present mental burden that at any moment I
may have an anxiety attack.
(04:23):
I was free to focus on other things in my life.
What was going to draw my attention now that I wasn't focused on my heart trying to escape
from my chest cavity.
I could be more present without the present from my brain of an explosive hormone cocktail
mimicking a heart attack.
This led to my creativity beginning to express itself in different ways.
Instead of it putting a spotlight on the many different scenarios of how my dead body would
(04:46):
be discovered and by whom, I could brood on fun stuff like a different future.
I realize I'm being heavy handed.
Maybe four is enough references to feel like I'm going to die from a panic attack.
I'm with you.
That was the last one.
As happy as you are that I won't make another panic attack reference, I'm even happier knowing
that part of my life is behind me.
(05:07):
For the…
I don't even know.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to keep track, but for the many-ienth time, I began
dreaming of a different future.
One where I wasn't just scraping by delivering packages.
In that dreaming, wouldn't you know it, there was podcasting.
Again, waiting for me patiently, a little condescending, but patient all the same.
(05:29):
My mental health was continuing on an upward trajectory, which gave me the mental capacity
to go back to the drawing board and consider what kind of podcast did I want to create.
At least I would have if the noise of politics and the many spins a current event could
take wasn't drawing my attention.
The circumstances in time when I was trying to figure out a podcast direction were probably
(05:50):
similar to the time you find yourself in now, whenever it is you may be listening to this.
A politically charged, hyper-partisan time in the country where the other side of the
aisle is the flesh incarnate of evil itself.
Everything in the news had a political bend, if not covertly, then overtly beating you
in the face with how the media wanted you to perceive the particular current event that
(06:11):
they were covering.
This was exhausting and even led to a personal temporary moratorium on the news.
I felt, and truthfully still feel, that the news has gone from objective to now everything
is editorialized.
This is true on both sides of the political spectrum.
No one is trying to inform you.
They are trying to persuade you to see everything the way that they want you to while simultaneously
(06:32):
masquerading as impartial dispensers of absolute truth.
No major news outlet is completely honest.
How can they be when they are beholden to investors, advertisers, and donors?
This exhaustion coupled with a podcast episode by one of my favorite podcast hosts, Stuff
You Should Know, The Fairness Doctrine, got the wheels turning on what could be next for
me.
(06:53):
Briefly, The Fairness Doctrine was a time in U.S. media history, 1949-1987, where the
government mandated that if you were a licensed broadcaster, that should you decide to cover
a topic with multiple sides, then you had to cover all the sides.
What does that look like practically?
Let's take, for example, gun rights.
If the broadcaster was explaining why gun rights should be restricted, then there would
(07:16):
have to be another segment why gun regulations should be maintained.
If the network only covered one side of the argument, conceivably, the government regulatory
body in charge of broadcasters, the FCC, could intervene with a fine or even strip the licensure
from the broadcaster.
The Stuff You Should Know host did a great job covering this topic.
If you're interested in learning more about The Fairness Doctrine, go check out their
(07:37):
episode titled, How The Fairness Doctrine Worked.
The episode was released July 2019.
That podcast put to words the fatigue that I was having with how the news was being presented.
The issue is that only one side of the argument is being given while ignoring or even vilifying
the other.
Typically, news outlets are so good at covering one side that you would think the whole story
(07:58):
was being provided to you when counterpoints or more context is missing, resulting in what
could amount to be a completely false narrative disguised as stone cold vetted facts.
Pretty sneaky sis.
This ubiquitous style of editorialized news put the burden of due diligence on the consumer
in order to get the whole story.
The onus is completely flipped.
(08:19):
To be fully informed, the individual has to look into multiple sources from different
political leanings to see if the story they were originally given is consistent with the
same story given by other news outlets.
You would need to rummage through the presented narratives to then separate fact from colorful
storytelling.
Confused?
Yeah.
Me too.
I think.
(08:40):
Maybe you don't care about how the news disseminates information.
That's over there and you're over here.
That doesn't impact you.
Let's look at this deeper and why it does matter.
Imagine, as perfect of a human being that you are, someone comes out and makes an inflammatory
claim against you.
From here, the responsibility is then on the accuser to provide evidence of the prior claim
(09:01):
against you.
This is called the burden of proof.
They have a responsibility to provide evidence to the assertion against you.
They made a claim.
Now it's their duty to provide evidence to the legitimacy of the claim.
They say, hey, I have receipts that proves Travis was at the grocery store two years
ago.
You say, yeah, I've been known on occasion to go to the store from time to time.
(09:23):
They continue, uh, hey, shut up.
I wasn't done talking yet.
While he was there, he stole some fruit.
Not cool, Travis.
With the burden of proof flipped, it is now up to you, Travis, to provide evidence to
vindicate yourself from this claim.
After all, they do have the receipt that places you at the store.
This would be analogous to what I was saying earlier, how the news outlet provides some
(09:46):
facts to support their narrative.
The story that, while at the store, you bought some items and stole others.
You now have to prove what you were doing on that alleged, fateful, fruitful day.
You set out to prove your innocence.
A trip to the grocery store is a good starting point.
You arrive at the store to see if they have security footage from that day.
(10:06):
From two years ago?
That's long been deleted.
Well, I guess you're guilty.
Someone pointed a finger and it landed on you.
This is why the burden of proof is not on the accused, rather the accuser, and on a
related note, why innocent until proven guilty is such an important foundation for our judicial
system.
When this burden gets flipped around, it can be a very effective and dishonest tactic to
(10:29):
overwhelm the person you're bringing the grievance against.
The reason why is because the amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of
magnitude bigger than to produce it.
This is a famous quote from Alberto Brandolini.
It is commonly referred to as Brandolini's Law.
Practically in debates and broadcasts, this looks like a presenter or participant in a
debate giving an abundance of half-truths and misinformation that the receiver of the
(10:54):
berating can't possibly hope to defend against or even grasp all of the falsities being hurled
at them.
Then you, the viewer, not knowing how disingenuous this is, think that the person making all
these false claims won the debate.
In reality, no topic of substance was ever addressed.
When in a debate, this tactic is known as the Gish Gallop.
It is an effective and intellectually dishonest means of confusing, overwhelming, and ultimately
(11:18):
shutting down conversation.
This is a tried and true strategy in political debates.
Tying this back to the news outlets.
In my opinion, this is what the majority, if not all major media news outlets do to
their audience, giving out information in a way that presents the story with a narrative
rather than objectively delivering facts of an event, conflating how they perceive the
(11:39):
incident and how it factually happened.
How is something contemporaneous happening, but there are so many different takes of the
event depending on what channel of TV you watch.
This is the difference between a non-fiction biography or a movie based on the biography.
There may be some elements of truth in the movie, but ultimately, the movie is there
to deliver entertainment.
(11:59):
Modern day news isn't the non-fiction biography, it's the movie loosely based off of real
life events.
They are there to tell you a story with an angle that makes you feel something, whether
it be happiness, outrage, or anything in between, because that is what is going to keep you
coming back day after day.
You can't blame them too much.
The news is a for-profit industry and keeping your eyes gobbling up those advertisements
(12:22):
is what keeps the lights on.
They tell you a story and you decide what to do with it next.
The viewer has a few options:
The unrealistic weight of going to multiple sources to see if the same story lines up throughout
when they inevitably don't, then you need secondary trusted sources to help put together
the complete story and so on.
Another option, a personal favorite, is closing your eyes, plugging your ears while you hum
(12:45):
your favorite song.
If you can't hear it or see it, then it isn't happening.
The last choice is outsourcing that critical thinking part of your brain to the news outlets
you politically align with and assume everything they are telling you is the truth, which is
what a lot of people do and why they only have one news channel that they trust.
Of course they do.
People have so much going on in their lives and they don't want to add fact-checking
(13:08):
the news on their to-do list.
Who would?
Ta-da!
Just like that, I fell into my next podcast idea.
I could be the intermediary for people.
I could be the one to refute the bullshit.
No, even better.
I could have a podcast where I have two well-informed individuals of opposing viewpoints discuss
their opinions with one another.
(13:29):
I would have them sit down to have an intellectually honest and most importantly good-faith conversation
where they talk with one another, listen, and respond while not speaking over the other.
Give the guests a large block of time to have the thoughtful exchange where ideas can really
be teased out in their entirety.
Contrast to the common format that you see on news networks, a panel of five guests who
(13:50):
are given three minutes to get their point across lists why their respective opinion
is better than the other four while the host of the show pours gasoline on the topic, lights
the match, and goes out for a cigarette break.
I don't want to be too bold and project my shortcomings on you.
I will keep this next part a little bit more me-focused.
Personally, I am suggestible.
Very suggestible.
(14:11):
If a person purports that they are an authority on something, I will typically default to
giving more weight to their opinion, especially if they are talking about a subject that they
claim to have accumulated more knowledge than the average person.
I don't even need to see credentials.
This could be as innocuous as a person in a commercial wearing a lab coat.
Oh, wow.
They must be a researcher or maybe even a doctor.
(14:33):
Hey, you!
The commercial starts.
You're not as happy as you could be.
Who?
Me?
I bashfully respond.
Yes, you.
The one with the stupid face.
If you would only supplement your life with turn-that-frown-upside-down-trademark-pending-pills,
then your life, too, could be full of laughter and slow motion spinning while at a beach.
(14:55):
Sign me up Doc! For better or worse, I am suggestible.
This isn't necessarily always a bad thing.
It is good to not be rigid in your thinking and allow outside voices to help inform your
view of the world, but we need to not be complacent when selecting those voices.
For example, you're outside of a grocery store.
You see a table with snacks and people by the entrance.
(15:16):
You think to yourself, jackpot, Girl Scout cookie season.
Except, you don't see cookies in the person's hand.
Instead, it's a clipboard and what you can only assume is a petition fastened to it.
Whoopsies.
While practicing basic human courtesy, you created an opening for them to talk to you
when you made the briefest moment of eye contact acknowledging their existence.
(15:38):
You're trapped.
You now have strange empathy for your dog.
You've been on the other side of this scenario countless times.
You take the treat, toss it into the kennel, your dog, full of unconditional love and trust,
goes into the kennel to eat the treat thinking, this time will be different, surely the door
will not be locked with me still in it, only to have the kennel latched behind them like
(15:59):
every other time.
Promise of cookies is what led you both to your uncomfortable situations.
Hi, he says as he steps in between you and the entrance of the store.
No foreplay, he gets right into the pitch.
Crime is going through the roof.
In 2018, there were over 39,000 people in the United States that were victims of gun
(16:20):
violence.
Sensing the weakness in you that you're not assertive enough to tell them, no thanks and
keep walking, the person continues while making note of your brightly colored, slightly bedazzled
Adele shirt you're wearing.
Did you know that Adele is vehemently against guns?
So much so that she has said she flicks gun enthusiasts in the forehead and tells them
to bugger off.
(16:42):
Oi!
Bugga’ off!
Just like that.
You hold your forehead as he proceeds.
He now appeals to your patriotism, because not only are you proudly wearing your favorite
shirt with Adele's face shining from shoulder to shoulder, it's Adele's brilliant face
glowing like a lighthouse to the backdrop of the American flag.
Which is a little confusing because isn't the angelic voice Adele British?
(17:04):
Not skipping a beat.
Look, I love America and the Constitution almost as much as I love Adele, but our founding
had muskets as weapons when they were drafting the Constitution.
A weapon where once loaded, you could place your hand firmly on the gun's muzzle, pull
the trigger, and the bullet would miss your hand by at least five feet.
A weapon at its most deadly when you would physically throw it at someone rather than
(17:27):
using it to shoot bullets, unlike the weapons we have today that can shoot through three
feet of concrete and still have the accuracy to take off the wings of a fly hundreds of
yards away.
Confident that you've been persuaded, he holds out a pen and the petition to you.
He's right.
Frankly, everything after he said Adele doesn't like guns was unnecessary.
(17:48):
You sign it.
You're now free to go about your day, walking a little lighter knowing you've done something
to curb gun violence.
Let's break down this completely fabricated encounter and couldn't have possibly come
from a real-life interaction I had with an activist outside of a Trader Joe's on the
way to buying my favorite gummy snack so I could properly enjoy watching Jurassic Park
for the third time that day when I got home.
(18:09):
Point one.
In 2018, 39,000 people were victims of gun violence.
This is a real statistic that I got off of gunviolencearchive.com.
When I hear gun violence, and maybe you'll agree with me, especially when it's framed
with crime is going through the roof like our activist friend said, I think of gang
violence, domestic abuse situations, and other criminal activity like robberies and muggings.
(18:32):
These are definitely factored into that 39,000 statistic, but what if I told you that an
overwhelming majority of that gun violence number is self-inflicted?
That over 21,000 victims of gun violence in 2018 were cases of people dying by suicide.
That is tragic and can't be overstated.
It also changes the nature of the conversation.
(18:54):
It frames the statistic in a way that makes it more nuanced.
Something that people tend to shy away from when they're trying to convince you to change
your stance on the subject.
Point two.
Adele is against guns.
I truly don't know if Adele has a public stance on guns.
I wouldn't want to hazard a guess either.
The tactic the activist was employing in this example is called appealing to authority.
(19:16):
It's a dishonest strategy where someone is trying to convince you that you should change
your mind because a person of authority or influence has a certain opinion, and that
should be enough reason.
If Adele thinks this way, then who are you to disagree with all of your zero-hit songs?
I believe it's important to point out this is different from referencing someone and
they have expertise in the field of the topic at hand.
(19:37):
An example is you're painting with a friend.
You mess up while painting a tree.
Oh no!
You lament.
I messed up while trying to paint this tree.
Your friend looks over reassuring you.
There are no mistakes, just happy accidents.
That's what Bob Ross says.
Well then, that's not the logical fallacy known as appealing to authority.
That's just good advice from a good dude.
(20:00):
Sidebar, if you don't know who Bob Ross is, he's an accomplished American artist who hosted a
show on TV that guided his viewers on a journey from blank canvas to a finished beautiful
landscape masterpiece.
A relentless source of wholesomeness, and the world is dimmer without him here.
Third point.
Referencing the fathers of the Constitution, I object.
This is absolute conjecture, your honor.
(20:23):
There is no way of knowing how the founding fathers would feel about modern-day guns and
private ownership.
Perhaps they would agree.
Maybe not.
It is possible that they would stand by the idea that a private citizen should be able
to defend themselves from an overreaching authoritarian government.
Maybe it's better to have a handgun against a tank than a hand towel coupled with bad
(20:44):
intentions.
Again, maybe not.
That's the thing about conjecture.
No one really knows.
You'd have to go to the founding fathers directly to find out.
In a world where everyone is trying to convince you that their personal viewpoints are correct
while using whatever nefarious tactics they have at their disposal to accomplish that,
you're lucky to have me.
Which is why I need you to swear you'll blindly believe whatever I tell you no matter how
(21:07):
outlandish.
What do you mean unreasonable?
Okay, then how about I create a space where two well-informed individuals with differing
opinions have a conversation, and you can make up your own mind.
In my podcast, I wanted to provide a place where those good-faith conversations could
take place between people of adversarial viewpoints, where they would sit down and
(21:28):
talk in long-form conversations while debating the merits of the other's viewpoints.
I'd create the opportunity for the listeners to hear people who are well-educated on a
particular subject yet landed on different conclusions, where the people debating would
confront the Tin Man arguments, not create a straw man misrepresentation of the argument
making it look like you'd have to be foolish to think any other way than them.
(21:51):
Because if they were to try and implement a misleading tactic, then the other guests
would be quick to push back.
That was the mission, and I accepted.
I got to work, but not before giving myself another obstacle to overcome.
I needed a new microphone for this kind of podcast.
The microphone needed to hook up to my laptop so I could record my audio while also recording
the audio of the guest.
(22:12):
Oh no, is this going to be another distraction?
Yes!
But painfully short if you have grown to love my exhausting tangents where I overthink everything.
From previously agonizing over what mic to buy, this turned what would normally be a
half a year side quest into a very minor speed bump.
This time it only took a week or two to research, finalize my decision, and have the product
(22:34):
in hand.
In case you've been wondering what mic I am using to deliver these velvety smooth words
to your ears, it's a Blue Yeti.
Moving forward with the idea, I began making a list of divisive subjects that I thought
would be entertaining and informative to listen to people with expertise hash out.
After looking for topics online, I settled on two classically contentious ones.
(22:55):
Abortion and gun rights.
Abortion because I don't know any other subject where both sides ravenously hate each other,
doing everything they can to misframe the other side's viewpoints.
Then gun rights, as it was not too long after the terror attacks in Las Vegas.
Having my own opinion, I was really interested in listening to a gun rights activist express
In light of a national tragedy, how gun ownership should remain as it is in the United States.
(23:20):
I began reaching out to pro and anti-gun organizations along with pro-life and pro-choice advocacy
groups.
I was really swinging for the fences, NRA and Planned Parenthood to name a couple.
To my absolute surprise, a lot of people were receptive and willing to talk to me.
You may be thinking, surely the way I approached them was too good to refuse.
(23:42):
Au contraire, mon frère.
I think it was borderline pathetic, like a passer-by witnessing a wounded, helpless puppy
on the side of the road.
They couldn't be helped but to be stirred to action.
Hi, my name is Brian.
I was wondering if you'd be willing to sit down and have a conversation with me about
a topic you're passionate about.
That part is acceptable.
(24:03):
Then, I went on making it clear how I wasn't super informed on the subject matter or even
that I was a successful podcast host.
Something they probably figured out immediately after I told them I don't even have a name
for my podcast yet.
I was brand spanking new to the podcasting game, sort of.
I was new to following through on a podcast idea.
(24:23):
With all the information I was giving, it was almost like I was listing all the reasons
why they should be compelled to say no to me.
Still, despite my best efforts, I got two yeses for an episode on abortion.
One yes I got was from the founder of a non-profit.
She was my pro-life guest.
I even told her that I was surprised she would talk to me.
She had a reply that sticks with me years later.
(24:44):
She said,
You can't change people's hearts and minds if you're not willing to sit down and have
a conversation.
The other guest was the founder of a non-profit, Pro-Choice Foundation.
I called her my unicorn.
Not to her face, but when I would tell people about her.
She was part of an organization that had religious roots but was pro-choice.
Typically, religion and pro-choice are water and oil.
(25:07):
They don't mix, except with this person they did.
I was very excited to talk to her further and learn about her opinions.
The story of the unicorn is fun how it all worked out.
The way I would find guests to ask if they wanted to be on my podcast was through Google.
I'd put in keywords, see what organizations got populated, click on links, find available
bios, read them, and then reach out if I thought they sounded interesting.
(25:30):
That's exactly what I did with the pro-choice organization.
I was reading about them and really wanted to talk to them, specifically one person.
I was reading her bio and everything that was written about her I found rather fascinating.
I dreamed a dream where I could interview her for my podcast.
Shortly after reaching out to the organization, someone responded to me.
The email began with an, I'm sorry, a notice of rejection.
(25:54):
Bummer.
That's alright.
Thanks for getting back to me.
But wait!
When I continued reading, it said she regretfully is informing me that she isn't the media
relations person and couldn't be interviewed for my podcast.
However, she was happy to forward my information to the individual that would be able to talk
to me and wouldn't you know it.
It was the exact person that I wanted to talk to.
(26:16):
My unicorn.
After a few email exchanges and a brief introductory video meeting, she agreed to be on my podcast.
Completely reasonable.
After all, I had no internet presence and the only evidence that I existed as far as
she was concerned was the email exchanges that we originally shared.
She was accommodating and affable throughout the whole process.
(26:37):
Even more so after she verified that I wasn't a zealot of one persuasion or another and whatever
else she may have been screening me for.
I had all the ingredients for my first conversation.
Two people with differing views on a shared subject.
All I needed to do now was mix them.
This is where I realized I had a huge blind spot with this podcast idea.
Time scarcity and busy schedules don't play well together.
(27:00):
This podcast is a side hobby for me.
I had a full-time job and only two days a week where I had almost full autonomy of my
schedule.
Combine that with two activists who run organizations with jam-packed schedules who would see my
two days off as a long-forgotten luxury.
How was I going to find three openings in three different people's lives where I didn't
have to schedule it out a decade in advance?
(27:22):
The answer was that I couldn't.
So I called them separately to let them know that, due to scheduling conflicts, I was canceling
the interviews.
No!
Of course not.
I was absolutely jazzer-sized to get this podcast going and get these interviews in
the books.
I had two busy people willing to accommodate me as much as they already had, so I decided
(27:44):
to make a snap decision in the format of my podcast.
I got rid of the debate approach.
Now it was going to be more of an interview conversation style where I would take the
counterpoint view of my guests.
This would be more work for me.
Instead of keeping the conversation honest and civil between the two guests, now I needed
to study a little, become more informed to provide a structure of opposition so that
(28:05):
when my guests present their stances, it has something to crash into.
I would be the bulwark.
If I can't easily dismantle their points, then they at least have some merit.
I scheduled the interviews, studied studiously, sat down to two separate conversations, and
They were rough.
In no part because of the guests.
They were both kind, informative, patient, and intelligent.
(28:29):
The interviews were rough because of me.
I was nervous and it showed.
I stumbled over my words, put my foot in my mouth, and had moments of deafening silence
as I would move on from one question to the next.
I remember one instance in a conversation where my brain stalled.
It was in the very beginning when the pro-life activist identified herself and the organization
(28:50):
she created as secular.
The only time I have ever heard secular used was in the sphere of Christianity.
I told her that and she said, it's quite a common word not exclusive to religious parameters.
I, wanting to make it abundantly clear that I wasn't being rude or antagonistic, then
belabored the point on how I just didn't know.
(29:10):
This is so interesting.
All the while stammering through my words with a lot of silence in between as I would
circle back to reiterate again how I've only come into contact with the word secular
in Christian circles.
I just didn't know.
This is so interesting.
All I had to do was say something like, well how about that, then continue the conversation.
If only.
(29:31):
Like I said, my guests were patient and kind.
Both times after saying thank you and goodbye to my guests, I would then re-listen to the
interviews because surely they couldn't have been as bad as I thought they were.
I'm being too critical.
Nope.
Upon another listen, they were that bad.
Perhaps even worse than I originally thought.
(29:51):
It's possible, in the heat of the interviews, my mind turned off the recording feature of
my brain in hopes to mitigate traumatizing myself.
Regardless, I had my first podcast episode recorded.
Next, I needed to polish everything in post-production.
Editing the conversations down, adding theme music, add introductions of my guests, and
wrapping up the podcast with final thoughts.
(30:12):
It's about that time, folks.
If you've been keeping notes, you know what is about to happen next.
I stopped.
I was too embarrassed with myself.
I didn't have the grace for myself that I should have had.
I didn't let myself be a beginner.
This is where I was starting, not where I would stay.
Instead, I chose to be too unforgiving and cast the podcast out into purgatory with the
(30:35):
other incarnations.
I waded in place, allowing my podcast to again be carried away without me.
I still feel that this most recent podcast idea that I abandoned is a good concept.
Luckily, so do other people who have actually followed through with it.
That idea exists out there, and you can find several great examples in the form of podcast
and YouTube videos.
(30:56):
Honestly, that was part of the reason why I didn't pursue the idea further.
I saw how well other people were doing it and convinced myself I couldn't compare.
What I should have done is not compare in the first place.
Don't compare your day one to someone else's day 1000, or even their day one to your day one.
We all have our own journeys and starting points.
(31:16):
Allow yourself to be a beginner and be graceful when you inevitably make mistakes.
Months went by uneventfully.
Occasionally, wind would blow from here to there to briefly lift my sails.
I'd get a moment of inspiration and consider finishing the first episode of my podcast.
The inspiration would always leave as quickly as it arrived, until one particularly strong
(31:37):
gust came from an unexpected source.
I was at the dinner table and put on a movie as I ate.
It was a Quentin Tarantino film called Kill Bill Volume 1.
This wasn't the first time that I watched the movie.
I saw it originally when it first came out.
For those unfamiliar with Quentin Tarantino, he writes and directs his own movies and they
are usually pretty unique and quirky in their own ways.
(31:59):
As I was sitting at the dinner table watching the movie, I was hit unexpectedly with a massive
appreciation for the film.
Not because it's the best movie ever made, but the revelization that it was the exact
film that he wanted to make.
It was his own movie, but you could see which films influenced him in the making of Kill Bill.
I believe that was his goal.
(32:20):
He was paying homage to the films that inspired him.
The yellow jumpsuit Uma Thurman was wearing and the big fight scene referencing Bruce
Lee sticks out.
Or the subtle nod to the old black and white samurai films and the moments when a limb
would get cut off and buckets of blood would fly out from where the limb once was like
a burst fire hydrant.
This film he made was a love letter to those older films that inspired him.
(32:43):
There I was at the table watching this movie, thinking how over the top it is and appreciating
this is exactly what he wanted his movie to be.
He wasn't creating anything new per se, but he was putting his own thumbprint on a genre
he had always admired.
Not wanting to waste this moment of inspiration, I followed it.
It led me to create a new podcast introduction.
(33:04):
That introduction cascaded into me changing what kind of podcast I wanted to create all
together, which then snowballed into me confronting my motivations and expectations for podcasting.
I may have been setting myself up for failure without realizing it.
Why did I want to make a podcast?
I was desperate to get out of the work situation I was in.
Truthfully, I was hopeful that podcasting would be the vehicle to get me out.
(33:27):
This is something you the listener may be painfully aware of, but this is the first
time I acknowledged what a heavy burden I was placing on my podcast ambitions.
My expectation was that I was going to put out a podcast and be able to leave my job
because now podcasting was going to pay the bills.
I think this is why I aborted my abortion episode and every other attempt in starting
(33:47):
my podcast.
It was too amateur.
It wasn't at the level that I thought that it needed to be in order for me to be a podcast
that could somehow attract a lot of people to listen to it, which may or may not, but
definitely was true.
What an unreasonable expectation I made for myself.
That’s like someone who is new to an instrument writing their first song, it being a travesty,
(34:09):
and just giving up.
Not celebrating the victory of creating something, but because the song isn't a number one smash
hit on the charts, they scrap it, pile up their instrument and accessories, light them
on fire, and tell their parents if they smell smoke, that's just their imagination.
I needed to change both my expectation and motivation when it came to podcasting, otherwise
(34:30):
every podcast venture would end exactly the same.
It would never start.
I wanted to create a podcast even if it had no other value than it is something that I
wanted to create.
Now, what kind of podcast did I want to create?
Is it possible to answer a question with another question?
Let's give it a shot.
I asked myself, what kind of podcast would I want to listen to?
(34:54):
What kind of podcast was I already listening to?
Despite what I thought about myself throughout all of my academic career, I like to learn.
Learning was at the foundation of all my podcast ideas, whether that was learning about an
individual or about a topic.
I have a general curiosity with the world around me.
I wanted to have a podcast where I could pursue knowledge all while sitting behind a microphone
(35:17):
talking with people who hold it.
I didn't want it to be a contentious conversation like it would have been in my previous iteration.
I wanted it to be a conversation among two people who share a common interest of wanting
to learn and inform.
This would be my next podcast.
Having conversations with people who hold knowledge I want to learn more about and sharing
those insights with whoever wants to listen.
(35:39):
For so long, a stumbling block for me has been that I'm creating nothing new.
The podcast that I can produce has been made countless times by other people.
And arguably, they've made something better than what I could ever make.
I can stay paralyzed in that or I can accept it.
Use what once anchored me in place to help propel me forward.
I can proudly wear all the podcasts that have inspired me to make my own while leaving
(36:03):
my thumbprint on an entertainment medium that I've admired for some time now.
In the same way Quentin Tarantino made Kill Bill his own original movie while paying tribute
to the movies that inspired him along the way, I too would use that philosophy to make
my own podcast that would pay tribute to the podcast that inspired me.
Here we go again.
(36:24):
I started making a list of topics that I found interesting.
I would also write down my own musings, thoughts that I would have that felt profound.
I wanted to build a backlog to cushion the start of my podcast.
Another fear that kept me frozen is the thought that when I do start releasing episodes, I'll
run out of topics.
This is a possibility, but it's a big world we live in, sitting in an even bigger galaxy
(36:48):
surrounded by a whole universe.
People make careers specializing in one specific subject, maybe even a subject within a subject
to add one drop of knowledge to an ocean of already existing information.
This fear is another obstacle that I put in my way to try and protect myself from failing.
I am grateful for my self-preservation instinct.
(37:10):
It has kept me safe, but it has also kept me in place.
I'm ready.
If failure is waiting for me, then that must mean I never started because that's my only
definition of failure at this point.
I guess all that's left is to officially welcome you to the…
COVID-19 Podcast?
Wait, that's not the name of my podcast.
(37:32):
What's COVID-19?
We've arrived at March of 2020.
A worldwide pandemic had been unleashed.
There went a year of my life.
Two years of my life.
The delivery job that I had and still had when I originally wrote this became the busiest
it has ever been.
For the upteenth time, my podcasts had been shelved.
(37:53):
I'm grateful that a chunk of time is all that I lost.
So many lost so much more.
As greedy and as much as COVID took, it was a teacher, too.
It showed us that normal life is a balancing act of everything going the way it is expected
to go, except life never goes the way you think it's going to go.
Normal is an illusion that never has its moment.
(38:14):
Even with COVID-19, what would you expect normal to look like during a pandemic?
A public supply decrease of protective personal equipment like latex gloves, surgical masks,
disinfectant products, right?
How about toilet paper?
Is that normal?
Of all the things for people to hoard, who would have expected toilet paper to be at
the tippity top of the need pyramid?
(38:35):
Each time it happened, it caught me off guard.
For multiple outbreaks, toilet paper was one of the first resources to get depleted.
It was so bad that people were observing their pets' technique when they would scoot their
butts on the carpet.
Incase times got really desperate.
Not all lessons were novel like the novel COVID-19 virus.
Some lessons were reintroduced to us after having been forgotten.
(38:58):
Like how fragile life is.
There is always an invisible force out there in the ether trying to kill us.
Okay, maybe not actively seeking you out.
Yet the lesson is sound.
We never know when our time is up for this adventure and we'll be moving on to our next.
It's through that realization, a revelation that I've had so many times, spurs me on
(39:18):
to dust off my ambitions to become a podcast host once again.
I want to live a life where I'm not merely navigating through the gray days.
I'm going to choose the paths I walk, injecting color as I go.
I don't have any champagne to break over this podcast to properly christen it, except
I think that's the point I'm trying to make.
There is never a perfect scenario or perfect time.
(39:40):
Like the Chinese proverb asks, when is the best time to plant a tree?
Twenty years ago.
When is the second best time?
Now.
So start now.
I may not have champagne, but I have water.
So I lift my glass and toast to realizations and revelations.
Or as I like to say, revelizations.
Join me and go live the life you want to live.
(40:02):
Take advantage of today since today will never have another chance at being today.
While you do, I hope you let me tag along in the form of a podcast where I talk to
interesting people about fascinating subjects while sharing some insights along the way.
I'm beyond excited to finally, finally take this dream from thought to reality.
(40:22):
I'm humbled you're here to experience it with me.
Thanks for listening and making a dreamer's dreams come true.
Uh, I can't imagine my life going back to how it was before I found privacy shrubs.
(41:03):
I would have these parties and, uh, clothes were optional.
It was never really an issue because we live a good distance from any neighbors, except
I began noticing a glare from one of my neighbor's houses.
He was leering at us using something he called binoculars.
As if that wasn't bad enough, he began inviting himself over and there was nothing we could
(41:27):
do about it.
That was what we thought before we found privacy shrubs.
After installing privacy shrubs, our home was once again shrouded in mystery.
Now we can have all the parties we want without him stopping by uninvited.
Plus, with all the shade that the shrubs make, we can be as shady as we want.
(41:48):
Thanks privacy shrub.
Privacy shrubs, our business is keeping your business private, not intended for outdoor
use.
Popular Podcasts
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.