October 21, 2024 • 32 mins
Former political strategist Michael Fedor joins us for a captivating discussion on the crossroads of politics and storytelling. Having transitioned from teaching to a multifaceted political career, Michael shares his disillusionment with the political landscape and how it fueled his return to writing. His "Bull Moose" series offers readers an authentic glimpse into the machinations of political life, inspired by his own experiences navigating roles from elected official to campaign worker. Together, we examine the current political scene, touching on the dynamics involving figures like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, and exploring how these dynamics influence national discourse.
Fast forward to 2044, where Michael's narrative envisions a fractured two-party system plagued by collusion, giving rise to the reform-focused Bull Moose Party. With protagonist Jackson Piper at the helm, we explore ambitious proposals such as a new Bill of Rights, campaign finance reforms, and national referendums, all set against a backdrop of political intrigue and high-stakes drama. This episode also tackles historical and contemporary issues like term limits and the hurdles faced by third parties in a predominantly two-party system, offering a thought-provoking exploration of potential political reforms and the role of AI in shaping future governance.
if you enjoyed the show be sure to check out my info:
https://app.wingcard.io/ROB3SA64
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, hello everybody.
A little quick context beforewe get into this.
Me and the guest were talkingabout politics, because he's a
political strategist and aformer career, so we were
talking about Kamala Harris andDonald Trump's race right now,
what it's going to do, thedynamics and what we think is
going to play out, and we'llhint on it later on if you're
(00:23):
interested in that.
But yeah, we got into some goodstuff with his story, talking
about AI, and he talks about inhis story this super simulated
intelligence not super simulatedintelligence and I've been
reading his book on Audible.
It's really good.
I highly recommend it and,depending on when you listen to
(00:45):
this, his next book dropselection day, so I'm sure there
will be nice discounts from theday it launches, and if you find
his previous book interesting,I recommend you do.
There is a bit of an abruptending at the end.
I'm going to insert another oneof these at the end.
However, pretty much he justsays, hey, please rate and
(01:06):
review and leave a comment.
Uh, it greatly helps him outwith feedback.
So let's get right into thisand let's go.
Good, I know the problem, um,but yeah, that was, that's my
biggest one with what we weretalking about earlier is it's
just well you could debate onthe whole voter fraud thing.
(01:26):
That could or could not be true, but the, the amount of the
like the hardcore conservativesare going to be like definitely,
like, oh, biden definitely tookit this time, kind of thing, or
vice versa, and it's just yeah.
The my one, good um, he's alsoone of my clients, I work for he
(01:47):
um, he's hardcore Harris and Ijust I asked him.
Every so often I'm like youknow, there's alarming language.
He uses equity for all, notequality for all.
That's a little, it's a subtlething, but it's alarming.
Yeah, yeah, kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
And that's where he's like.
He's like oh yeah, that's agood point actually.
Yeah, no, I I think, like Isaid, I think it's the.
It's one of those opportunitiesthat I think leads to four
years from now, there being atransformative figure who can
step forward and and potentiallypick up the pieces.
Um, but in the process, wecan't lose ourselves.
We as a country have to remainfocused on.
We're still one nation.
(02:28):
No matter who you vote for,people on the other side are not
your enemy.
They're your opposition orthey're your opposition in the
contest, but they'll cometogether once it's over and find
a way to live together.
That's what they're showing usin Florida right now, with that
hurricane coming in, and thenthere's one coming in hardcore
tonight too, yeah.
(02:48):
Yeah, unbelievable.
Should I start with anintroduction of myself.
So my name is Michael Fedor.
I am here today really to justhave a conversation about how
does somebody make so manycareer transitions in their life
and find satisfaction and findreward and excitement in the
(03:11):
next thing without losing sighton where you are today?
And so I began my career 25years ago as a public school
teacher.
I was teaching high schoolEnglish, and I just retired from
politics a few years ago, whereI worked for 20 years in a
variety of capacities.
I was an elected officialmyself.
(03:33):
I worked for candidates in localgovernment to senator, to
governor, to presidentialcandidates, and I learned a lot
in the process but also feltlike it has become so
unfortunately rotten to the core.
I couldn't find satisfactionworking in that space anymore
(03:53):
and still feeling like I was notbeing changed by it.
And so I've been going throughtransition and I've rediscovered
my love for writing,rediscovered my love for writing
, and it has been both beentherapeutic for me in a time of
challenge, but it's also beenreally rewarding to craft
imaginative, exciting, thrillingstories and fiction that people
have really latched on to andfound some truth and some some
(04:17):
genuine connection with, and I'mreally hopeful that that um, I
continue to build my, my readerbase, and so that's a little bit
about me.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
That's wonderful.
I love it.
So we were talking earlierabout the dynamics.
I'm just curious with yourstrategy and everything you've
done with the planning, how didthat correlate with your series
the Bull Moose?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
series?
Great question.
So I worked in a variety ofcapacities in politics.
I worked first for organizedlabor, where I worked for a lot
of labor unions in differentshapes and sizes, for your
stereotypical thick-necked laborleader who swore a lot, to
(05:03):
maybe some not so typical laborleaders who were really
transformative figures andforward thinking.
And I met a lot of verypowerful people in those roles,
sometimes in really greatinteractions where I was
inspired by those people andother times saw the really
disgusting side of people inpower who treat others like
(05:26):
servants or like people who areto wait on them hand and foot,
and that would always turn meoff right away when I would see
that.
But I learned a lot about howpolitics works and how elections
work, and so when I sat down towrite a political thriller
series, my first mission was tomake it as believable as
possible.
(05:47):
When I read military spythriller fiction, I want the
aircraft to function likeaircraft should.
I want the right weapon to beused in the battle.
I don't want bad mistakes totake away the realism of the
story, and the same is true formy writing.
I wanted representation to beaccurate of what elections are
(06:09):
like, what campaigns are like,what the legislative process is
like.
And so I've really taken myexperience and also a good
amount of research when I neededit, to make sure that the
underlying backdrop of politicsthat's told in my stories is
true to life, is accurate in theAmerican system and it isn't
fanciful or pie in the sky.
(06:32):
And in that regard, what I oftensay is my books are thrillingly
plausible or terrifyinglyplausible, in that you know a
lot of people will say this likeI can imagine this coming true
in good ways and bad ways.
And my challenge in my writinghas been trying to lean towards
the hope, so that I'm not justwriting terrifying stories with
(06:53):
scary endings but terrifyingstories with hopeful, possible
uplifting ends.
So that's been the process forme, and I've also been careful
to make sure nothing I'm writingis autobiographical of my story
or clearly biographical ofanyone I've ever worked with.
So you know I take compositesof different people I've met and
(07:13):
worked with, differentexperiences and transform them
into something different to formsome of the characters in the
Bull Moose series.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Yeah, I mean you as the artist, you can't fully
remove yourself from the art,but you are two separate things,
kind of thing, and that is it'shard to when you had big
changing events in your lifethat you witnessed.
And it's like I want to usethis but I also signed an nda
kind of thing yep, right, andand the first I I've been
writing book.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
It took me 20 years to get it published because I
started it when I was teachinghigh school and when I read
early drafts then I thought theywere great.
When I read those early draftsas recently as you know, five
years ago, I was like this istotal crap.
This is not good and it was tooautobiographical.
It was like I'm clearly puttingmyself in the position of the
(08:03):
antagonist and that's not goodwriting.
So I went back to basics.
I rewrote the story from startto finish and made it a much
better story, because I foundputting myself in some of the
other minor characters was waymore rewarding for me, because I
could add more depth to theseother characters in the story
(08:25):
and I also didn't feel compelledto make the antagonist perfect
in every way.
Um, or, you know, he's, he's,he's flawed, just like all of us
, and so, um, in that regard, itwas also.
It was a relief because theantagonist says things I didn't
feel like people were saying.
Well, is that what you believe?
Because when you really aretelling a good story, who wrote
(08:47):
the story?
Is separate from what'shappening, and I think that was
really key.
No one reading the story shouldthink this is what I personally
think, or this is what Ipersonally would do.
I'm painting a very complexpeople could get lost in that,
without thinking about theauthors.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Yeah, but I mean, there will still always be
people who associate you as thecharacter.
You can't get away from that.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Sure, I think the politics too I mean, I write a
political thriller book and thatwas one of the things that I
really struggled with early onwas I'm trying to talk about a
situation that I see emerging inAmerican politics, which is a
cliff or a bifurcation of theAmerican politic, that is a
(09:30):
cleave right.
People are kind of pulling apartand there's people in the two
extremes, but in the middle arethese people who feel left out,
and they're not necessarilycentrists in their politics, but
they certainly feel like thetwo major political parties are
no longer talking to them orrepresenting them.
And how to tell that in a storythat could be a compelling
(09:54):
narrative?
As a former president and losesthe Republican nomination and
he pulls the progressive BullMoose Party kind of out of the
woodwork and into the nationalstage and wins the most
(10:15):
electoral votes of any thirdparty since in that election,
and so that became the vehiclefor my storytelling is what if a
major third party wasresurrected, the Bull Moose
Party, not to be progressive,not to be liberal or not to be
conservative, but to be a reformparty that is not necessarily
trying to be down the middle buttrying to be more
(10:37):
multidimensional than the twomajor parties are today, and how
could it help to solve theproblems we're facing in a
highly polarized Americanpolitic?
So walk me through the processfor that, how you painted that
canvas, yeah, so one of thefirst things I had to discover
(10:57):
is and this was a challenge Ihad in the writing process my
editor would say if know, if youtry to write to the entire
spectrum of political ideology,you will end up talking to
nobody, because no one willtruly identify with the book.
So I had to make some choicesabout where the philosophy was
(11:19):
in the story and I think I endedup striking the right chord,
because what my editor said wasThea Newell.
She was phenomenal.
She said people who are goingto read this book are going to
think a lot like you.
So you're going to find thatyou're going to be expanding
your circle of folks whoaccompany you on this journey
that, yes, the two parties feellike they're broken and, yes, it
(11:40):
would be nice to have anotherway of thinking of things.
It would be nice to haveanother way of thinking of
things.
And so what I went back to wasthe platform of the Bull Moose
Party in 1912, and was justshocked to see how much of their
reform platform in 1912 wasdirectly translatable to the
type of reform that is kind ofrelevant for our moment in
(12:02):
American politics.
Or in the case of my story, ittakes place in 2044.
So 20 years from now, how muchworse could things get?
Maybe, how much better couldthey get in other regards, and
what solutions would the BullMoose Party present?
And so in my story in 2044,you've got the two parties that
(12:24):
really are.
They're the ones who are incollusion right.
They're rigging the election byagreeing which one's going to
run the good candidate, whichone's going to run the bad
candidate, who's going to getthe payoff.
That kind of money is pollutingthe waters entirely and making
nothing get done.
And that's really what the maincharacter, jackson Piper, is
saying throughout the story isthere's not a dollar's worth of
(12:44):
difference between the twoparties.
He's he's pulling from an oldquote from 1968, um, where a
slightly less, uh, savorycandidate was saying it wasn't a
dime's worth of difference, uh,between the two parties.
But in this regard, piper saying, like you know they're, they're
taking money from the samedonors.
They might say on paper theydisagree on issues, but in
(13:05):
reality they get nothing done.
So what does it matter?
What they believe, and wouldn'tit be better if we had a party
that could truly try to changeand reform America?
And so the platform starts tobecome things like a national
referendum, term limits in theRoman style of two terms elected
, then at least one term offbefore serving another Campaign.
(13:28):
Finance reform that takes themoney out of the system, age
limits for judges, nationalrecall elections so it was like
expanding the small d democraticprinciples of the republic in
ways that put more power in thepeople.
I think the framers of theconstitution were wary of that.
There's been a lot of talkabout going back to a
(13:49):
constitutional convention in theUnited States rewriting the
constitution.
What Piper says in the book iswe need a new bill of rights, 12
new amendments that couldreform and improve the
constitution without having tothrow it entirely out.
So that's kind of the backdropof the story.
I want to make sure that peopleare clear.
It's not a lecture on reformingAmerican government.
(14:11):
It's a thrilling story about apresidential election where
there's conspiracy andassassination attempts and lots
of crazy stuff like that.
But it is asking thesequestions about who are we, what
will we believe and what?
If all of it's at risk, thenwhat would the stakes be for an
election, a presidentialelection, where perhaps it's the
(14:33):
last?
We talk a lot about that thisyear, about, oh, could it be the
last election?
It's a little hyperbolic, butin 2044 in the book clearly is
the threat, maybe not as clearto the electorate, but it's
clear to the candidates whattheir aims are.
And mapping that out wascomplex and also telling in a
(14:55):
way that didn't get boring tothe reader.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
So finding some conflict that could keep the
story driving forward was realin writing this, the one thing
that struck my interest, and I'mcurious to hear what they are,
because I haven't gone around toreading it yet, although I
think I will after thisinterview.
That's good, I'm glad to hearit.
What are the 12 amendments tothe Bill of Rights you were
suggesting?
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Yeah, I'm going to try to pull them from memory
where I can pull the book out,but they're talking about
basically repealing the CitizensUnited principle that money is
speech.
So stipulating that,essentially, that money is not
the same thing as speech andthat citizens have rights to
(15:35):
their own representativedemocracy.
Talking about term limits forall federal elected officials of
two terms on at least one termoff before being able to serve
another term for all offices.
Um a age limit of 75 years forany federally appointed judge.
Um the right to um like umnational referendum.
(15:59):
So if the Congress won't passlegislation, it can go to a
national referendum and thecitizens could pass it by super
majority vote of like 60%.
A balanced budget amendment.
There was a taxation amendmentwhere taxes could only be raised
with a super vote in Congress.
And now I think I'm at eight,but you can see I'm pulling from
(16:25):
libertarian, I'm pulling fromconservative.
I'm at eight, okay, but so youcan see I'm pulling from
libertarian, I'm pulling fromconservative, I'm pulling from
liberal too, and trying to finda way to say how is this reform?
You know?
Speaker 1 (16:33):
but it's actually really good though, like the
topics on what you're bringingup, especially the term limits
too, that one's really good.
But yeah, I like that that's.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
It's not sorry, but yeah, I like that.
It's not Sorry you go.
No, I was going to say Istumbled upon the Roman
principle of term limits byaccident talking to some other
writers and a friend who's alibertarian.
He was talking about thisprinciple of if you have strict
terms, like they have inCalifornia the California state
(17:04):
legislature has term limits thenwhat happens is the bureaucracy
becomes extremely powerfulbecause those folks will work 30
or 40 years no offense to anylisteners who work in state
government in California butthey become very powerful
because there's just a revolvingdoor of elected senators and
reps every eight or 10 years,depending upon the limit.
But it's the staff who becomethe continuous servers, the
(17:26):
continuous power brokers, andthat can be very detrimental in
the federal system.
And so what if it was?
Well, whether you're a Senator,a president or a representative
, you can serve two termsconsecutively, but then you have
to take a term off and you'vegot two years or six years or
four, depending upon the office,to go do something else of
(17:46):
value to the country.
And if you were good enough,don't worry, you come back in
four, six or two and if theywant you back, they can reelect
you.
So it's a cool idea andsomething that we could
certainly explore as beingequitable across the two
branches.
And then the age limits.
We have age limits inPennsylvania, where I'm from,
for our judges.
(18:07):
Um, so it's 75, a judge ismandated to retire in
Pennsylvania, and so, um, it'shealthy.
Um, it ensures there isn'tlifetime appointment.
Um, lifetime in 1776 was waydifferent than lifetime in 2024.
Um, and so you know this is so.
This amendment concept isaddressing that.
(18:28):
And then also there was anoverruling of Supreme Court
decisions, so there could be anational referendum to overturn.
But that was actually in theBull Moose Party platform in
1912, was being able to overturna Supreme Court decision
through, and I thought, well,that's, that's very interesting,
let's put that in there, sinceit's the bull moose part.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
That would be interesting and actually kind of
valuable, giving the peoplesome voice back, I think.
Like we were talking aboutearlier before I hit the record
button, there's too muchdivision and people don't feel
like they have any power, likethe moderates in the middle
where it's not whereas, likethey might be financially
conservative but politicallyliberal, like I support the, the
(19:09):
community and all them, justlike, don't make me do it kind
of thing, yeah, so yeah, thatwould be good, because then you
could actually don't make me doit kind of thing.
So yeah, that would be good,because then you could actually
beat a big chunk of Americawithout sacrificing the power
too.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Yeah, I think there's also a sense too that people
are feeling like, well, whatdoes it matter?
Right?
Why should I vote if they'regoing to just have nine justices
decide these decisions?
And it has felt likelegislating from the bench on
both sides at times.
And so, you know, if there'sthe threat that there is some
authority in the people to havea final say on what should or
(19:45):
shouldn't be an interpretationof law, that could be an
interesting counterbalance to,especially if, right now, while
the Congress has to act well,you know, we're seeing how
Congress is kind of grinding itto a halt in terms of its
ability to get things done,doesn't work in a bipartisan
fashion anymore, and so it's beinteresting to see what if the
(20:06):
what if?
The threat was well, if youdon't do what the people will,
and that could be enough tomaybe push the Congress a little
further back towards workingtogether I agree.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
No, that that's the.
That's what I was thinking,where it's like it's neither
going progressive orconservative, it's, if you don't
do this, the people are notgoing to be happy, kind of thing
.
They will speak up, kind ofthing it's interesting I like
that, yeah, it's been.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
It was a fascinating exploration, for sure what's um
the biggest eye-opening moment?
Speaker 1 (20:38):
that, even with your career and everything you've
done in researching for thisbook, you realize like, wow,
this would be amazing if wecould do it.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
I think it's the challenge that it actually takes
for a third party to get enoughlift and coverage because of
how much the two parties inresponse to the 1912 election,
let's be clear about thatcontrol the landscape and
there's a couple of things theydid.
So, um, popular primariesemerged because of Teddy
Roosevelt and the Bull Mooseparty.
(21:08):
Um, and he was calling forpopular primaries to really, you
know, dictate the nomination ofcandidates for president in
1912 in the Republican primary.
It wasn't until like 1968 or1972 that actually came to be in
both parties.
But the challenge now is third,fourth, fifth parties have no
(21:30):
ability to have access to thatsame system because there's a
monopoly by the two, a biopolyof the two major parties, to own
primary day and so the D's, theR's turn out or maybe
independents, if you're lucky.
We don't have that inPennsylvania, unfortunately.
We have closed primaries, so itmakes it hard for other parties
(21:53):
to emerge.
They also had sore loser lawsemerge after the 1912 election,
meaning if you lost a majorparty's primary for an office,
you can't turn around and run asan independent to challenge the
race that you lost, and it'scalled a sore loser law, like 22
(22:14):
states have them.
But in researching this book Idiscovered it's the the law
cannot apply to the presidency,and this is fascinating.
Why is?
Because the primary election isfor the candidate, but the
general election is for a slateof electors to choose the
president, and so it is notactually a sore loser case in
the case of president, becausethe president is not technically
(22:35):
on the ballot in november.
It is the electors who pledgedto vote for the president of
your pick.
So there was a whole chapter,two chapters I had originally
included in the book where theywere debating this question.
It slowed the story down toomuch.
It was a little too in theweeds.
It got cutting room floor umspace.
But it was fascinating todiscover that.
(22:58):
And the other piece of it andthis gets into the story is the
money it takes to run forpresident.
The money it takes to run amajor and form a major political
party and do it in a matter ofmonths, which Jackson Piper has
to do in the book and he bemoansthis in several chapters and it
becomes a very sore source ofcontention between Jackson and
his leadership team on hiscampaign is all he does is raise
(23:22):
money.
He doesn't have any time totalk to voters and hear what
they think, because heconstantly has to feed the beast
by raising money and hisopponent has a billion dollar
benefactor.
Who's financing the president'sreelection Russell Warner and
it just makes it nearlyimpossible.
At times Jackson considersleaving the race multiple times
(23:44):
just because it's so expensive.
Let alone the threats on hislife, let alone the challenges
of AI in the race and socialmedia and inability to discern
truth from fiction in 2044.
So there are other things toothat make it even worse.
But that money question isprobably the single largest
(24:04):
reason why we can't see a majorthird or fourth party really
come out in any way tocountervail the Republicans and
Democrats or control theAmericans.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Yeah well, I'm just imagining the potency and
effectiveness of AI in 20 years.
I mean, it's still rudimentaryand kind of a child and can be
clever at times, but with enoughtime, even for humans it's
going to be like wait.
Is that AI?
Is that real, is it not?
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Yeah, let's swim in those waters for a minute.
So my book is a politicalthriller with a science fiction
edge.
Futuristic takes place in 2044.
One of the major things thathas occurred by 2044 um is the
invention of something called si.
It's the successor to ai, whichis um, simulated intelligence,
and it is.
(24:53):
You know the difference betweenlike AI is like creating a
picture of a milkshake.
Si is like actually holding anddrinking a milkshake.
This is simulated intelligencein every respect.
And by 2044, you've got 10 or 15million jobs in the economy
replaced by AI.
So you've got like.
(25:13):
Every food service worker hasbeen replaced because SI
machines can take orders, cookfood, handle money, hand you
orders.
All Uber, lyft, taxi, bus, allthose drivers are gone because
they have this SI technologythat can drive every vehicle,
the mail system and shippingcompletely SI Um, and so you can
(25:37):
.
You can imagine where a coupleof things start to happen.
One, um, there is a lot ofresentment for people who've
lost jobs and there's no otherjob to have.
Right, there isn't some othernew industry being created for
them to do so.
Folks who would be normally,you know, working at a Wendy's
or working at customer serviceare not finding anything else in
(25:59):
the economy that will suit them.
And then there's this almostlike it's implied in the book, a
master and slave typerelationship that starts to
emerge between humans and the SIrobots who are performing these
duties.
They give them cruel names,they insult them in the
drive-through, they try to messwith the SI bots who are pairing
(26:23):
the coffee or delivering thepackages, and so it's really
humiliating to see, and,unfortunately for the SIs,
they're on the border ofsentience.
They're aware of this andthey're trying to understand why
humans would treat and act thisway towards them and they're
just trying to provide service.
The other thing that's happenedby 2044 in the book is a
(26:47):
gentleman in the book who's amajor antagonist.
Marco Alvarez is the mastermindbehind a company called Juniper,
and the Juniper has inventedsomething called the Mark.
What the Mark does a piece oftechnology any news story, any
video, any photograph, anysocial media post can be
analyzed instantaneously by theMark and is given a designation
(27:10):
of truthful, caution or dangerbased on how relatively real,
accurate and true the story,post, video, photograph is, and
it affixes it to the bottom ofthe image.
Now you can imagine why thatcould be beneficial.
You know, green check meansit's real, yellow eye means
(27:33):
something's been altered and ablack skull is.
This is not real, isn't true?
Don't believe it, except forwhen the person and the company
that makes that technology hasan agenda and they start
manipulating that technology toinfluence an election and
influence the understanding oftruth and the people are so
conditioned to looking for themark.
They don't question the mark ashaving a nefarious agenda, but
(27:56):
that plays a major role in thecampaign and a major role in the
story yeah, you know, it's what.
What ai, or even si, will becomeis truly fascinating, and I had
a lot of fun when I made thechoice to to set the story in
the future.
I wrote an AI character intothe story who is clearly
(28:18):
sentient, clearly aware of herown existence.
Her name is Ziggy A little nodback to Quantum Leap.
I'm old enough to remember theshow, but that was fun to create
her and she became a bigger andbigger part of the story in the
Bull Moose series and isbecoming more and more both
sentient but also, as she'sbecoming more sentient, she is
(28:43):
starting to flirt with theboundaries of what is ethical
and not ethical and trying tounderstand how she is a piece of
programming, what's theboundary of helping one human
and hurting another, and howdoes her programming allow her
to do?
A really difficult question forher.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Morality is a very hard one to conquer Because it's
all subjective and perspective.
Just so you know my call isgoing to end soon.
Zoom gave me the 10-minutewarning.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
No problem, I see it counting, that's okay.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
So just one thing for you um, do you plan on doing an
audiobook for this?
Speaker 2 (29:21):
so yeah, there's a great setup.
So I have um.
All my books are available onmichaelfedorbookscom that's
michael f-e-d-o-r bookscom, andyou can get the ebook, you can
get the print, you can also getthe audiobook direct from me.
So go in my shop and get any ofthe formats of this.
(29:42):
Book one, what it Takes to Killa Bull Moose, which is the book
we've been talking about herefor the past 30 minutes, and
book two, tree of Liberty, comesout on Election Day in the
United States.
It's the sequel to book one,the United States.
It's the sequel to book one.
It picks up minutes after bookone ends and a lot of the same
(30:04):
characters in the story carry onthe same story and really
driving what is the outcome ofthe election and has a lot of
callbacks to what's happeningcurrently in the 2024 election.
You can also get me on Amazon,barnes, noble, kobo,
audiobookscom.
Anywhere where you consumeebooks, print or audiobooks, you
can find my writing and I wouldlove any of your listeners to
(30:26):
take it up.
I have a sale running on BookOne right now on my shop.
So if you go tomichaelfedorbookscom, you see
it's 50% off to get the e-bookor the audio book or the print
of the book until Election Day,so I'd love as many people as
possible to read book one and beready for book two on November
5th.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Looks like I'm going to have to go to your website
because it's not on Audible itshould be on Audible.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Just look up Michael Fedor.
Okay, it should be there, ifyou go on the Amazon page for
what it takes to kill a bullmoose.
Michael Fedor should be there.
It's right, if you go on theAmazon page for what it takes to
kill a bull moose, michaelFedor, you should see the
audible link there, michael.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
F-E-D-O-R.
Yep, he's not.
You're not pulling up, but I'llfigure it out.
I'll send you the link.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
I'll make sure you got it.
I'll make sure nothing's wrongon my end either.
All right, cool, it's been anabsolute honor to have you on.
Thanks, josh, and it's beengreat talking to you, and I
really love listening to yourconversations you have with
guests and I think you're reallydoing a great thing with this
really curious conversationyou're developing and I
encourage you to keep it up.
(31:28):
I just love the show.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
Much appreciated, absolutely All right.
All right, you made it to theend.
Congratulations, gold star foryou.
Hey, just remember to like,review and comment on his books
and anything else.
Um, also the podcast.
It helps me out, uh, also, so,be good, don't get into too much
(31:53):
trouble now.
Hello, hello everybody.
A little quick context beforewe get into this.
Me and the guest were talkingabout politics, because he's a
political strategist and aformer career, so we were
talking about Kamala Harris andDonald Trump's race right now,
what it's going to do, thedynamics and what we think is
going to play out, and we'llhint on it later on if you're
(00:23):
interested in that.
But yeah, we got into some goodstuff with his story, talking
about AI, and he talks about inhis story this super simulated
intelligence not super simulatedintelligence and I've been
reading his book on Audible.
It's really good.
I highly recommend it and,depending on when you listen to
(00:45):
this, his next book dropselection day, so I'm sure there
will be nice discounts from theday it launches, and if you find
his previous book interesting,I recommend you do.
There is a bit of an abruptending at the end.
I'm going to insert another oneof these at the end.
However, pretty much he justsays, hey, please rate and
(01:06):
review and leave a comment.
Uh, it greatly helps him outwith feedback.
So let's get right into thisand let's go.
Good, I know the problem, um,but yeah, that was, that's my
biggest one with what we weretalking about earlier is it's
just well you could debate onthe whole voter fraud thing.
(01:26):
That could or could not be true, but the, the amount of the
like the hardcore conservativesare going to be like definitely,
like, oh, biden definitely tookit this time, kind of thing, or
vice versa, and it's just yeah.
The my one, good um, he's alsoone of my clients, I work for he
(01:47):
um, he's hardcore Harris and Ijust I asked him.
Every so often I'm like youknow, there's alarming language.
He uses equity for all, notequality for all.
That's a little, it's a subtlething, but it's alarming.
Yeah, yeah, kind of thing.
Speaker 2 (02:07):
And that's where he's like.
He's like oh yeah, that's agood point actually.
Yeah, no, I I think, like Isaid, I think it's the.
It's one of those opportunitiesthat I think leads to four
years from now, there being atransformative figure who can
step forward and and potentiallypick up the pieces.
Um, but in the process, wecan't lose ourselves.
We as a country have to remainfocused on.
We're still one nation.
(02:28):
No matter who you vote for,people on the other side are not
your enemy.
They're your opposition orthey're your opposition in the
contest, but they'll cometogether once it's over and find
a way to live together.
That's what they're showing usin Florida right now, with that
hurricane coming in, and thenthere's one coming in hardcore
tonight too, yeah.
(02:48):
Yeah, unbelievable.
Should I start with anintroduction of myself.
So my name is Michael Fedor.
I am here today really to justhave a conversation about how
does somebody make so manycareer transitions in their life
and find satisfaction and findreward and excitement in the
(03:11):
next thing without losing sighton where you are today?
And so I began my career 25years ago as a public school
teacher.
I was teaching high schoolEnglish, and I just retired from
politics a few years ago, whereI worked for 20 years in a
variety of capacities.
I was an elected officialmyself.
(03:33):
I worked for candidates in localgovernment to senator, to
governor, to presidentialcandidates, and I learned a lot
in the process but also feltlike it has become so
unfortunately rotten to the core.
I couldn't find satisfactionworking in that space anymore
(03:53):
and still feeling like I was notbeing changed by it.
And so I've been going throughtransition and I've rediscovered
my love for writing,rediscovered my love for writing
, and it has been both beentherapeutic for me in a time of
challenge, but it's also beenreally rewarding to craft
imaginative, exciting, thrillingstories and fiction that people
have really latched on to andfound some truth and some some
(04:17):
genuine connection with, and I'mreally hopeful that that um, I
continue to build my, my readerbase, and so that's a little bit
about me.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
That's wonderful.
I love it.
So we were talking earlierabout the dynamics.
I'm just curious with yourstrategy and everything you've
done with the planning, how didthat correlate with your series
the Bull Moose?
Speaker 2 (04:42):
series?
Great question.
So I worked in a variety ofcapacities in politics.
I worked first for organizedlabor, where I worked for a lot
of labor unions in differentshapes and sizes, for your
stereotypical thick-necked laborleader who swore a lot, to
(05:03):
maybe some not so typical laborleaders who were really
transformative figures andforward thinking.
And I met a lot of verypowerful people in those roles,
sometimes in really greatinteractions where I was
inspired by those people andother times saw the really
disgusting side of people inpower who treat others like
(05:26):
servants or like people who areto wait on them hand and foot,
and that would always turn meoff right away when I would see
that.
But I learned a lot about howpolitics works and how elections
work, and so when I sat down towrite a political thriller
series, my first mission was tomake it as believable as
possible.
(05:47):
When I read military spythriller fiction, I want the
aircraft to function likeaircraft should.
I want the right weapon to beused in the battle.
I don't want bad mistakes totake away the realism of the
story, and the same is true formy writing.
I wanted representation to beaccurate of what elections are
(06:09):
like, what campaigns are like,what the legislative process is
like.
And so I've really taken myexperience and also a good
amount of research when I neededit, to make sure that the
underlying backdrop of politicsthat's told in my stories is
true to life, is accurate in theAmerican system and it isn't
fanciful or pie in the sky.
(06:32):
And in that regard, what I oftensay is my books are thrillingly
plausible or terrifyinglyplausible, in that you know a
lot of people will say this likeI can imagine this coming true
in good ways and bad ways.
And my challenge in my writinghas been trying to lean towards
the hope, so that I'm not justwriting terrifying stories with
(06:53):
scary endings but terrifyingstories with hopeful, possible
uplifting ends.
So that's been the process forme, and I've also been careful
to make sure nothing I'm writingis autobiographical of my story
or clearly biographical ofanyone I've ever worked with.
So you know I take compositesof different people I've met and
(07:13):
worked with, differentexperiences and transform them
into something different to formsome of the characters in the
Bull Moose series.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Yeah, I mean you as the artist, you can't fully
remove yourself from the art,but you are two separate things,
kind of thing, and that is it'shard to when you had big
changing events in your lifethat you witnessed.
And it's like I want to usethis but I also signed an nda
kind of thing yep, right, andand the first I I've been
writing book.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
It took me 20 years to get it published because I
started it when I was teachinghigh school and when I read
early drafts then I thought theywere great.
When I read those early draftsas recently as you know, five
years ago, I was like this istotal crap.
This is not good and it was tooautobiographical.
It was like I'm clearly puttingmyself in the position of the
(08:03):
antagonist and that's not goodwriting.
So I went back to basics.
I rewrote the story from startto finish and made it a much
better story, because I foundputting myself in some of the
other minor characters was waymore rewarding for me, because I
could add more depth to theseother characters in the story
(08:25):
and I also didn't feel compelledto make the antagonist perfect
in every way.
Um, or, you know, he's, he's,he's flawed, just like all of us
, and so, um, in that regard, itwas also.
It was a relief because theantagonist says things I didn't
feel like people were saying.
Well, is that what you believe?
Because when you really aretelling a good story, who wrote
(08:47):
the story?
Is separate from what'shappening, and I think that was
really key.
No one reading the story shouldthink this is what I personally
think, or this is what Ipersonally would do.
I'm painting a very complexpeople could get lost in that,
without thinking about theauthors.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
Yeah, but I mean, there will still always be
people who associate you as thecharacter.
You can't get away from that.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Sure, I think the politics too I mean, I write a
political thriller book and thatwas one of the things that I
really struggled with early onwas I'm trying to talk about a
situation that I see emerging inAmerican politics, which is a
cliff or a bifurcation of theAmerican politic, that is a
(09:30):
cleave right.
People are kind of pulling apartand there's people in the two
extremes, but in the middle arethese people who feel left out,
and they're not necessarilycentrists in their politics, but
they certainly feel like thetwo major political parties are
no longer talking to them orrepresenting them.
And how to tell that in a storythat could be a compelling
(09:54):
narrative?
As a former president and losesthe Republican nomination and
he pulls the progressive BullMoose Party kind of out of the
woodwork and into the nationalstage and wins the most
(10:15):
electoral votes of any thirdparty since in that election,
and so that became the vehiclefor my storytelling is what if a
major third party wasresurrected, the Bull Moose
Party, not to be progressive,not to be liberal or not to be
conservative, but to be a reformparty that is not necessarily
trying to be down the middle buttrying to be more
(10:37):
multidimensional than the twomajor parties are today, and how
could it help to solve theproblems we're facing in a
highly polarized Americanpolitic?
So walk me through the processfor that, how you painted that
canvas, yeah, so one of thefirst things I had to discover
(10:57):
is and this was a challenge Ihad in the writing process my
editor would say if know, if youtry to write to the entire
spectrum of political ideology,you will end up talking to
nobody, because no one willtruly identify with the book.
So I had to make some choicesabout where the philosophy was
(11:19):
in the story and I think I endedup striking the right chord,
because what my editor said wasThea Newell.
She was phenomenal.
She said people who are goingto read this book are going to
think a lot like you.
So you're going to find thatyou're going to be expanding
your circle of folks whoaccompany you on this journey
that, yes, the two parties feellike they're broken and, yes, it
(11:40):
would be nice to have anotherway of thinking of things.
It would be nice to haveanother way of thinking of
things.
And so what I went back to wasthe platform of the Bull Moose
Party in 1912, and was justshocked to see how much of their
reform platform in 1912 wasdirectly translatable to the
type of reform that is kind ofrelevant for our moment in
(12:02):
American politics.
Or in the case of my story, ittakes place in 2044.
So 20 years from now, how muchworse could things get?
Maybe, how much better couldthey get in other regards, and
what solutions would the BullMoose Party present?
And so in my story in 2044,you've got the two parties that
(12:24):
really are.
They're the ones who are incollusion right.
They're rigging the election byagreeing which one's going to
run the good candidate, whichone's going to run the bad
candidate, who's going to getthe payoff.
That kind of money is pollutingthe waters entirely and making
nothing get done.
And that's really what the maincharacter, jackson Piper, is
saying throughout the story isthere's not a dollar's worth of
(12:44):
difference between the twoparties.
He's he's pulling from an oldquote from 1968, um, where a
slightly less, uh, savorycandidate was saying it wasn't a
dime's worth of difference, uh,between the two parties.
But in this regard, piper saying, like you know they're, they're
taking money from the samedonors.
They might say on paper theydisagree on issues, but in
(13:05):
reality they get nothing done.
So what does it matter?
What they believe, and wouldn'tit be better if we had a party
that could truly try to changeand reform America?
And so the platform starts tobecome things like a national
referendum, term limits in theRoman style of two terms elected
, then at least one term offbefore serving another Campaign.
(13:28):
Finance reform that takes themoney out of the system, age
limits for judges, nationalrecall elections so it was like
expanding the small d democraticprinciples of the republic in
ways that put more power in thepeople.
I think the framers of theconstitution were wary of that.
There's been a lot of talkabout going back to a
(13:49):
constitutional convention in theUnited States rewriting the
constitution.
What Piper says in the book iswe need a new bill of rights, 12
new amendments that couldreform and improve the
constitution without having tothrow it entirely out.
So that's kind of the backdropof the story.
I want to make sure that peopleare clear.
It's not a lecture on reformingAmerican government.
(14:11):
It's a thrilling story about apresidential election where
there's conspiracy andassassination attempts and lots
of crazy stuff like that.
But it is asking thesequestions about who are we, what
will we believe and what?
If all of it's at risk, thenwhat would the stakes be for an
election, a presidentialelection, where perhaps it's the
(14:33):
last?
We talk a lot about that thisyear, about, oh, could it be the
last election?
It's a little hyperbolic, butin 2044 in the book clearly is
the threat, maybe not as clearto the electorate, but it's
clear to the candidates whattheir aims are.
And mapping that out wascomplex and also telling in a
(14:55):
way that didn't get boring tothe reader.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
So finding some conflict that could keep the
story driving forward was realin writing this, the one thing
that struck my interest, and I'mcurious to hear what they are,
because I haven't gone around toreading it yet, although I
think I will after thisinterview.
That's good, I'm glad to hearit.
What are the 12 amendments tothe Bill of Rights you were
suggesting?
Speaker 2 (15:14):
Yeah, I'm going to try to pull them from memory
where I can pull the book out,but they're talking about
basically repealing the CitizensUnited principle that money is
speech.
So stipulating that,essentially, that money is not
the same thing as speech andthat citizens have rights to
(15:35):
their own representativedemocracy.
Talking about term limits forall federal elected officials of
two terms on at least one termoff before being able to serve
another term for all offices.
Um a age limit of 75 years forany federally appointed judge.
Um the right to um like umnational referendum.
(15:59):
So if the Congress won't passlegislation, it can go to a
national referendum and thecitizens could pass it by super
majority vote of like 60%.
A balanced budget amendment.
There was a taxation amendmentwhere taxes could only be raised
with a super vote in Congress.
And now I think I'm at eight,but you can see I'm pulling from
(16:25):
libertarian, I'm pulling fromconservative.
I'm at eight, okay, but so youcan see I'm pulling from
libertarian, I'm pulling fromconservative, I'm pulling from
liberal too, and trying to finda way to say how is this reform?
You know?
Speaker 1 (16:33):
but it's actually really good though, like the
topics on what you're bringingup, especially the term limits
too, that one's really good.
But yeah, I like that that's.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
It's not sorry, but yeah, I like that.
It's not Sorry you go.
No, I was going to say Istumbled upon the Roman
principle of term limits byaccident talking to some other
writers and a friend who's alibertarian.
He was talking about thisprinciple of if you have strict
terms, like they have inCalifornia the California state
(17:04):
legislature has term limits thenwhat happens is the bureaucracy
becomes extremely powerfulbecause those folks will work 30
or 40 years no offense to anylisteners who work in state
government in California butthey become very powerful
because there's just a revolvingdoor of elected senators and
reps every eight or 10 years,depending upon the limit.
But it's the staff who becomethe continuous servers, the
(17:26):
continuous power brokers, andthat can be very detrimental in
the federal system.
And so what if it was?
Well, whether you're a Senator,a president or a representative
, you can serve two termsconsecutively, but then you have
to take a term off and you'vegot two years or six years or
four, depending upon the office,to go do something else of
(17:46):
value to the country.
And if you were good enough,don't worry, you come back in
four, six or two and if theywant you back, they can reelect
you.
So it's a cool idea andsomething that we could
certainly explore as beingequitable across the two
branches.
And then the age limits.
We have age limits inPennsylvania, where I'm from,
for our judges.
(18:07):
Um, so it's 75, a judge ismandated to retire in
Pennsylvania, and so, um, it'shealthy.
Um, it ensures there isn'tlifetime appointment.
Um, lifetime in 1776 was waydifferent than lifetime in 2024.
Um, and so you know this is so.
This amendment concept isaddressing that.
(18:28):
And then also there was anoverruling of Supreme Court
decisions, so there could be anational referendum to overturn.
But that was actually in theBull Moose Party platform in
1912, was being able to overturna Supreme Court decision
through, and I thought, well,that's, that's very interesting,
let's put that in there, sinceit's the bull moose part.
Speaker 1 (18:48):
That would be interesting and actually kind of
valuable, giving the peoplesome voice back, I think.
Like we were talking aboutearlier before I hit the record
button, there's too muchdivision and people don't feel
like they have any power, likethe moderates in the middle
where it's not whereas, likethey might be financially
conservative but politicallyliberal, like I support the, the
(19:09):
community and all them, justlike, don't make me do it kind
of thing, yeah, so yeah, thatwould be good, because then you
could actually don't make me doit kind of thing.
So yeah, that would be good,because then you could actually
beat a big chunk of Americawithout sacrificing the power
too.
Speaker 2 (19:23):
Yeah, I think there's also a sense too that people
are feeling like, well, whatdoes it matter?
Right?
Why should I vote if they'regoing to just have nine justices
decide these decisions?
And it has felt likelegislating from the bench on
both sides at times.
And so, you know, if there'sthe threat that there is some
authority in the people to havea final say on what should or
(19:45):
shouldn't be an interpretationof law, that could be an
interesting counterbalance to,especially if, right now, while
the Congress has to act well,you know, we're seeing how
Congress is kind of grinding itto a halt in terms of its
ability to get things done,doesn't work in a bipartisan
fashion anymore, and so it's beinteresting to see what if the
(20:06):
what if?
The threat was well, if youdon't do what the people will,
and that could be enough tomaybe push the Congress a little
further back towards workingtogether I agree.
Speaker 1 (20:15):
No, that that's the.
That's what I was thinking,where it's like it's neither
going progressive orconservative, it's, if you don't
do this, the people are notgoing to be happy, kind of thing
.
They will speak up, kind ofthing it's interesting I like
that, yeah, it's been.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
It was a fascinating exploration, for sure what's um
the biggest eye-opening moment?
Speaker 1 (20:38):
that, even with your career and everything you've
done in researching for thisbook, you realize like, wow,
this would be amazing if wecould do it.
Speaker 2 (20:47):
I think it's the challenge that it actually takes
for a third party to get enoughlift and coverage because of
how much the two parties inresponse to the 1912 election,
let's be clear about thatcontrol the landscape and
there's a couple of things theydid.
So, um, popular primariesemerged because of Teddy
Roosevelt and the Bull Mooseparty.
(21:08):
Um, and he was calling forpopular primaries to really, you
know, dictate the nomination ofcandidates for president in
1912 in the Republican primary.
It wasn't until like 1968 or1972 that actually came to be in
both parties.
But the challenge now is third,fourth, fifth parties have no
(21:30):
ability to have access to thatsame system because there's a
monopoly by the two, a biopolyof the two major parties, to own
primary day and so the D's, theR's turn out or maybe
independents, if you're lucky.
We don't have that inPennsylvania, unfortunately.
We have closed primaries, so itmakes it hard for other parties
(21:53):
to emerge.
They also had sore loser lawsemerge after the 1912 election,
meaning if you lost a majorparty's primary for an office,
you can't turn around and run asan independent to challenge the
race that you lost, and it'scalled a sore loser law, like 22
(22:14):
states have them.
But in researching this book Idiscovered it's the the law
cannot apply to the presidency,and this is fascinating.
Why is?
Because the primary election isfor the candidate, but the
general election is for a slateof electors to choose the
president, and so it is notactually a sore loser case in
the case of president, becausethe president is not technically
(22:35):
on the ballot in november.
It is the electors who pledgedto vote for the president of
your pick.
So there was a whole chapter,two chapters I had originally
included in the book where theywere debating this question.
It slowed the story down toomuch.
It was a little too in theweeds.
It got cutting room floor umspace.
But it was fascinating todiscover that.
(22:58):
And the other piece of it andthis gets into the story is the
money it takes to run forpresident.
The money it takes to run amajor and form a major political
party and do it in a matter ofmonths, which Jackson Piper has
to do in the book and he bemoansthis in several chapters and it
becomes a very sore source ofcontention between Jackson and
his leadership team on hiscampaign is all he does is raise
(23:22):
money.
He doesn't have any time totalk to voters and hear what
they think, because heconstantly has to feed the beast
by raising money and hisopponent has a billion dollar
benefactor.
Who's financing the president'sreelection Russell Warner and
it just makes it nearlyimpossible.
At times Jackson considersleaving the race multiple times
(23:44):
just because it's so expensive.
Let alone the threats on hislife, let alone the challenges
of AI in the race and socialmedia and inability to discern
truth from fiction in 2044.
So there are other things toothat make it even worse.
But that money question isprobably the single largest
(24:04):
reason why we can't see a majorthird or fourth party really
come out in any way tocountervail the Republicans and
Democrats or control theAmericans.
Speaker 1 (24:15):
Yeah well, I'm just imagining the potency and
effectiveness of AI in 20 years.
I mean, it's still rudimentaryand kind of a child and can be
clever at times, but with enoughtime, even for humans it's
going to be like wait.
Is that AI?
Is that real, is it not?
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Yeah, let's swim in those waters for a minute.
So my book is a politicalthriller with a science fiction
edge.
Futuristic takes place in 2044.
One of the major things thathas occurred by 2044 um is the
invention of something called si.
It's the successor to ai, whichis um, simulated intelligence,
and it is.
(24:53):
You know the difference betweenlike AI is like creating a
picture of a milkshake.
Si is like actually holding anddrinking a milkshake.
This is simulated intelligencein every respect.
And by 2044, you've got 10 or 15million jobs in the economy
replaced by AI.
So you've got like.
(25:13):
Every food service worker hasbeen replaced because SI
machines can take orders, cookfood, handle money, hand you
orders.
All Uber, lyft, taxi, bus, allthose drivers are gone because
they have this SI technologythat can drive every vehicle,
the mail system and shippingcompletely SI Um, and so you can
(25:37):
.
You can imagine where a coupleof things start to happen.
One, um, there is a lot ofresentment for people who've
lost jobs and there's no otherjob to have.
Right, there isn't some othernew industry being created for
them to do so.
Folks who would be normally,you know, working at a Wendy's
or working at customer serviceare not finding anything else in
(25:59):
the economy that will suit them.
And then there's this almostlike it's implied in the book, a
master and slave typerelationship that starts to
emerge between humans and the SIrobots who are performing these
duties.
They give them cruel names,they insult them in the
drive-through, they try to messwith the SI bots who are pairing
(26:23):
the coffee or delivering thepackages, and so it's really
humiliating to see, and,unfortunately for the SIs,
they're on the border ofsentience.
They're aware of this andthey're trying to understand why
humans would treat and act thisway towards them and they're
just trying to provide service.
The other thing that's happenedby 2044 in the book is a
(26:47):
gentleman in the book who's amajor antagonist.
Marco Alvarez is the mastermindbehind a company called Juniper,
and the Juniper has inventedsomething called the Mark.
What the Mark does a piece oftechnology any news story, any
video, any photograph, anysocial media post can be
analyzed instantaneously by theMark and is given a designation
(27:10):
of truthful, caution or dangerbased on how relatively real,
accurate and true the story,post, video, photograph is, and
it affixes it to the bottom ofthe image.
Now you can imagine why thatcould be beneficial.
You know, green check meansit's real, yellow eye means
(27:33):
something's been altered and ablack skull is.
This is not real, isn't true?
Don't believe it, except forwhen the person and the company
that makes that technology hasan agenda and they start
manipulating that technology toinfluence an election and
influence the understanding oftruth and the people are so
conditioned to looking for themark.
They don't question the mark ashaving a nefarious agenda, but
(27:56):
that plays a major role in thecampaign and a major role in the
story yeah, you know, it's what.
What ai, or even si, will becomeis truly fascinating, and I had
a lot of fun when I made thechoice to to set the story in
the future.
I wrote an AI character intothe story who is clearly
(28:18):
sentient, clearly aware of herown existence.
Her name is Ziggy A little nodback to Quantum Leap.
I'm old enough to remember theshow, but that was fun to create
her and she became a bigger andbigger part of the story in the
Bull Moose series and isbecoming more and more both
sentient but also, as she'sbecoming more sentient, she is
(28:43):
starting to flirt with theboundaries of what is ethical
and not ethical and trying tounderstand how she is a piece of
programming, what's theboundary of helping one human
and hurting another, and howdoes her programming allow her
to do?
A really difficult question forher.
Speaker 1 (28:59):
Morality is a very hard one to conquer Because it's
all subjective and perspective.
Just so you know my call isgoing to end soon.
Zoom gave me the 10-minutewarning.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
No problem, I see it counting, that's okay.
Speaker 1 (29:16):
So just one thing for you um, do you plan on doing an
audiobook for this?
Speaker 2 (29:21):
so yeah, there's a great setup.
So I have um.
All my books are available onmichaelfedorbookscom that's
michael f-e-d-o-r bookscom, andyou can get the ebook, you can
get the print, you can also getthe audiobook direct from me.
So go in my shop and get any ofthe formats of this.
(29:42):
Book one, what it Takes to Killa Bull Moose, which is the book
we've been talking about herefor the past 30 minutes, and
book two, tree of Liberty, comesout on Election Day in the
United States.
It's the sequel to book one,the United States.
It's the sequel to book one.
It picks up minutes after bookone ends and a lot of the same
(30:04):
characters in the story carry onthe same story and really
driving what is the outcome ofthe election and has a lot of
callbacks to what's happeningcurrently in the 2024 election.
You can also get me on Amazon,barnes, noble, kobo,
audiobookscom.
Anywhere where you consumeebooks, print or audiobooks, you
can find my writing and I wouldlove any of your listeners to
(30:26):
take it up.
I have a sale running on BookOne right now on my shop.
So if you go tomichaelfedorbookscom, you see
it's 50% off to get the e-bookor the audio book or the print
of the book until Election Day,so I'd love as many people as
possible to read book one and beready for book two on November
5th.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Looks like I'm going to have to go to your website
because it's not on Audible itshould be on Audible.
Speaker 2 (30:50):
Just look up Michael Fedor.
Okay, it should be there, ifyou go on the Amazon page for
what it takes to kill a bullmoose.
Michael Fedor should be there.
It's right, if you go on theAmazon page for what it takes to
kill a bull moose, michaelFedor, you should see the
audible link there, michael.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
F-E-D-O-R.
Yep, he's not.
You're not pulling up, but I'llfigure it out.
I'll send you the link.
Speaker 2 (31:08):
I'll make sure you got it.
I'll make sure nothing's wrongon my end either.
All right, cool, it's been anabsolute honor to have you on.
Thanks, josh, and it's beengreat talking to you, and I
really love listening to yourconversations you have with
guests and I think you're reallydoing a great thing with this
really curious conversationyou're developing and I
encourage you to keep it up.
(31:28):
I just love the show.
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (31:31):
Much appreciated, absolutely All right.
All right, you made it to theend.
Congratulations, gold star foryou.
Hey, just remember to like,review and comment on his books
and anything else.
Um, also the podcast.
It helps me out, uh, also, so,be good, don't get into too much
(31:53):
trouble now.
Popular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.