I asked my sister Frank, "What does it mean to be 'woke'?"  I furthered probed and asked "If you're woke you support blank."  She hesitated.  Did she not want to reveal her political leanings or did she simply not know?  When I hear of someone being described as woke, I usually think of people supporting progressive social issues.  Issues like gay/trans rights, heath care, income inequality, and who could forget gun violence/control etc.  

In my opinion (which can be wrong because opinions cannot be proven to be true or false), if you are "woke" it means you advocate for the civil/human rights of individuals whom identify as gay or trans.  You want health care to be available and affordable to all and in some cases, for the state to provide it's citizens with some health care services free of charge (ie paid for by said citizens taxes).  You support a minimum wage or better yet, a living wage so even the lowest paying jobs can provide the most basic necessities (food, shelter, healthcare, education, etc) to support themselves or possibly a family.  You support increased regulations for gun ownership.  Even competency tests or mental health checks to those who purchase firearms.  Maybe even safety courses (are those mandatory after buying a weapon)?

What if you are Red-Pilled?  Would you support gay marriage if you were?  How about health care?  Would you vote Democrat, Republican or Neither?  Rather than your taxes paying for statewide health care for all citizens, would you prefer insurance companies/heath care providers compete against each other and offer the best coverage for the lowest price.  Thus, avoiding government bureaucracy and allowing the free market to decide.  Competition breeds excellence.  Same goes for employees and their wages.  If the pay is too low no one is forcing anyone to do the job.  If no one shows up to work, the employer can always increase their wages, thus attracting more employees.  Nothing is worse than an employer losing the labor of their employee to a firm who pays more for the same job.  The free market decides.  People won't take jobs if the pay is not enough for them.  Lastly, you believe that guns protect people.  If there are more people with guns, then there are more people to protect each other from criminals.  

I keep referring back to my high school history class where we learned about the political spectrum.  Turns out it does exist.  Probably something my teacher learned while he was in college or high school.  This is known as the Left-right political spectrum.  Democrats were on the left.  Republicans on the right.  Little did I know this was only one way to organize political ideologies on a geometric axis.  Hans Eysenck used this model to compare the ideologies of Communists to Nazis.  I tell my sister that calling someone liberal or conservative is not accurately describing their political ideology.  Only part of it.  While they might be conservative about social issues, they might also be support government intervention into big business or pollution regulations.  You don't know the whole story, is what I'm getting at.  

Give us a listen hopefully learn something new.  

My textbook source from college for this episode. 

Political Science 12th Ed. by Roskin, Cord, Medeiros and Jones.  ISBN 0-205-07594-0

On this episode of The History of What's Happening Right Now, my friend/coworker Satnaam swings by to chat about the war in Ukraine.  As it would happen, when I went to community college, one of the courses I took was The History and Culture of Russia.  I had long been a fan of the Russian people thanks to their portrayals in popular western media.  While often the villains in films and video games because...you know...Communism, I was still fascinated with their  culture.  When I studied them in college, I learned to love their history even more.  Instead of cheering on Rocky Balboa, I was cheering on Ivan Drago, the true underdog.  Now, I was rooting for SPECTRE and the Soviets in all the James Bond movies I had seen and Command & Conquer video games I had played.  I was rooting for Vasili Zaitzev as he continued to defend the motherland from fascist invasion by the Germans.  

Nowadays, when I watch these films and play these games, I realize I was not meant to enjoy playing as the Soviet faction. Watching the film "Enemy At the Gates" now, I realize it's a soft propaganda movie showing not only the horrors of World War II but, the incompetence of Soviet leadership and how it was engaging the Wehrmacht in combat.  

We see Order 227 in full effect as Soviet Commissars pass out rifles to every other conscript and an extra magazine to every other.  They are then ordered to charge straight into a line of entrenched Germans while the Commissars setup machine guns behind them to prevent to retreating soldier from "stepping back" toward the Soviet line.  

Similarly, the video game Company of Heroes 2, puts you in command of the Red Army on the Eastern Front.  Developed by the Canadian studio Relic Entertainment, Mission 2 "Scorched Earth" has you hold off German invasion by using combat engineers equipped with flamethrowers to burn down houses and fields.  One you set a house ablaze, you see and hear civilians scream, as they run from a burning building.  Needless to say, the game was review bombed by Russian players who claim such atrocities never took place.  Even though you, the player, are in command of the Red Army, you receive said orders to burn down the houses and surrounding fields to slow the German advance.  You cannot beat the level without doing so.  I'm sure some are aware of the parallel between Napoleon and his invasion of Russia.  To slow his advance, Russians burned as the French advanced Eastward.  Culminating in the city of Moscow being razed.  

What will the history books say about Putin?  Only time will time.  My heart goes out to the Ukrainians.  The history of the Russians and Ukrainians is long and painful.  Their future does not have to be!

P.S.  Satnaam didn't catch it at the time but, I referred to the drug lord Pablo Picasso instead of Pablo Escobar.  

Further reading:  Russia and The Russians: A History.  By Geoffrey Hosking ISBN:  0-674-01114-7

After episode 1, my sister text me and told me episode 2 should be about "Biological Warfare."

Not exactly a topic bubbling at the top of my brain but, I agreed and we recorded a few days later.

How do you define biological warfare?  My definition is, "The intentional, malicious use of bacteria, viruses, fungi, poisons, or other toxins derived from nature to be used against against enemy combatants."  During the Cold War I think the term "Germ Warfare" was more commonly used.  Regardless, the example everyone should know is, when European colonists gave smallpox riddled blankets to the natives.  

We dive a little deeper as my sister asks me to provide 3-5 examples throughout history.  Give a listen and hopefully learn something.    

Resources

When I was in college, my professor of Political Science said it was a common misconception the U.S. had three branches of government.  According to him, there are not three but, four. The fourth being the mass media.  He cited the infamous "Tank Photo" of then presidential candidate Mike Dukakis.  The photo was arranged by Dukakis and his team to boost public opinion and that if elected, he would be a strong military leader.  The strategy backfired and the Bush campaign used the photo of Dukakis to criticize the attempt to sway public opinion.  The rest is history. 

Back then, one could argue there were only three types of mass media.  Television, print, and radio.  Yes there were movies, music, art etc.  However, I am focusing on these three since each represented a technological leap in political communication.  The printing press was invented in the West in the fifteenth century.  The radio was invented just before the turn of the nineteenth century.  Television shortly after World War I.  Each technology would have influence over public opinion.  Politicians (among others) [with proper understanding] could then utilize this technology to for whichever need they saw fit.  

Now we have social media.  

In this episode.  I talk to my dumb sister about how I find the former president's use of the social media fascinating.  Before the advent of facebook, twitter, snapchat etc.  Many people relied on the traditional media (the big three, print, tv, radio) to stay informed.  Now, with social media, anyone can be journalist. A simple photograph taken on a cell phone can be published online to any/all social media platforms and shared hundreds of millions of times over before your local news outlet's nightly broadcast.  Said photograph is a primary source.  

The balance of information has shifted.  

The president is now in your pocket.  Your wife's purse.  Your daughters tablet.  Anytime he tweets, you can be notified of exactly what is being said.  Thus bypassing the filters of traditional media.  

Based on my professor's example, the mass media, specifically television, had a huge negative impact on the Dukakis campaign.  It's influence swayed the election results in favor of Bush Sr.

Politicians used to buy ad space and air time wherever they needed to in order to sway public opinion.  They still do but, a twitter account is free.  So is a Facebook (Meta?) account.  You still have to buy a news paper or walk past a newsstand to see the headline.  You still have to turn on the TV at the exact time of the broadcast to hear the days top stories.  Same for the radio.  Social media is always there.  

Rather than pay millions for political ads, the former president circumvented control of the traditional media and rewrote the narrative with the use of twitter.  Direct access to the public without traditional media spin on the message.  While Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton had twitter accounts, I don't think their teams were able to successfully utilize them as well as the former president did.  

What will be the next form of mass media the next president utilizes to sway public opinion?  

Time will tell.  

Propaganda

Gleichschaltung

The Sedition Act

Edward R. Murrow

Bill of Rights