Plausibly Live! - The Official Podcast Of The Dave Bowman Show

The SHOW NOTES

The SHOW NOTES

The SHOW NOTES

The SHOW NOTES

The SHOW NOTES

The Show Notes

The SHOW NOTES

The Show Notes

The two candidates have been selected. In keeping with the traditions of the day, their followers and friends hit the campaign trail on their behalf. Both sides have their platforms and both sides engage in the typical political mudslinging that we all know and love. But there is an added undercurrent. The Bourbon Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they have zero commitment to protecting the rights of all Americans, just the white ones that will vote for them. As for the others, well… But things aren’t going to go smoothly and those three recalcitrant unreconstructed States throw a monkey into the wrench. Now nobody is clear on who won, because Democrat Samuel Tilden has 51% of the popular vote, but that is not how we elect a President. Republicans control the three States executives and Legislatures, and they aren’t about to allow the intimidation and suppression of voters that has been rampant to allow Tilden to win. The Bourbon Democrats are screaming bloody murder and in that vein, the make i

A] new consensus has emerged in the press… that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. – Bari Weiss Remember when scientific truth wasn’t just ignored or laughed at, but instead, we threw a bunch of leading scientists and philosophers and thinkers into prisons? Or just burned them at the stake for their heretical ideas. The basic reason wasn’t that the science or the thinking or the ideas themselves was “bad,” it was that it “explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture.” History doesn’t really repeat itself per se, but it does rhyme. How is what is happening in the nation today any different from the inquisitions into Galileo and others? Answer: It’s not.

I saw Greyhound, the new Tom Hanks World War II story of the Battle of the Atlantic, yesterday. I would rate it as a 10. Without giving too much away, it is a fictionalized story � an amalgamation, as it were, of the experiences repeated thousands of times over from 1939 to 1945. it is a story, but it is based in reality and that story is one that is chilling, inspiring, scary, and thrilling. But it is a story of a simpler time. When the enemy was obvious when good and evil didn�t need to be redefined and micromanaged to fit some political agenda. There was no gray area. Even today, there is good, and there is evil. There are times when being un-friended or hated no longer matters. It has to be pointed out that calling something good, doesn�t make it so. Particularly when it has always been evil.

By all indications, the Navy lost the USS Bonhomie Richard yesterday in a fire for which � as yet � it has not determined the cause. The name is one of the proudest in the history of the Navy. Her (probable) loss is a blow to the prestige of the Navy, but not the disaster it could have been. There were no deaths, a blessing that is hard to explain. And the America Class Amphibious ships are coming online� SHOW NOTES: Aqueous Film Forming Foam Trial by Fire � The USS Forrestal Fire (1967)

There is a commonly believed idea that the Political Parties of today at some point in the past "switched" with each other, kind of like the Chicago Blitz and Arizona Wranglers exchanged everything, including their uniforms, back in 1983. So now, we are told, "everybody knows," that the Democrats of today are the Republicans of the 2nd half of the 19th Century; and that the Republicans of today are the Democrats of the 2nd half of the 19th Century. In the past months, I have found that there are a great number of people who accept this claim of a complete and total switch as a historical fact. But so far, only one has given me any explanation of how - and when - this exchange happened. A fellow writer explained to me that it was as a result of the Depression in the 1930s and that Black Americans saw Franklin D. Roosevelt as more "caring and compassionate" in the face of economic hardship than were the Republicans. Consequently, African-Americans abandoned the GOP in droves to support FDR's New Deal. It was at

There are those  who will tell you that "We have never been more divided." As I have long said,  they know nothing of American History. In the summer of  1876, a mere six years since the 15th Amendment had been ratified, a political movement known as the Bourbon Democrats set its sights on repeating their success the previous year in Mississippi. This time their target was South Carolina. In keeping with their ideology, there were absolutely no limits on the lengths to which they would go to restore their power in the  State. Their candidate for Governor was one  Wade Hampton III, the former Confederate General. Among the first places that an opportunity presented itself to show that they would stop at nothing to terrorize Freedmen took place from July 4-9, 1876, on the banks of the Savannah  River. Eight men would lose their lives to political terrorism. With a single exception, they would be all but erased from history. Even when finally officially acknowledged in 2006, their m

Just a throwback to the day when  Dave & John along with Mazzy found out about the deadly Australian spiders invaded India and then argued about Sherlock Holmes quotes. Oh... also Richard  Dawson and Pedro Bourbon passed away. Since neither John nor Mazzy have actually filled out their ballots yet, a debate over the famed Prop-29 ensues...

A couple of weeks ago, the administration issued its long-expected Executive Order which purports to "protect free speech" on social media. Now, for many of us, the idea of forcing a private business to allow a takeover by political speech which it either does not support or doesn't like, to be something of an anathema. Oddly enough,  buried deep in the EO is a citation to a Supreme Court case that Conservatives have long hated because it seems to eviscerate private property rights and allow the taking of private property as banned by the 5th Amendment. So why is a  President that Conservatives and say they like, pushing a ruling that they hate in order to get what he wants, which is to be allowed to Tweet without any limits or restraints on a platform owned by a private business?

A recent Supreme  Court decision (Bostock)  has many on the Political right proclaiming the death of the conservative movement. Their reasoning is rooted in a combination of dismay and what has to be some COVID inflicted loss of perspective, but in either case, there is a  great deal of anger and gnashing of teeth at Justice Neil Gorsuch, who not that long ago was the darling of the Conservative Right. This ruling by the  Supreme Court has resulted in a number of Facebook posts, one of which caught my eye because it came from a friend who I regard as wise, educated, and having a  good understanding of how things work. which brings me back to the same COVID  inflicted loss of perspective, and reminded me that it might be time to talk about Article V and how Congress, at least used to, regularly "overrules" the  Supreme Court.

Dave is once again, unemployed.  So what does that mean for the show? At least he now reads eMails. And one from this week has him worried about the lack of critical thinking about anything,  let alone the so-called Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone... Constitution Thursday on Anchor

One of the life lessons that pretty much everybody learns, sooner or later, is that there is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. In the words of the illustrious Dr. Malcolm, �You were so busy thinking about whether you could that you didn�t stop to think about whether or not you should.� In the time of COVID, the Constitution has become a focal point for debates and argument which have now spilled over into other areas of civil action and protest. But the question remains about whether or not things that are permissible are in fact, beneficial? The President, tweeting fiercely, announces that he wants something done. In this case, he is threatening to deploy the military to stop the riots. Can he do that? Well� the answer is yes, he can. Should he do that? That is an answer that is not quite as clear, is it?

Barely a week has passed since religious conservatives on the Atlantic Coast were celebrating their victory in the North Carolina District Court, overturning the Governors Executive Order�s ban on religious gatherings, calling it a violating of the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. Within hours of that ruling, the 9th Circuit Court met to decide whether a San Diego District Judges denial of an almost identical request for a TRO in California should be reconsidered. By a two to one margin, the panel upheld the District Judges denial for a TRO and let stand Governor Newsome�s order that banned gatherings for religious services by large numbers that violate social distancing rules. The Church has appealed to the Supreme Court, which sets up an interesting set of potential circumstances. To understand the potential arguments, we have to go back in time, first to 1949, when a Catholic Priest gave a speech to some eight hundred members of the Christians Veterans of America. Another sixteen-hundred people w