Finding Common Battle Grounds

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Ryan and Tom tackle two topics. First, thanks to legislation under consideration in the Florida House and Senate, we discuss rolling back regulations protecting children (really 16 and 17-year-olds) when it comes to the number of hours they can work while school is in session and the tops of jobs they can do. We agree that these laws are problematic and will likely have detrimental effects on young people. We then turn to an incident that happened at Ryan's university: A faculty member in the College of Business who moonlights as a Christian apologist used her invitation to give the commencement speech at the university to proselytize her specific brand of Christianity. We, again, agreed that, while the talk was inappropriate for the context, we both argue that she should have the right to say what she wants to say, even if it is the promotion of Christianity to a religiously diverse and nonreligious audience.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Tom and Ryan tackle two topics. First, we discuss the fact that some individuals and groups have effectively been showing their support for the people of Gaza by calling for violence and even genocide against Israel. Tom pointed out that this seems to be a double standard on college campuses as they would not allow similar calls for violence against Black individuals. Ryan, while condemning the calls for violence, raised the question of whether this isn't an instance of free speech - though perhaps run amuck or gone too far. They ultimately agree that people should be allowed to say pretty much anything within the bounds of what the law has said, but it has to go both ways. The second topic was raised in the context of the severe crackdown on gangs and criminals in El Salvador under the new-ish President, Nayib Bukele. Under his presidency, he has arrested tens of thousands and they are treating the inmates very harshly. As a result, homicides have fallen dramatically, but the people of El Salvador are now effectively living in a police state and have lost lots of freedoms. This opened up a discussion between freedom and security, leading to a discussion of how it is a continuum - you can have more of one, but often at the cost of the other.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Ryan and Tommy tackle two topics: trigger warnings and the military industrial complex. On the first topic, a review article examining the efficacy of trigger warnings was just published illustrating that they often have the opposite of the intended effect, increasing people's anxiety and making it more likely people will watch the content. The general recommendation is that they shouldn't be used. We discuss our takes on this (shocker - we agree). We then turn to some recent news clips about the war in Ukraine and the war between Israel and Hamas that illustrate that an underlying calculation in war efforts in the US is the ability of US companies to profit from the war effort. We discuss this and again find substantial agreement.

It's been a few weeks, but we're back. We talk about some of what we've been up to over the last month, then jump into two news items. First up is an opinion piece by NYTimes contributor David Brooks that suggests professionals (or the professional class) are condescending and dismissive of the working class, which has led them to feel disenfranchised and choose as their representative Donald Trump, who they think sticks it to the professional class (or elites). We discuss this op-ed, tackle the issue of elites again, and then wonder why these individuals chose a billionaire, elite-educated, New Yorker as their champion. The second story we discuss is the renewal of the Florida State Guard by Ron DeSantis, which has been a disaster. The training was a mess, people complained, and the mission is unclear. Tom accurately describes this as both (a) a nothing burger and (b) a disturbing sign that DeSantis wants his own personal guard. We then wrap up with a brief discussion of the killing of a man in Provo by the FBI who had made repeated death threats against Biden and other politicians.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we tackled three topics. We started with the news that a social media influencer worked with a company to create a chatbot for her followers that, when prompted, turned into a sex chat bot. We then discussed the implications of sex chat bots and eventually sex robots for humans, with a little disagreement about the negative outcomes for humanity. We then turned to a discussion of Trump's latest indictment for the mishandling of classified documents. Again, we generally agreed but Tom is confident that the indictment isn't worth the hassle and is worried about the optics - that a sitting President's Justice Department is prosecuting his chief rival in the upcoming election. Ryan recognized the optics but insisted that the law is the law. Finally, we turned briefly to a discussion of the Reddit Blackout in which a number of subreddits went dark to protest monetization and sanitization changes at Reddit, potentially in preparation for an IPO. While we both agreed with the value of free speech, Ryan ultimately argued that free speech on "free" platforms is now largely regulated by what advertisers are willing to allow.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we (Ryan and Tom) tackled three topics. We started with a discussion of Trump's recent civil lawsuit by E. Jean Carroll, which ended with a verdict against him suggesting the jury was convinced that Trump sexually assaulted (i.e., raped) Ms. Carroll. Ryan was wondering how it is that people can support a rapist as President of the US, and Tom responded that it was less about Trump and more about the American populace - they want a win and will take it at any cost, regardless of the (im)morality of their candidate. We then turned to a discussion of the recent congressional hearing that featured three FBI agents who had lost their security clearance and then claimed whistleblower status and argued that the FBI was attacking conservatives. Tom is concerned about the FBI restricting free speech and engaging as the thought police. Ryan noted that one of these individuals was actually at the January 6th riot (not acting as a representative of the FBI but among the protestors/rioters) and the other two continue to espouse conspiracy theories about the January 6th riot that do not align with all of the evidence. We did agree that: (a) military, law enforcement, and FBI members on the ground are likely to lean to the right, and (b) internal elements of the US government are a bigger threat to democracy than are protests and militias. Finally, we turned to the debt ceiling issue that is roiling America at the moment. Tom noted that the government has to pay its debts - it is legally required to do so. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we effectively would force a balanced budget and would have to cut spending in other areas. Both Tom and Ryan agreed that the US government needs to stop spending more than it brings in and that our national debt is going to cause major problems moving forward.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we started with two topics but then led us off on two tangents. First, we discussed the Fox News settlement with Dominion Voting machines and Fox News's firing of Tucker Carlson. Tom wasn't as familiar with all of the revelations that resulted from the discovery part of the lawsuit that illustrated that the Fox News administration, personalities, and staff knew that they were lying about Dominion but did it anyway in order to maintain high ratings. Even so, Tom thinks that the dishonesty of Fox News is the same with all news outlets and that none of them can be fully trusted whereas Ryan is convinced that Fox News doesn't care about truth but only about profits. Ryan's position on the media is that many mainstream news outlets can generally be trusted to report the news and most are close to neutral. This leads pretty far down the rabbit hole as they end up discussing where and how they get their news. We then turn to the recent confidential document leak that led to the arrest of Jack Teixeira, an Air National Guard airman, who leaked hundreds of classified documents via a Discord server. We mostly sidestep the issue of whether such information should be made available (both of us think we have been slightly misled about the state of the war in Ukraine) and instead focus on what the US should be doing in Ukraine and whether we should be as involved as we are in fighting this proxy war with Russia. Ryan is actually more hawkish here, arguing that the US really does need to intervene in defense wars defending democracies while Tom is more circumspect and thinks that weaponizing the dollar may end up hurting the US in the end and replacing the dollar as the world's reserve currency.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Tom and Ryan tackle two topics. First is the impending arraignment of Donald Trump in New York City. We both agree that Trump likely broke the law. But we also agree that this kind of media attention really only helps Trump as he works to destroy trust in American institutions in the US, like the media and the legal system. We also agree that Trump is unlikely to serve time in prison because different rules apply to wealthy individuals. We then turn to the recently passed legislation in Utah - the Social Media Regulation Act - that prohibits social media accounts for anyone under 18 without parental permission, requires social media companies to put in curfews, make their products less addictive, and allows parents complete access to their children's social media. We both agree that social media is harmful, particularly for young people, and aren't opposed to regulation. We also both agree that it would be better for parents to manage this than to have the government manage it, but it is probably an important restraint on social media companies. We finally, agree that one aspect of the law - complete access to the social media of their children - is likely to have some very negative consequences for some kids as they will have no expectation of privacy, which can easily be abused.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Tom and Ryan tackle four topics. First up is a case of alleged blasphemy in a high school in England where four students were accused of desecrating a copy of the Quran. We both agree that blasphemy laws are outdated and shouldn't exist. We then turn to a discussion of ESG and the recent federal legislation on this. ESG is Environment, Social, and Corporate Governance and became an issue when Republicans passed legislation prohibiting Wall Street fund managers from considering ESG factors when making investment decisions. Both of us agree this is partisan pandering with no real benefit for anyone. We then turned to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. This led us to a discussion of the power of the Fed and what is effectively a bailout of the bank and the depositors. Tom argued that this is a bad precedent and Ryan suggested he would have been fine with the depositors not getting all of their money back. Finally, we discussed recent and current actions by the Florida legislature and governor to regulate higher education in the state by cracking down on DEI and transgender initiatives at colleges and universities and their attempts to restrict faculty members' abilities to teach about critical theory. Tom agreed with Ryan that this is a massive over-reach by the legislature, it violates free speech and academic freedom, and it reflects the fact that conservatives realize they cannot win in an open market of ideas, so they are trying to restrict what people can think and what faculty can teach. We did end on a point of disagreement when we considered a related but tangential topic about restricting what teachers in primary and secondary education can say or teach to kids, particularly as relates to sexuality.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Ryan and Tom chat about several topics. First, we examine the initiative to raise the age at which young people can marry to 18 and a push against this by Republicans in the state of Wyoming. We then turn to the 2024 Presidential election and Joe Biden's continued insinuation that he plans to run for office. We consider whether Biden's approach is helping to keep a media frenzy at bay. Finally, we discuss various developments in migration policy - the transportation of migrants from one state to another and of migrants inside the US to the Canadian border, as well as Biden's move toward a stricter immigration policy at the southern border.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we tackle two topics. First up is "How is it acceptable for a pathological liar like Republican George Santos to retain his House seat?" Both Tom and Nate agree that politicians aren't known for their honesty. George Santos differs in degree, not in kind, from other politicians. They also agree that this boils down to entrenched political power; Republicans cannot afford to remove him from office as he is key to helping them hold their slim majority. The second topic is, "How is it problematic for the Biden administration to agree to send modern tanks to Ukraine?" Nate and Tom agree that the military-industrial complex in the US, in some ways, drives our foreign policy. The US is basically the world's police force and that is tied to our military spending and military superiority. Both agree that isn't a great look for the US and would like to see the US less involved in wars.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Tom and Nate tackle capitalism. The first question they address is: "How is capitalism the solution?" Tom argues that capitalism has ushered in an era of prosperity for many people and that the invisible hand of the market is a highly efficient and fair system for setting prices. Nate argues that capitalism has helped develop the means of production, which is a necessary step toward a future where people do not have to work as hard. There is general agreement between Nate and Tom on these points. The second question is: "How is capitalism the problem?" Nate argues that capitalism has resulted in massive inequality and, while worker productivity has improved, the result of that productivity increase has not been higher wages for everyone but for the owners of the means of production - the capitalists. Tom argues that capitalism does lead to exploitation and inequality, but that it is the worst economic system aside from all the others of which we are aware. Again, there is general agreement on these points and both agree that capitalism has problems and benefits but neither is precisely sure how to move forward to address the problems.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Nate and Tom tackle two topics: (1) Why was the Biden Administration wrong to bust the railroad workers union? (2) How are Republicans responsible for the smaller-than-expected mid-term red wave? On the first topic, Nate argues that the Biden Administration revealed that their allegiance really lies with corporate profits rather than the unions. This was particularly galling since Democrats tend to side with unions - in principle - and unions often tend to vote for Democrats as a result. Tom argued that unions have now become part of the economic marketplace and strikes are the strongest weapon workers have to push for better pay and conditions. By removing that option, Tom argued that the Biden Administration hurt workers. While taking different paths to get there, both Nate and Tom argued that the Biden Administration hurt workers with the forced agreement. On the second topic, both Nate and Tom agreed that polling appears to be problematic when it comes to predicting election outcomes, but it's not clear why. It also isn't exactly clear who or what is to blame for the much smaller red wave than was expected - Trump, the end of Roe v Wade, or something else. What they did agree on is that, while voters do tend to side with their party, voters may be slightly more sophisticated in their voting practices than we typically think.

In this new episode and format of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we introduce a new member of the podcast team, Nate Triplett, and mix up the structure and format a bit. Ryan moves to the moderator role, Tom dons the conservative hat, and Nate steps in as our resident progressive. Also, instead of coming prepared with questions to try to get the other person to agree, both the conservative and progressive critique two topics to see if we can find common battlegrounds. First, we discuss Ron DeSantis's efforts to arrest former felons in Florida who were approved to vote by the State of Florida and voted, only to find out they were not supposed to be able to vote and were arrested. What are the consequences of arresting such individuals for democracy? Both agree that such actions are intended to and will have a chilling effect on people voting. Second, we explore whether the mainstream media is being too hard on Elon Musk as the new owner of Twitter. Both participants agree that the mainstream media is leveling rather meaningless criticisms of Musk, but slightly disagree as well. Tom argues that the mainstream media are showing their liberal biases in attacking Musk, who is increasingly libertarian and conservative in his views. Nate argues that their criticisms of Musk are missing the bigger issue - that rich people are controlling media outlets, leading to monopolies and censorship of dissenting views. Some great bonus content as well.

In this final episode of Season 2 of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we have a big announcement: Josh is stepping away from the podcast for a while. We discuss what led to this. Josh doesn't feel like we've made much progress in finding common ground or understanding each other's perspectives. This came to a head in the last few episodes. Josh is also no longer enjoying making the podcast and wants to prioritize the relationship between Josh and Ryan over the podcast. We discuss what this means for the bigger political conversation in the US.

Also, a bidet giveaway!

NOTE: This isn't the end of Finding Common Battle Grounds… Yet. Tom and Ryan are considering their options for continuing the podcast. If you're interested in joining as a participant in the podcast, please reach out.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we think about the common survey finding that people don't think the US is headed in the right direction (as of August 2022, about 74% of Americans think it is headed in the wrong direction). We do find a fair amount of agreement. Both agree that it would be nice if the country tried to reduce poverty and hunger, if we reduced pollution, and if people were less dogmatic and more open to seeing other people's perspectives. We also agree that people continue to be worried about inflation. We also agree that there are people who feel marginalized, though precisely why they feel that way leads us down a path of disagreement. We conclude that we don't really have a good solution for getting people to feel like the country is moving in the right way, as, historically, that has required a gangbusters stock market and a common enemy.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, all three of us wrestle with how to discuss race and racism. We agree that discussions about race are fraught because people equate accusations of racism with evaluations of the morality and self-worth of the individual, particularly if someone is called a racist rather than calling their idea, statement, or perspective racist. To that end, we agreed that discussions about race and racism have to focus on ideas and perspectives rather than on whether an individual is a racist. We also discuss the idea that calling an idea or perspective racist doesn't mean that perspective is at the extreme end of racism, leading to the notion that racist ideas fall along a continuum, from not at all racist to extremely racist. Ideas need to be evaluated on such a scale (e.g., a 10-point scale) in order for us to have reasonable conversations about race and racism. We also discuss the idea that claims of racism tend to elevate someone to a moral high ground, which is problematic in a lot of ways. We think we made headway on this issue and can move forward with discussions about race and racism, but we'll see whether that is the case.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss the claims that Amazon's new series, The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, is too woke. We return to our traditional format this time and each poses the other three questions, trying to find common ground. We agree from the outset that the "wokeness" claims center on gender (powerful female leads) and race (a racially diverse cast). We don't agree on Josh's question that "woke scolds" ruin everything. We also agree that Tolkien wrote race into his universe and that, as a product of the late 19th century and early 20th century, the racial hierarchy in his universe is a reflection of the time in which he lived. Josh then argues that the racially diverse cast raised issues of continuity for him with the Peter Jackson movies, though he frames the question as, "Is it ever okay to kill all the people who have a common skin color?" to be a bit more provocative (just a bit!). We don't find agreement on this point as Ryan argues that, once Amazon bought the rights to this, they did not have to stay true to Peter Jackson's vision. (We do all agree that the meme is funny.) We all agree that the producers and directors behind The Rings of Power intentionally cast people who are racially diverse for the show - though, of course, we don't know their actual intentions, but it seems pretty obvious. We then get bogged down into a discussion of whether there are Tolkien fans who like the show. Finally, Josh argues that the producers of The Rings of Power pushed so hard to be "woke" (i.e., to have empowered women and a racially diverse cast) that the rest of the story suffered. We don't agree on this point. Tom provides a summary statement that we do agree on: Amazon is conducting a test to see whether a racially diverse cast and strong female leads will be attractive enough to people that it will make them money. We'll get to see whether the experiment works based on how well The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power does. BONUS: After we wrap up the main content, we then get into a very long discussion about racism. Ryan argues that this episode is a great illustration of how he cannot challenge racial perspectives: He cannot call something Josh says "racist" as that is the equivalent of calling him a member of the KKK, but he also cannot imply (even if he isn't implying it) that something Josh says is racist as that also results in Josh inferring that Ryan thinks he's a racist. It's a lose-lose proposition for Ryan because any challenges to Josh's arguments are immediately interpreted by Josh as though he is a racist, and we all agree that "racist" is the 2020's equivalent of calling someone a Nazi or communist or pedophile. We don't resolve this issue and instead request insights from our listeners.

In S02E17 of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we tackle three questions. First up, we discuss whether Biden's plan to forgive $10k in student loan debt ($20k for Pell Grant recipients) makes sense. We agree that it doesn't solve the problem and is a political move to gain favor with specific voters. We then discuss the recent incident of racist behavior toward a black Duke volleyball player at BYU. There is a lot of disagreement here, including over whether it even happened. Finally, we discuss recent polling data suggesting close to 80% of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. We agree that this is mostly tied to inflation and the cost of gas/energy.

In Episode 16 of Season 2, we once again employed our grab bag approach as moderator Tom came prepared with four questions (and a bonus question at the end). The first question we discussed was whether the LDS Church should require all clergy to be mandatory reporters when it comes to sex abuse, meaning they would have to report people who confess to abusing others to the police. We agree on that one. We then discussed what it means that Liz Cheney lost her primary race in Wyoming, with varied thoughts on what this says about the Republican Party in the US. The next question was about Zoe Kravitz's recent attempt to claw back her statements about Will Smith's Oscars slap and the challenging climate that exists when it comes to cancel culture and censorship. Josh initially insists that it is primarily the left that is canceling people while Ryan provides demonstrable evidence that the right is currently censoring people where they have power. We ultimately agree that both sides are currently trying to silence their opposition, which is evidence of a scary time when freedom of speech is being threatened. We end the podcast with a discussion of fertility and whether people in the US should be having more children, recognizing that the argument that kids are good for the economy is terrible. Stay tuned for the bonus content, which Josh is convinced most people will find more interesting than the rest of the podcast.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we went with a grab bag approach where the moderator, Tom, posed a number of questions and Josh and Ryan addressed them in turn. First up was whether facial recognition software that is being used by some corporations to track shoplifters is okay. We all agree that is a bit complicated, but probably okay for private corporations, less so for governments. We then discussed Dutch farmers and their protests against the changes that their government is forcing on them to address climate change. We agree that the intent of the politicians is good but that the politicians have not thought this through well enough. In a tangent, Ryan calls Josh out for labeling everyone he dislikes an elitist and asks Josh to finally define that term. It takes until the end of the episode before Josh admits that he really just means politicians (i.e., people who think they know what is best for everyone else and try to get power to make them do that). Ergo, Ryan, with his PhD and Tesla, is not an elitist. Tom then asks us whether Putin is a mad genius who planned a long-term, protracted war in Ukraine all along. We generally agree that was not his plan, but Putin does appear to be changing tactics now. Finally, we discuss the difficulties facing San Francisco, Seattle, and some other cities that have seen increases in crime rates. We don't entirely agree on this point, with Josh suggesting that these cities will eventually turn into hell-holes like "Escape from New York" or "Mad Max" (okay; that's a bit of an exaggeration) while Ryan points out that they are already trying to address the problems. And - BONUS content!

We went with a rapid-fire, multi-topic approach this week. We started with whether people should still be wearing masks. We agreed that people should wear masks if they are sick, but wearing masks to avoid getting sick, unless done properly, isn't really effective. We then turned to a discussion of Ron DeSantis and whether he would win the Republican primary and the general election. Ryan doesn't think Trump will run; Josh isn't sure. If Trump runs, it will be competitive and we were mixed on who would win. If it is DeSantis versus Biden, we agreed DeSantis would probably win. But it depends on who the Democratic candidate is whether DeSantis will win or not. Tom then asked us if we thought China was going to surpass the US economically. Both Josh and Ryan agreed that is possible and probable, but were less concerned with whether that would be a major problem for the US. Finally, we discussed whether working from home was going to continue after the pandemic. Both Josh and Ryan agreed that there will be more people working from home and that the pandemic helped transition some people to working from home permanently.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss whether the US government should urge corporations to drill for more oil in light of currently very high gas prices. Josh and Ryan agree that pollution is bad! (That was a really tough point of agreement!) They also agreed that drilling for oil is not going to solve the immediate problem since developing oil fields and drilling platforms can take years or decades. They agree that, while green energy can still have some harmful environmental impacts, it is "greener" than fossil fuels and that the ultimate goal of any administration and all of humanity should be to move toward greener energy solutions. We also agree that oil companies are going to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders and that is unlikely to be voluntarily reducing oil prices or drilling for more oil. Finally, we agree that a lot of the agitation for immediately drilling for more oil is political as it is hurting politicians' (mostly Democrats) polling numbers.

In light of the recent decision by the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade (and Casey), we discuss the Dobbs decision and whether this indicates that the Supreme Court is made up of activist judges. Josh and Ryan agree that the Dobbs decision undid prior legal precedent legalizing abortion and that the Dobbs decision does not comment on whether abortion should be legal at the federal level but rather moves the legality of abortion to the states. Josh and Ryan also agreed that the legal justification for Roe was not particularly strong (arguing for abortion on privacy grounds). Josh argued that the Dobbs decision was less activist than Roe or Casey as it didn't stipulate how the law should be interpreted but instead punted the decision to state legislatures. Ryan didn't agree on that point. Begrudgingly, Josh had to agree that the Dobbs decision stipulated that there is no federal right to life for women once they become pregnant, but he thought that point was overly technical and would not be the effect of the decision because states would write legislation that protected women. Ultimately, we all agree that the Supreme Court is now a political body made up of activists.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss the great replacement conspiracy theory that was influential in a recent race-based mass shooting in Buffalo, New York. We agree that the racial and ethnic makeup of the US is changing and we agree that the changes that are happening are due to fundamental demographic forces - births, deaths, and migrations. We also agree that there is no secret cabal behind these changes, though Josh (and Tom) suggest that progressives may be more open to migration than are conservatives because migrants are more likely to vote Democratic than Republican. We also agree that the great replacement conspiracy theory is blatantly and unapologetically racist. We end up agreeing on most everything in this episode. At the end, we have a lengthy discussion about whether migration warrants concern and why. Plus, there is some bonus content!

In this short episode, we discuss whether Donald Trump will be elected to the presidency again in 2024. All agree that Trump now has a stranglehold on the Republican Party and that he is still very relevant to politics in the US. Ryan pushes Josh and Tom to examine whether Trump will win the Republican primary, assuming he runs. The other front-runner, Ron DeSantis, seems like the only possible candidate who has a chance against Trump at the present. None of us feel certain that Trump would beat DeSantis, but it is definitely possible given how sycophantic Trump's followers are. As far as Democratic opponents, we all agree that Biden should not run again, but we could not think of who a viable Democratic candidate would be. The obvious choice, Kamala Harris, does not seem to be all that popular at the moment. Unless the Democratic Party can find a charismatic candidate and economic indicators trend upward, we generally agreed that it seems as though the Republican candidate is likely to win in 2024.

In another short episode, we discuss a recent proposal by the FDA to ban menthol cigarettes. Menthol cigarettes are more addictive than regular cigarettes, and they are the most common type of cigarette smoked by Black Americans. Josh argues that banning drugs is rarely a successful approach and agrees with the concerns raised by many Black smokers that this will essentially criminalize behavior that is more common among Black individuals, resulting in the criminalization of Black individuals in the US. Ryan pushes Josh and Tom on whether it is the federal government's responsibility to restrict harmful substances. In general, we all agree that it is the responsibility of the FDA to regulate harmful substances, but we ultimately conclude that smoking rates are declining through existing measures and that this specific ban does not seem to make a lot of sense.

In this short podcast, we discuss briefly whether we think the federal government should ban ghost guns. Ghost guns are typically a reference to guns that were created using a nontraditional manufacturing process, like a 3D printer, that do not have a serial number and for which the government has no registration information. Josh and Ryan agree that this is probably a non-issue, though for somewhat different reasons. Josh argues that most 3D-printed guns are not strong enough to shoot more than one round and that these are typically just novelty items. Ryan argues that, once the designs for such guns are online, it's impossible to remove them; to think otherwise is to fail to understand the internet. Ultimately, we agree that, until ghost guns become a serious issue, this seems like a solution looking for a problem and is likely a waste of time on the part of the ATF and Biden administration.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we had originally intended to have another open discussion (our approach when one of us doesn't have enough time to research an issue). Tom had several questions lined up, but we ended up spending over an hour on the first question: Is Disney's opposition to the recently passed "Don't Say Gay" legislation in Florida going to have harmful consequences for Disney? Additionally, is Disney's embrace of progressive values for employees and in some of its media beneficial or detrimental for the company? Our discussion is wide-ranging, but the focus is on whether media with an overt agenda is okay. Josh argues that agenda-driven media is problematic, regardless of whether the agenda is conservative or progressive. Ryan argues that all media has an agenda and that it is primarily when we disagree with the agenda that we find it problematic. Everyone agrees that being preached at isn't preferred in media.

A little pressed for time this week, we opted for a different format. Moderator Tom came prepared with three questions. First up was a question about whether Twitter needs a competitor due to its growing level of censorship on the social media platform. Second was a question about whether Joe Biden's gaffes and evidence of his cognitive decline are cause for concern. Finally, we discuss Will Smith's slap of Chris Rock at the Academy Awards and whether it was immoral and inappropriate. Despite the different format, we actually agree on many points.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss whether it makes sense to have a race or gender quota for supreme court justices. In a weird twist, Josh adopts a strawman pseudo-progressive persona for the entire episode and argues that the only criteria we should use for selecting supreme court justices is whether they are racial minorities or women and that we should completely disregard any qualifications. Rather than find common ground, we spend the majority of the episode trying to determine what Josh's actual point is. We also watch a clip of the confirmation hearing for judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in which Senator Blackburn from Tennessee poses a gotcha question about defining gender to score points with anti-trans individuals. At least there is bonus content.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss whether the federal government, which began delaying payments for student loans early in the pandemic, should again delay payments for student loans which are scheduled to resume in May 2022. Josh and Ryan agree that, in hindsight, a lot of what the government did for COVID-19 was problematic, though whether delaying the repayment of student loans is complicated. They also agree that, in general, people should pay back loans. They also agree that not every college major or undergraduate or graduate degree has the same earning potential. Josh and Ryan also agree that the federal loan program (not the Pell Grant program) has not been successful in helping under-privileged individuals and instead is primarily helping the middle class. They also discuss federal and state governments' shift away from direct subsidies of higher education through tax dollars and toward an indirect subsidy through loans that ends up benefitting for-profit corporations in the process. They also agree that debtors are controlled by lenders (a biblical reference). Finally, they largely agree that a compromise moving forward might be to forgive some of the money people owe (probably not all the debt) but in return for stricter lending policies in the future that take into account students' majors, their future earning potential, and the school they attend.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss whether the US should send soldiers to Ukraine. We agree that what is happening in Ukraine is awful and that this is Putin's doing. Josh tried to put some of the responsibility for Russia invading Ukraine on the policies of left-leaning administrations in the US but did not get agreement from Ryan. We all agreed that the US should do as much as possible to support Ukraine in this invasion - from sending weapons and "advisors" to cyber warfare and severe sanctions - but the risk of nuclear weapons is too high to warrant sending in American troops. We also discussed the possibility of Putin using nuclear weapons. In the bonus portion of the podcast, we discuss Trump's compliments toward Putin.

In this episode, we discuss the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. We largely agree. Josh initially disagrees with Ryan's claim that it was an attack, instead preferring the term "riot" instead. However, Josh recognizes that there was a small minority that planned to attack the Capitol. Josh also agrees with the intent behind the attack and that it may have succeeded in making legislators fearful. Ryan agrees with Josh that progressives don't want to stop talking about this issue because it makes conservatives and the right look bad. There is some disagreement over what percentage of conservatives actually support the violence that took place - Josh says it's a very small percentage while Ryan thinks it's a larger percentage. They also agree that the Republican National Committee never should have called it "legitimate political discourse" but recognize that the RNC is doing everything it can to try to shove the attack under the rug because it was conservatives who attacked and they did so to try to overturn a democratic election. Finally, Josh and Ryan agree that it was a threat to democracy, but it failed. Long live the democratic republic of the USA!

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss whether Joe Rogan's podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience, should be censored because of COVID-19 misinformation. We actually struggled to find common ground in this episode, which surprised us. To begin with, Josh argued that the attempts to censor Joe Rogan were rooted more in what was perceived to be vaccine hesitancy rather than misinformation, but this required clarification. We did agree that we should listen to experts, though skepticism is warranted when listening to everyone, including experts. Josh suggested that the individuals who questioned whether Joe Rogan should be censored lacked credibility, but that was complicated. We ultimately concluded that the media made errors on this point, not those raising concerns. We didn't agree on whether minor efforts to censor Joe Rogan, like adding a flag or warning message to podcasts that contain misinformation that could be harmful, should take place. The big area of debate was in who gets to determine what qualifies as misinformation. We discuss this briefly in a short bonus section after the main podcast ends.

In this final episode of Season 1, we start off 2022 with our predictions for what we think will happen during the coming year. We generally agree that Republicans will gain ground in the Senate and probably the House. We also agree that pandemic fatigue will spread and an increasing number of people will return to pre-pandemic behaviors. We also agree that our current political situation is likely to lead to serious economic consequences in the long run but potentially in the short run with Tom predicting a looming economic crash. We also worry about the state of our democracy since there continues to be disagreement about what is true. There was also some discussion though not full agreement about President Biden either stepping down from office or being forcefully removed. The general sentiment is that the future isn't all that bright.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds we discuss whether prostitution should be legalized. As a baseline, both agree that forced prostitution, sex trafficking, and underage sex work should be illegal and is morally wrong. That then leaves the question of whether individuals who choose to sell sex should be allowed to. Josh wants to allow his inner Libertarian to come out and agree that it should be legal but is hesitant because there is evidence that even when it is legal, illegal sex work continues and those working illegally are subject to exploitation, abuse, and violence. Despite a fair number of tangents, Ryan and Josh ultimately agree that, if prostitution can be legalized, carefully regulated, and arranged in such a fashion that sex workers are engaged in this occupation of their own volition and are protected and benefit, then prostitution should be legal. If that isn't what happens, then perhaps it should not.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, we discuss the exoneration of Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin over the killing of two individuals and the shooting of a third. In what may seem like a surprise to some listeners, Josh and Ryan (and Tom) agree that Rittenhouse should have been exonerated given the details of the case and the statutes involved. Josh sees this as more black and white than Ryan does, but they both agree. Josh pushes Ryan to admit that this case was framed by the left as about race, which Ryan agrees to begrudgingly as he doesn't see that it really related to race. Ryan gets Josh to agree that carrying around an assault rifle with the intent of intimidating others is in poor taste, though not illegal. Finally, Tom makes the point that the left needs to recognize that violence happens, which Ryan argues is the big fear of the left - that this will embolden those who want to engage in violence.

In this episode of Finding Common Battlegrounds, we discuss Critical Race Theory (CRT). Josh argues that CRT is being taught. Ryan agrees that it is being taught in college, but not really in K-12. Josh also argues that CRT is influencing society and can lead some people to adopt a victim mindset. Ryan equivocates on the degree to which it is influencing society and also dislikes victim mindsets. Ryan takes a more meta approach in this episode and explains what Critical Theory is, then gives specific examples of Critical Race Theory and illustrates how it is used to analyze laws, policies, and regulations. Josh generally agrees with Ryan's description of critical race theory. And, as a bonus, Ryan gets Josh to agree with a statement by Karl Marx (shortly after hell freezes over).

In this episode of Finding Common Battlegrounds, we tackle the question of whether Trump was (or was going to become) a dictator. We agree on  some basic definitions - dictator, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and fascism. We then agree that Trump was not a dictator despite many dictator-like tendencies, but primarily because of the checks and balances that exist in the US government. We also agree that Trump was/is a terribly cruel, unkind, tyrannical human being. His moral character makes him a difficult political candidate for Josh to stomach. 

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Josh, Ryan, and Tom discuss the often-repeated finding that women are paid less money than men, which is commonly referred to as the "gender pay gap." There is general agreement that the gender pay gap exists, but disagreement about how big it is and what the cause is. We agree that other differences between men and women - like hours worked or years on the job - account for some of the differences in pay. Where the primary disagreement lies is in capturing what accounts for the remaining gap. Josh is inclined to think that the gap is not due to sexism but rather other differences between men and women that lead employers to pay women less that are justifiable. Ryan is inclined to think that the gap starts with discrimination due to women being "at-risk" to have a child (a.k.a. the "womb penalty") and then increases over time whenever there are differences in womens' involvement in the labor force due to the higher expectation for women to perform caretaking roles for kids and other family members.

In this episode of Finding Common Battle Grounds, Josh, Ryan, and Tom explore whether there is a liberal bias in the mainstream media. We begin by detailing what we understand the mainstream media to be - major television networks ABC, NBC, and CBS, major newspapers and reporting agencies like Reuters, Associated Press, Newsweek, the New York times, and certain cable and radio stations. We note that there are different ways that bias can manifest in media - in how the news is reported and in what is considered important news. Josh argues that the news - at least political news - is reported with a left-leaning bias in mainstream media while Ryan argues that most non-political news is actually not biased in the mainstream media, even if there is a bias in what is considered important. We agree that journalists may be left-leaning even though many are still objective in their reporting. We also agree that bias is always relative - if you lean to the right, any media to the left will seem biased, and the inverse is true as well. Finally, we agree that MSNBC and Fox News are whores for money and viewers and that it would be ideal if everyone would consumer more middle-of-the-road media like that produced by the Wall Street Journal or BBC News.consume

In this episode of the Finding Common Battle Grounds podcast, we examine  the question of whether conservatives are anti-science. We agree on what science is (a method for investigating the natural world), on the roles of conservatives and progressives, and that there are some scientific findings that are erroneous. But we also agree that science  is self-correcting. Finally, we agree that both conservatives and progressives cherry-pick science, rejecting some scientific findings  that disagree with their preexisting beliefs. This doesn't make either group entirely anti-science, but it does mean that both groups are accurately described as anti-science at times. 

In this issue of Finding Common Battle Grounds we discuss abortion. We chose this topic because of the recently passed law in Texas (Senate Bill 8) restricting abortions to within the first 6 weeks. We find agreement that there should be access to abortions for women who have been raped or when a mother's life is in danger. We even agree that there should be abortions available for others, though we disagree over when access should be cut off. Most of the disagreement in this discussion lies in how abortion is framed by progressives and conservatives and when life begins.