Leadership in Times of Rolling Blackouts & a Look at Prince Hall

[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it, presented by Disruption Now, I'm James Keys. And in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss some issues surrounding the recent blackouts in Texas, including how the leadership reacted to the crisis and whether there are any lessons we can lear to better equip ourselves to deal with crises like this in the future. And later on, we're going to take a look at Prince Hall, a man who founded the oldest continuously active African American association in the United States, aptly named Prince Hall Freemasonry, and who should be considered one of America's preeminent civil rights leaders in the 1700s. Joining me today is a man who is super bad and is out of sight. He's Black Dynamite Tunde. Ogunlana Tunde. You have any dynamite takes for us today? [00:01:07] Speaker B: I'm just going to let you hear the explosions yourself. [00:01:11] Speaker A: There we go. [00:01:12] Speaker B: There we go. I'll just lay the minefield for you. You find them when you walk out. [00:01:16] Speaker A: I'm ready, man. I'm ready now. We're recording this on February 22, 2021. And over the last week, we've seen a major crisis unfold in Texas, the second largest state in the United States. Essentially, a huge winter storm hit the state. And the conditions and temperatures brought by the storm and which followed it created issues with power production and power distribution capabilities in the state. And as a result, we've seen millions lose power for substantial periods of time. And we've seen many people be unable to access or, or make use of other essentials like clean water and fresh food. It's been really tough to see. And hopefully at this point things are on the upswing. So, Tunde, before we get into the discussion, more on how the crisis is handled and more of a forward looking thing, I just wanted to see if you had any reaction to the crisis, to seeing that crisis in general, just in any initial reactions. [00:02:12] Speaker B: I think my initial thought was, damn, it got that cold in Texas. I know it gets cold, but obviously this is an anomaly. And then I think what, you know, we'll get into, right. I started thinking about, you know, well, how come Texas is the only one with this major problem? And Oklahoma and Louisiana and some of the states that border Texas don't seem to have these direct issues. And you know, so that kind of just. I guess my initial reaction after the kind of wow, this happened was just more of the, well, how did this happen? And kind of started looking into it deeper. My Sherlock Holmes hat on. [00:02:45] Speaker A: No I agree. Like, that was actually like, hold on, Texas isn't Hawaii, you know, like, how did this happen? There's, there's states all around Texas and so I can see that. Yeah, I thought it was very, very jarring though to see like people in line waiting to try to get food or trying to get, get water and just to see something like that, like that happen with a winter storm, which now I grew up in Ohio, you grew up in D.C. like we've seen bad winter storms before. Now obviously Texas isn't equipped in the same, in the same way and you know, they wouldn't budget for winter, winter storms in that way. But just to see the winter take someone out like that was such a large state as well, you know, was just shocking to me and saddening. I mean, it was like, you know, it's properly put to see that because, you know, it's 20 degrees outside and people don't have electricity, don't have heat. You know, that's, that's serious, you know, like there's, there's no, you know, no making light of that and now. But you know, we both know, I mean, people have discussed and covered like the actual crisis ad nauseam over the past week or so. So we kind of wanted to look at, in life in general, you know, there are going to be bad things that happen. That's, that's just part of life. And a lot of times, you know, who you are or what you make of your life actually will come into how you respond, you know. So how we wanted to look at how leadership kind of responded when we saw this and get, get into that, you know, like, was the leadership response, did you think it was effective? Did you think it bodes well for the future and so forth. So one aspect about it I wanted to ask you about to start us with was right after the crisis when the governor of Texas started making public statements and so forth, he seemed to, well, he directly, he said that this relates to and is a problem with things like the Green New Deal. Now as information came out, it came to be known, widely known that this had nothing to do. Well, not nothing to do this. The windmills that froze and the solar panels that had issues were very, were drop in the bucket compared to the natural lines that froze, which is their main source of power and the coal that froze that they were unable to shovel it even into the, into the plants and just the plants going offline because of the fossil fuel plants going offline. So what was your mate? What was your take on the fact that we immediately went to spin while the crisis was still ongoing, you know, like that it was to say, hey, let's try to blame this on some boogeyman that I think that my constituents don't like anyway. What do you think about that? [00:05:16] Speaker B: Well, I mean, it's common knowledge that it's all Democrats and socialists fault, that everything in the world that is negative happens. So he was in his right to say that. No, I mean, look, and I say that as an independent voter, registered voter and someone who likes to not be downlined. The same party and my whole ticket, you know, I like splitting the ticket and voting for people based on who I think they are as human beings and what they'll do when they get into power or wherever I'm electing them to. But anyway, but I'll say this again and wow, I'm getting a few of them out here early in the show, so we're going to be plastered by the time we're done here. But I would say I was sad. Right. Meaning more in this side. I was sad on the initial question on the natural disaster part of people being hurt in terms of, like you said, freezing cold and not having enough food and all that. This one saddened me more. So just as a reminder of kind of the political climate we're in now that. Yeah, you know, it's, it's like, you know, the governor of a state is an important position and especially a massive state like Texas, like you said, not only a massive land area, I think the third or fourth largest populated or number two. Number two now populated number two in both the state in the country. I mean, and then you've probably got within the top five economies of the country. You know, Texas got a lot going on in terms of its economic output. And so that's where you want to, you know, you'd hope to see leaders leading big, big, you know, states organization, whatever I was going to call it like that, to be the type that would say this buck stops with me no matter what. [00:06:52] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:06:53] Speaker B: Whether it's their fault or not, they take responsibility and then we figure it out later. [00:06:56] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:06:57] Speaker B: And we saw that this, this the governor of Texas mirrors, I think, our modern. And when I say modern, I would say like the last 10, 12 years of politicians who basically, it's like they, they, they have been conditioned is the word I'll put. And that their instincts now are to play to the cameras more so than to play for pragmatic solutions. [00:07:22] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:07:23] Speaker B: And I think that that's what saddened Me, is that as early as we are in that crisis, meaning, like the day it happened or the day after, he's sitting there trying to deflect something that he knows that's not true. You know that. [00:07:36] Speaker A: And it will come out that it's not true. Like, it's not like he's gonna get away with that, where nobody will ever find out. Like, that to me was just shocking. Like, well, man, like, you say that. Everybody heard you say that. And then like the next day or later that day, it was like, well, no, actually that's not what happened. And that gets published. And so it is like it's pointing to the crowd. [00:07:54] Speaker B: But that's what I mean. Like, it's like his media game is tighter than his let's get it done game in his own mind, is what I'm saying. Like, he obviously failed as the govern of the large state of Texas that the day of this crisis, the most important thing for him to do was to be on a cable news show that evening and blaming this on the Green New Deal, which actually is not legislation in place at this moment. [00:08:17] Speaker A: Yeah, just trying to associate it with that name, correct? Yeah. [00:08:20] Speaker B: Like, somehow this was. And again, like you said, it's the boogeyman, right? Because it's not. Look, we can sit here and say the Green New Deal, and I don't really know what that is because it doesn't exist. Um, you know, it's an idea that some people have put on paper that they want that to get to the floor for legislation. [00:08:37] Speaker A: It's slogan at this point. [00:08:38] Speaker B: No, I know, and that's what I was gonna say. There's a lot of ideas that are on paper that people want to get to legislation and get on the floor to be voted on. But my point is. Is that the word you used earlier, which is boogeyman? Yeah, that's really what it is. It's a dog whistle to a certain group of Americans, which are a large enough group that they can affect the outcome of votes, you know, in elections and all that, which when they hear Green New Deal, it's a symbol for the boogeyman for someone that I don't like and that has ideas that I don't like, or that I shouldn't like, or that I shouldn't like, or I [00:09:12] Speaker A: actually like them or not. But yeah, I mean, I think that to that point. Let me jump in real quick, because to that point, I think that ultimately what this reveals is it shows the limits of a political approach, political philosophy that's based on Sticking it to your enemies. You know, like that's where he went to initially, like you said right away that he immediately jumps on. Now, the state of Texas, they produce a lot of fossil fuels, so maybe he is afraid of the Green New Deal in 10 years or something like that as being something that will lessen his economic viability for his state. But you're in the heat of a crisis right now and you shouldn't be playing games for five or ten years down the road where I'm going to try to poison Green New Deal in people's minds or further poison it. And so it really seemed it to me. That's the question of does he not have any ideas? And so he's completely going to, like you said, the comms mode, going to communications as opposed to actual governance. But it also, like, and you asked me this question and I think this is a really good question to consider with this. Like, is this a personal thing? Meaning we all know people that just don't ever want to admit that they were at fault for something. So is this like a personal failing of him? Like this is just that this guy never can admit he was wrong. And I'll say why in a second, but. Or is you think this is more sinister in trying to tell people what they want to hear and saying that, hey, or it could be both, obviously, but. And the reason I say, as far as not wanting to admit fault, and we'll get into this here in a second, but Texas is notorious as far as the extent to which they've pushed deregulation for power production and distribution. And so that kind of approach is all well and good when everything is all good, you know, when, when, when things are running smoothly, that deregulation and stuff oftentimes won't come back to bite you. But when crisis happens, then a lot of times you're kind of going to get stuck with your pants down. So there's some egg basically on people's faces who have been pushing deregulation, because what that does, it makes it so you don't prepare for the rainy day. You know, if you prepare for the rainy day, you're at a competitive disadvantage against competitors who don't prepare for a rainy day until the rainy day happens. And so everybody's doing this race to optimize, optimize, optimize without creating any redundancy, without taking any precautions because those things cost money and take away from the bottom line. And so does he just not want to admit that, hey, maybe complete deregulation to this entire Production process wasn't the best idea? Or is he actually, you think, trying to play that political game? Because it could be either. [00:11:47] Speaker B: It doesn't have to be. I'm not going to be Mr. Psychologist here with someone I don't know. And even if we knew him, we know that humans are so complex. I mean, he might be showing me one side of himself, and he's totally different internally. But what I would say is I think there's probably, you know, from what I see and what I know of, not only him, but of kind of the cultural with which he exists in the media and political landscape. Let me put it that way, that I think that, you know, he obviously is conditioned to behave the way that some politicians do, which is the straight deflection. One of the things that got me thinking of a couple of recent crises, Right. Let's say Covid is an example. A year ago, right now, you said the date of February 22nd today. So February 22nd of 2020, we were just barely learning about COVID kind of being out there. But what we've learned since is that because I heard the recording on the phone, a phone call of Bob Woodward and the president talking just over a year ago, I think it was like, February 15th of 2020. We're clearly at the president's level and that top level, they already knew about what this virus was and how bad it was. But because I guess the way that it was handled here in the United States, in terms of the response to it, and there was criticism at the beginning, there was a deflection, and it became about, well, how did it start? It must have came out of this lab from China and all that. And I remember, like, you and I saying at the time, you know, it's important to find out where the virus came from. You know, I agree with that. But right now, it's like trying to figure out who started a fire while the house is burning. And the firefighter just showed up and we're arguing about who started the fire, and we're blocking the firefighter from getting in there with the hose. Like, no, let's put the fire out first, and then we have time to investigate. And I think that's what I felt like when I saw the governor of Texas on that cable news show the night that this all broke out, which was like, dude, you got time to blame all the liberals and whoever you think is at fault here in your state. But right now, you're a leader. You should be worrying about the people and your constituents, not trying to Save face and worry about who you're going to point fingers at for this. And. [00:14:00] Speaker A: Well, actually, let me jump in there because I actually would invert it and say that our current political climate seems to reward people who do not want to admit fault or refuse to admit fault or refuse to take responsibility for things. Like, it seems like the public and, well, some circles of the public would rather have someone who will not admit that they were wrong and would, would, would just blindly take, you know, just push their own agenda no matter what. Like, I look at the Heat McConnell got over the past couple of weeks as far as what the things he said about the, the, about January 6th, which I think most people can look at that and say, hey, that was out of line. You know, like, I mean, he's coming out there and saying, yeah, that was out of line. And people are like, how could you ever say that? And it's like, well, hold on, should we not want leaders? And I'm no fan of Mitch McConnell, but it's like, well, hold on. Should we not want people to say, hey, this was a mistake or this was a bad thing? When it happens, like, the defending of everything, the other side can never be right. It seems to be like it's an illness that we have in our discourse. [00:15:12] Speaker B: You called it out. Well, in a different conversation, which I want to give you props on, and you can kind of. I'll give you back the microphone here, because this was your turn. But it was, you know, you said something that alluded to, like, the participation trophies. Yeah, everybody just like with participation trophy, everybody wants to win. And then that. Some people get upset about that. [00:15:31] Speaker A: Yeah, well, yeah, that's exactly what it is. If you don't tell me if, when I turn on the news, if you don't tell me that my, quote, unquote, my side won, my side is right, then I'm mad at you, then you have wronged me. And so everybody wants a participation trophy with their news. They want to turn on the TV and be patted on the back and say, hey, everything that you thought is true, and we're all great. And that's all they want. And they will. They've. People have demonstrated at this point, again, not everyone, certain circles have demonstrated that they will react very with a lot of hostility when they aren't given that. When they, when they, when you don't rub their belly and tell them that they're the best, they'll. They'll react with hostility. And it's like, hold on, man. Like, that's not how News works. Sometimes you make a mistake. Sometimes your side did something great. Sometimes your side did something, you know, that wasn't great. And so that to me, again, like, as I said, it's a part of our discourse that's just like it's an illness. It seems like it's going to lead to. And we'll get into this here shortly. There's one other point I want to get to before we get. [00:16:31] Speaker B: Hold on, I want to, I want to say something real quick just for the. Let me, let me finish the thought. [00:16:34] Speaker A: It seems like it's going to lead us to disaster, basically. [00:16:37] Speaker B: Let me. But I want to stay on this theme real quick for the audience about the participation trophy because just in case people aren't aware of what we're joking about, because James and I got into a joke talking a few days ago about, you know, because we both have little kids and my son played basketball in one of these, you know, when he was like 6 or 7 in one of these recreational leagues where it didn't matter if you played good or not during the season. Every kid got, after every game they, they chose a kid to get like player of the game. And so like, for example, my kid got at one game, he didn't play good at all. But it's just, but he was so excited that he got his little trophy that game, you know, and so what, what I remember telling James in our conversation was there's a certain mindset of people out there that make fun of those kind of things. They, they act like they hate them. Oh, I hate these participation trophies and these. Kind of the way that sports is for kids now, it's so soft and it doesn't teach them how to be competitive and, and it's not about who, who's actually better. It's like communism. Like everybody just gets a trophy. And James alluded to the fact that news media has become like that where people don't want to be confronted with the negative emotionals, that they could be wrong or that maybe someone in their political party they supported did something wrong. And so what we've been having now with cable news for the last probably 20 years is participation trophies. And when James said that, it was so profound to me. And I thought that's, that's how part of how we got here is that we have this eco. I mean, we already know. It's like what, what your comment did was put things that I already knew existed into a different frame. Because what I'm saying is we already know that the ecosystem of Media has been so compartmentalized. [00:18:20] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:18:21] Speaker B: Through the Internet, social media, cable tv, all that. And it's all taken a long time. This isn't something that happened a year ago. I mean cable started having a thousand channels 30 years ago and you know, then you had the Internet and then you have social media 15 years ago starting. So all that has, has developed this environment. That's why when you said it, it hit my brain so hard like wow, that's a profound way to look at it that yeah, now I can just turn off anybody that doesn't make me happy. And there is a plethora of. I don't even want to call them media anymore. Let's just call them outlets because some of them aren't even trying to entertainment. [00:18:55] Speaker A: It's not news, basically, it's entertainment. [00:18:57] Speaker B: So you're right. Like I started thinking that's part of what's going on here too is. And maybe bring it back to this Texas thing when. And the behavior of the governor, which is he also knows that and he's a political official in the landscape and ecosystem of I need people to vote for me and I need people not. I need to make sure I shore up enough people to not look at me as the bad guy. So I think part of it was a knee jerk reaction to say let me have you look over here and talk about this green New Deal stuff so that you don't end up looking at me because I'm the guy who's supposed to be in charge of. [00:19:32] Speaker A: Yeah, because I'm the one in charge. [00:19:34] Speaker B: Don't look at me now to his defense though, because look, I don't know really I'm gonna acknowledge that. I'm sure I've been doing some reading on this in preparation for the show and one thing I've learned is that this whole electrical grid system and this thing with Texas not being on the federal grid and all that stuff is somewhat complex and I'm not going to pretend to be an expert right here in the next, you know, the 30, 40 minute conversation. However, I was reading about what happened in 2011 with the bad storm there and kind of the state legislature in Texas making some decisions thereafter. And what I've heard now from what I, you know, probably most would conceive when I, when I, when I put on quote unquote, kind of the, the more left leaning mainstream Libya mainstream media, they're just beating up the Texas governor and through extension Republicans and conservatives for everything's always got to be deregulation and see what happens. It doesn't work. It doesn't work. Now, the truth is, is that they did have another really bad storm in 2018. And from what I'm reading, the measures that were put in place after 2011 actually were very successful in 2018. It's just that this storm ended up being like 100 times worse than, like, what. What their stress test had tested for. So it's kind of like, remember 9 11, that the Twin Towers were supposed to be designed to be hit by a plane, but then they got hit by 227-47-s loaded with fuel, going at full speed. I don't think they meant for it to get hit like that. Maybe they got meant for it to get hit by a Cessna. So this is one of those examples where whatever the legislature did do something, you know, and that should be looked into, and they did something that ended up working at another really bad storm in 2018. It's just that this ended up being like, you know, 2747 is hitting the building. Like, this storm seemed to be a little bit more than what the system was prepared for. On top of the fact that me saying that shouldn't take away, that we shouldn't look at, why is Texas not connected to the grid and why did they deregulate so much? Because one of the things I thought of also was, remember, this is the 20th anniversary of another. Another deregulatory energy concern that happened directly in Texas and affected Texans that are paying their bills, electricity, city bills, which was Enron. So Texas doesn't have their hands clean when it relates to how their constituents are being given electricity and kind of this whole relationship that they have with, with the energy industry. [00:22:02] Speaker A: Well, but I think you're overstating all this. I mean, there was legislation that was done. It's still about, let's get as little regulation as possible and leave as much up to the market as possible. And so you pointing to something in 2018 and saying the system held or whatever that doesn't disprove. Like, the reason for the regulation is not for the sunny day or the day that's kind of bad. The reason for the regulation is for the rainy day. It's for the day that I get it. [00:22:29] Speaker B: But my point is the only Rainy Day since 2011 was 2018 before this one. And apparently the measures that were in place after 2011 worked in 2018. That's all I'm saying. [00:22:41] Speaker A: That's just. But that's pulling something. That's like saying I drive 80 miles an hour three days ago and Then if I do it today and I get in an accident, then it was all good when I did it three days ago. And it's like, well, no, and it has to hold up each time. [00:22:51] Speaker B: But that's my argument is it's not only regulation, regulation is one part of it. But if they have a deregulated environment, but within that deregulated environment, they still put the measures in place that worked the next time you had a bad storm, then they should be given credit for that. Oh, that's all I'm saying. [00:23:09] Speaker A: That's what I'm saying though is that's how you're looking at it too narrowly. Because in the deregulated environment, the incentive structure is set up so that anyone who takes precautions, anyone who does proper maintenance on their windmills, anyone who does who properly. The maintenance on the windmills was something that's been identified going back to 2011 that, hey, we need to make sure we do the insulating of the gas lines so that the gas lines don't freeze. Was something that was identified back in 2011. None of that stuff happened. And in the deregulated environment, if any of those power companies actually would have done that stuff, they would have been at a competitive disadvantage relative to their peers who didn't, because they would have been spending money on things that weren't going to deliver, nine times out of 10, any return on investment. So they would have had to charge higher prices and therefore would have lost business. The problem is that the regulation didn't make, didn't force everyone to raise their level to some, some minimum standard. This is just like the Three Little Pigs, man. And we have the Texas oil or excuse me, the Texas energy companies were basically the first pig that allowed to build their house out of straw. You know what, as long as there's no big bad wolf coming, house out of straw is all good, you know, and if, but if anybody else would have tried to build a house out of wood or out of bricks, their house wouldn't have been ready. They wouldn't have had a house for long. It would have taken longer. And so, hey, everybody just build their house out of straw. It's quickest we can get up and running and we're good to go. And so the regulatory environment has to bring the floor up as far as the minimum that you need to do. And so when it didn't do that, then everyone's cutting corners. And see, here's the thing. I actually agree with your overall point though, that both sides of the, of the coin are needed here. We need the people who see we need more regulation. We need more regulation. We need more regulation. And we need the people who say, hey, let's kind of, let's deregulate. Let's deregulate. We need them both at the table acting in good faith. The problem with the Texas system wasn't just that there was some level of deregulation, is that they took it to an extreme. They didn't give a minimum level of efficacy that you need for this or the minimum level of efficacy that you have for that so that all of the companies could do that and not be placed at a competitive disadvantage relative to each other. If everybody has to insulate their gas lines, then when the rainy day happen, when the big bad wolf happens, then everybody's prepared and nobody in the meantime was put at a disadvantage. So that's what, from a regulation standpoint. But at the same time, as you pointed out, you don't want to overregulate either. But if you have both sides coming to the table in good faith and discussing this stuff, you can do what's called compromise. Now, the problem, obviously, is that we don't. Compromise is not something that many people think is virtuous at this point or necessary. At this point. Everybody just wants to own their enemy. Not everybody. Again, not everybody, but a lot of people want to own their enemy enough [00:25:57] Speaker B: that we got to deal with it. [00:25:58] Speaker A: And that seems just very. That doesn't seem like something that you can. An approach that can solve problems. And we're going to have problems moving forward, you know, like the climate stuff, you know, global warming and all these climate change things that are happening. We're going to have more issues. California, the fires are getting worse. We had this historic freeze in Texas. Like, things are happening now that haven't traditionally happened. And so we're going to need to actually be able to respond to these things, global pandemics, things that are happening. We're going to need to be able to respond to these things. We need a functioning government, a functioning political system that, hey, we have this problem, let's address it. Let's not just see how can we blame someone else for it, and we'll just kick the can down the road. There was one other thing that I wanted to. [00:26:41] Speaker B: Let me just follow up to that point you just made, which is my concern about us ever getting back to some sort of semblance of that, meaning our discourse politically comes up with what we were just joking about before, with the participation trophy, because I think it's. It's much more influential than I think most people want to give it credit, which is the amount that we have pumped in our brains by the media, you know, news media, the, the algorithms and the way they feed us social media. Because what, what's happening is, and that's why the participation trophy joke is so real to me, which is people just don't, they, they can just in, in this cancel culture thing is real, but it's not, you know, again to point it at. One side's doing it, everybody's doing it, everybody just says well I don't like what you're saying, so I'm just going to turn you off. And that's how you get somebody who believes in literally deep conspiracy theories and multiple people actually being elected to the U.S. congress. Because enough people can say when more legitimate sources of information are saying, well that's not true what this person's saying and all that, there's enough voters out there now that can literally say, well I can turn that off and I can go to this ecosystem here and just hear all this because I like [00:27:59] Speaker A: the way that makes me feel. [00:28:00] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think that's the problem that once you get number one a voting and electorate that is so fractured like that, it's hard to get then the political class to agree on something because they're voting these people in. So you're right. When the, the governor of Texas is faced with a crisis, his first knee jerk, emotional, instinctive reaction is how do I actually deal with these? How do I rub somebody's belly, right? How do I go on and say something that will at least get me on TV and get me to, to control this narrative this way. And the reality is is it doesn't help us solve that long term issue, which is luckily I don't live in Texas. And that's what I was going to say is that actually Florida, where we live is a good example where it appears that, you know, the legislature and the two party system here has taken the idea of hurricanes like preparing for that natural disaster much more seriously. And you don't get pushback on regulating like building codes and all that. Like both sides understand and agree that this is serious stuff. [00:29:05] Speaker A: So with that actually then you have people who may be less inclined to support regulation acting more as a check, saying okay, do we really need that? And then so you actually have a dialogue about what's really necessary, what's not necessary, as opposed to one side just saying, look, if it's any regulation, I say no. And it's like well, hold on, let's have a real conversation about it, but go ahead. [00:29:26] Speaker B: One of the areas where I wanted to touch on real quick when you come talk about regulation, because this reminded me a bit of what happened in the financial markets prior to the great financial crisis with the mortgage industry. But I guess, you know, you don't have black swan events as often in areas like utilities and powers like you do, like let's say with market crashes that remind people that regulation is important like it does. [00:29:51] Speaker A: That's a good analogy. [00:29:52] Speaker B: You know, like, like you're reminded in financial markets that regulation is important kind of on a regular basis because again, those crashes come more often. But you know, this is this issue that we've heard about where some people are getting stuck with these massive bills like a $17,000 bill or an $8,000 bill. And it's because Texas has two different ways that consumers can purchase their electricity. From the utility company, from the power companies. One is a fixed rate and the other is a variable rate. And because of my history and knowledge in the financial markets, you know, there's, there's things like variable rate insurance policies, like one year term insurance starts dirt cheap. But by year eight or nine, you know, your premiums have increased, you know, tenfold versus you could get a 20 year term policy which is just a fixed rate and it'll start higher the first year. But then there's that crossover at some point you've paid less over the 20 years. The same thing, let's say with mortgages. That's why I alluded to the great financial crisis. You most people would recognize that the term of a floating rate loan, you know, a kind of, and teaser rates, right, where they'll get you in with a very low interest rate. Like we'll give you a 1% for five years and then the rate might flip to whatever the going rate is. And if the rates are at 6, 7%, you're going to flip and pay that. So over a 30 year period of that mortgage, you're gonna pay a lot more by being coming in on the variable side. And what I read was Texas had this thing where the fixed rate customers are fine right now because they're on a fixed rate. So they've been paying the same thing a month ago that they'll pay this month. But it's the variable customers that all got hit with these massive bills because they're the ones that get sucked in. Almost like with the interest rates on the mortgage or like let's say with a credit card that Might even be a better analogy because I thought about it, how it's kind of sad. And this is where I think I would, I would be a bigger fan of regulation and things like this as well, because it deals with the consumer, just like with regulating interest rates on credit card companies and how they're able to be predatory about it. And I was thinking about it like, it's unfortunate because a lot of these people getting hit with these massive bills right now were on the lower end of the income scale that probably took the teaser rate, you know, the variable rate on their electricity bill, thinking like, oh, well, this is just cheaper. Let me just take this. And then the black swan event happens and they're the ones getting a bill for 17 grand that they're not going to be able to pay. So who's going to end up paying? That is probably all the taxpayers in Texas. [00:32:23] Speaker A: Yeah, but all the taxpayers aren't going to get the benefit of the lower rate. [00:32:27] Speaker B: Who's going to pay for that, honestly, is going to be all of us taxpayers in the US because it's now declared a federal disaster zone. [00:32:33] Speaker A: So that's kind of the issue that you have a lot of times is, see, the utility company is better situated to absorb the ups and downs of the variable cost of energy. Clearly, energy prices go up and down, but the whole idea, it's not like they, that was an innovation. It's not like they're the first people that thought, hey, maybe you can just pay the variable price. But everyone else, either due to regulation or whatever other market incentives were out there, decided that that was too dangerous for the consumer because when bad things will happen from time to time, when bad things happen, they. The consumer is less able to absorb that. And so then you end up in a situation where other people are going to have to cover that loss. And those other people are usually the taxpayers. So we as a taxpayer usually have an interest in saying, okay, you can, you can hit the gas a little bit, but don't go so fast that you're going to flip out inevitably and then we're going to have to cover the cost. I wanted to ask you, though, also, just, you know, as we wrap on this part, just are there any lessons in terms of looking at this now? We're looking at, we're able to look at it to some degree in hindsight, lessons that you think are particularly important that can be taken away from here or should be taken away from here? [00:33:44] Speaker B: Yes, actually. And it kind of segues from what we were just talking about, which is the lessons of things like bubbles, honestly. And why, again, the why. Why is it important that we have these regulations like you said? Right. And it's a good point. You make that at a certain level, only a big entity can absorb certain shocks. Like you said, the utility company can absorb some of inefficiencies and ups and downs in the energy, not only the energy markets, because I'm thinking of like prices of electricity and oil and usage per kilowatt and all that to make it a smoother experience for the consumer. But it got me thinking of things like, we don't appreciate that in this country. And I think, you know, the part of the conversation we had earlier is very important. Right. You don't want to over regulate things, but it's like, why do certain things, like why does the Department of Energy exist? Well, this is why. Because there's going to be issues that happen in the different parts of this country. And that's what I was thinking like, so Texas, this is the third major catastrophic natural event in Texas since that 2011 storm that I, that I know of, that I can kind of thought of quickly, which is, I thought of that storm in 2011, Hurricane Harvey, which I think was 2015. Remember the big, big flooding. Yeah. [00:35:02] Speaker A: The one which is stuck over Houston. [00:35:04] Speaker B: Yeah. Which also to me was a regulation story, which was about. But that was the regulation of development. [00:35:10] Speaker A: Correct. [00:35:10] Speaker B: Because remember, part of the lessons learned from that was that Houston, they had done two things which again, living in Florida, we've learned that Florida has learned already to take this serious. They did too much development on their beaches or in that certain part of Texas where it's on the coast and they got rid of mangroves and the sand dunes and certain natural barriers to the Gulf water coming in when it's pushed over by storm surge. And then the other thing is the local political class bent too much to the developers in Houston and they had too much pavement. They said that all that. They didn't listen to the environmental engineers about strategically having things like we see here off the highways in Florida, like areas for water to pool and for it to run back into underground and to go back into, like here in Florida to run back into the Everglades. In a sense, they have a similar swamp system in that part of Texas. So I think that's where, like you said, it's, you know, like the developers are, you know, and our system works best when everyone's in the room. So you need the environmental engineers in the room with the developers. [00:36:20] Speaker A: You know, it can't be a fight to the death, basically. [00:36:23] Speaker B: Correct. It can't be an adversarial. [00:36:25] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Everybody gets a say. [00:36:27] Speaker B: And because we need the development, we need construction jobs and we need people flipping homes and you know, you need that economic activity too. So I think it comes back to that. Like and I thought about when you were talking earlier about you know, the need to go on immediately and tell everyone in your ecosystem that it was something else, you know, that in this case that it was clean energy's fault. It's a kind of like with the immigration debate when you hear things like MS.13 and all these things brought up, it's like, you know, most Americans don't want open borders and understand the need for a big country to have a solid immigration system. But it's just like again the dog whistles that certain people will react when you use certain terms and. [00:37:06] Speaker A: Well, hold on and add that to the fact that most immigrants are not violent gang members. [00:37:10] Speaker B: Yeah, I don't want to get just. [00:37:13] Speaker A: I think that makes your point, but that makes your point is that most Americans 1 a legitimate immigration system and most immigrants are not violent gang members. So how come when immigration comes up the first thing you talk about is violent gang? [00:37:25] Speaker B: It goes back to like the green energy. It's about, it's about. I recognize this will trigger something in the people I'm talking to. [00:37:32] Speaker A: Correct. [00:37:33] Speaker B: Of a boogeyman. And like you're saying too, most Americans aren't total deregulatory freaks. Correct. They recognize what we're having a thoughtful fine conversation here that you know, you should regulate certain things that are important so we don't have these massive destruction. But you don't over regulate kind of the day to day stuff so that people can operate smoothly and cleanly. So that's some of the lessons I think. [00:37:53] Speaker A: I think you know, just from a. Lessons like what we should take away from this. I think that the, our mindset right now and this probably is intentional in terms of poisoning a. Well the, the idea of regulation is, has been basically just poisoned. You know, like the, the, the thought regulation is seen as anti business. And the problem with that obviously is that if you look at regulation as minimum standards, then I think it becomes a little less problematic for people. And something we can all agree like the debate we should have is not over whether or not there should be any regulation. It should be what is needed and what is not, what is worth the cost and what is not. And that requires discussion and debate. And so if we are too busy dealing with each other in terms of let's try to make each other the villain or different things like that. If people come to the table and are unwilling to budge at all, like it's either my way or the highway, then that's a failure of our system. That is evidence that some people in the world would point to and say, see, democratic government doesn't work because people are not able to come to the table and can discuss things rationally. They all, they want to, everything is, they want to make everything emotional and, you know, fight about stuff all the time. [00:39:13] Speaker B: That's a great point. We're a long way from getting to where you and I would like to see that. You could have, let's say the free market person and the regulation person in the room having a good faith discussion about how can we, how can we work this out in a way that benefits this country long term? And I feel like, because both of that fictitious, those fictitious characters that I just mentioned, you know, the extremists on both sides of, let's say, regulation and free, free market. Absolutely. They have to be okay leaving that meeting without being 100% happy. And right now we don't have our politicians and the electorate both don't seem, the majority don't seem to have the emotional makeup to do that right now. Everybody wants to, and you identified this earlier in our conversation, everybody wants to win with 100% satisfaction and go home. Part of that. [00:40:04] Speaker A: So they both have to be willing to walk into the room, not, not just where they leave, but they have to walk into the room recognizing the other is having a stake in the outcome. Yeah. And if both sides don't even recognize [00:40:14] Speaker B: the other as being legitimate as well. [00:40:16] Speaker A: Yeah. You can't, you can't disgust if somebody you think is illegitimate. [00:40:20] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:40:20] Speaker A: So bottom line, though, I think that what this does reveal, like part of the discussion when this happened, became what regulations need to be in place to put this so that this doesn't happen again. And that was coming from all sides of anyone who was acting in good faith, anyone who was trying to, not just trying to deflect blame, but who was really trying to evaluate the problem. And so my lesson, it seems to be, and this is unfortunate right now, is that it seems like bad things have to happen for us for us to engage in meaningful discussion as far as how to best run our country. Ideally, you know, like anybody, not anybody, many people can learn from when bad things actually happen to them. But a lot of times if you're smart, you can learn when bad Things happen to other people and try to address that before. It actually doesn't have to actually happen to you for you to actually see it and say, hey, maybe we can address this. So I hope that in these type of opportunities, we can use it as an opportunity to say, okay, let's not take these all or nothing positions and let's try to address things in ways that can actually help be helpful in solving our problems. It doesn't seem like that, but these seem to create opportunities, windows essentially where that kind of stuff can happen. And then kind of like what I said last week, we'll regress back to a mean of polarization here in a couple of weeks. So we have a. The lesson I have is we have a window now to try to do some common sense stuff. Let's take it and then. Cause in a minute it's gonna be. [00:41:47] Speaker B: I think we're too late. I think we've regressed already. It's been a week. [00:41:50] Speaker A: Abbott closed the window right away. [00:41:51] Speaker B: That's what I was gonna say. The fact that I got that text about the wind turbines, like within four hours after the story started breaking tells me that we're already too late. [00:42:02] Speaker A: Yeah, that's. [00:42:03] Speaker B: But no, I was gonna laugh and say, you're gonna stay optimistic and hopeful. I'll stay sad. So let's see what happens. Let's revisit this one in five years and see where. [00:42:12] Speaker A: Well, no, like I said, it's a window. It's a brief window. [00:42:15] Speaker B: So you might be right. [00:42:16] Speaker A: It might already got slammed closed, but it's a window where we can do some common sense stuff because, yeah, the all or nothing approach to growth sets us up. It puts us in the straw house. We're the pig in the straw house because it's the fastest way to do it. It's up and ready to go, but we have no protection if the slightest thing goes wrong. And that's not a good way to operate, particularly when so many people's lives and well being is at stake. [00:42:42] Speaker B: You know, that's good. We're in a straw house with a bunch of straw men. Think about it. That doesn't make me feel too confident about our future. [00:42:51] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, definitely. So. All right. Well, we also today wanted to discuss a figure who is not as well known as you might think, considering how far back it is and how significant he is in terms of many people's lives and just the accomplishments that he had. And he's been termed actually a forgotten black founding father, Prince Hall. Now, Prince hall is most well Known as the founder of Prince Hall Freemasonry, which was charted back in 1784, and according to the United States Library of Congress, is the oldest recognized and continuously active organization founded by African Americans. But Prince hall was also a big proponent of education rights, and he was one of the earliest people to really champion the abolitionist cause as being one that's consistent with the founding principles of America. So what about Prince Hall's story and Prince Hall, Freemasonry Tunde, do you find most notable? [00:43:47] Speaker B: I mean, wow. Actually, just your intro about him to me was definitely just set off what I'll say, right? I mean, the oldest continuous organization of African Americans founded in 1784 is pretty amazing when you think about what was going on in the country at that time. Most blacks in this country at that time were slaves. And, you know, the idea of ending slavery, slavery wasn't even considered, you know, thought of, like, nationally. So that's pretty impressive. And then the second thing that you alluded to is, you know, you're right. Prince hall is a very influential figure in the. In the early days of America in many ways, both from the Revolutionary War standpoint. He was inducted into Freemasonry by a Scottish military lodge, which is interesting in itself in Massachusetts, and he lived in Boston. So he was literally living in the heart of all the action during the Revolutionary period. And so that stands out. And then the second thing is, like you said, he was the first American actually to publicly use the language of the Declaration of Independence. Independence other than for the political purposes against Britain. Right, yeah. Because at the time, you know, they were using that to throw off King George, but he was the first person trying to challenge America or Americans at the time, or colonists, to take those words serious for people within the country, you know. And so, you know, you're right. It kind of dawns on us to say, how come we don't know more about this guy? And I'd say that most likely probably because he is a Freemason, and that tends to be not a secret society, because we all have heard of Freemasons. So they're not secret, but a society with secrets. So it's an organization that's not that well known. A lot of things is kind of murky. So I think probably, you know, history may have decided to leave him a bit on the side. Not sure maybe how to deal with him. And if, you know, Freemasonry, you know that part of the reason that Freemasonry came about the way it did was the ability to trust other Masons. Because the history of Masonry is such that it developed in a time in Europe in the Middle Ages and gained popularity when most of the population was illiterate. So the ability to trust somebody and to travel freely was rare. And it was important that you knew some of the secret handshakes and words and all that kind of stuff which, you know, everybody knows about Masonry. So for a Prince hall to understand and be in that world is a very influential thing. And he would have been a very influential person. And I think also one of the things in preparing for our discussion today is it seems that unfortunately the records of that time period are a little bit more murky and difficult. It's interesting to read some of the stuff like the tax records in Boston between 17, like 80 and 1804. It said that it recorded like 1804 blacks that were on the tax collectors rolls. And I just found that interesting, like the way that they kept records back then, like, wow, that's pretty fascinating. But I'm sure that there was a lot more black people in the area. Just, you know, just the records of them weren't. Weren't what didn't last. So yeah, that's kind of what stood out to me about the guy is an interesting history. [00:47:13] Speaker A: You know, I, looking at it and learning myself more about him was like, he really struck me as a precursor to men like Frederick Douglass and Du Bois and Booker T. Washington and Thurgood Marshall. He thought Revolutionary War service would have been a good way for blacks to kind of get in and make the promises of America apply to everyone. He faced setbacks and kept pushing and kept pushing and kept pushing relentlessly petitioning in Massachusetts for better treatment amongst blacks or for blacks, you know, and then yeah, using the words of the Declaration of Independence in this, like trying to do that. Like that's stuff that we saw in the Civil rights movement, you know, saying, you know, turning the words of the country and these founding principles and saying, hey, how come this isn't for us? We saw that in the Reconstruction and so, and he's doing that in the 1700s and you know, like starting a Masonic lodge, you know, for blacks in part because the existing, the Freemasons in the country would not accept blacks. And you know, and he saw that as a way to get blacks more access to these influential areas of society. So like he just had a lot going on and was, was making a lot of moves and to not for him to not be spoken of, you know, it just seems like a hole in our knowledge which some of that is intentional. You know, some of that is. There are a lot of people who were doing things which we don't really hear about except during February of each year, you know, and so. But he's one of them. And like, because he's doing these things that. These taking tactics that were used later on and used to more success sometimes later on, but he's like kind of, you know, introducing these tactics or coming up with these. He didn't have a hundred years ago, looking at how this person did that or that person did that. Like, he's. He's kind of like foundational with a lot of these tactics that ultimately were able to be successful in terms of gaining equality or moving closer to equality for African Americans. [00:49:07] Speaker B: Yeah, no, you're right. And, you know, that was one of the things I was going to say after our discussion on Reconstruction and some of the. Made me think as to. Just to follow up on your initial question with me as you were talking, that the things like the Lost Cause and some of the rewriting of history we saw in the late 1800s, early 1900s, just about the. The pre Civil War period, as well as just, I think the. [00:49:35] Speaker A: The. [00:49:35] Speaker B: The relationship between blacks and whites in this country prior to that period, when kind of the cultural history was kind of written in a way that I think we've had as a country the last hundred plus years to make certain people feel good. Yeah, exactly. I think he probably was. I mean, you know, unintentionally, but. But, you know, clearly people like him, there weren't an effort to bring them into kind of the modern collective memory of this country when you had things like the Lost Cause and the Daughters of Confederacy and all that kind of rewriting the history of that period, you know, the Civil War period and the Antebellum south period. So I'm sure that people like Prince hall kind of got caught in, like, anyone prior to the late 1800s that was influential probably got forgotten. And unless you're a Prince hall member of a Prince Hall Masonic Lodge, then you're not gonna have heard of this guy, period. Yeah, yeah. [00:50:28] Speaker A: I mean, it's. It's something that, you know, but the information is being retrieved. Like, we, you know, we were prompted to do this, which I'll be putting this in the. In the show notes, but, you know, an article in the Atlantic and, you know, like, the Library of Congress has an entry on, you know, on the organization and so forth. So I think it's worthwhile to recognize people like that and. Yeah. Introduce them to people who haven't heard and, you know, like, sparked the interest because, yeah, there's. American history is rich with people who made contributions in various ways and did things that, you know, if you consider us as it's an ark, then a seed for something may have been planted a long time before it actually germinated and sprouted. And so but we. It's important to recognize those seeds and the people who had. Whose arguments or whose positions and thoughts became precursors for things that were ultimately successful. So to me, that was, you know, it made it a fascinating read to learn more about him because I, you know, like I said, other than knowing the name, I didn't know much about them up until, you know, looking into this. So, yeah, it was, it was definitely something that I appreciated. [00:51:33] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:51:34] Speaker A: And so, yeah, it was. It was good to. It was fulfilling, you know, just to be able to look into that and learn a little bit more. And obviously, there's much more. I mean, there's much more depth as, you know, historians continue to piece together more of the story. You know, you see more and more coming out. So, yeah, it's something that definitely is worthwhile taking a look at. And, you know, you learn, like, as you said, learning more about American history. So, you know, we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode and, you know, subscribe, rate, review. You know, tell us what you think about the podcast. And until next time, I'm James Keys. [00:52:04] Speaker B: I'm Tunde down. [00:52:05] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you soon. A.