Ken Scott Baron Podcast

Ken Scott Baron

0.0 (0)
Politics
Updated Weekly

Activist and media outreach NABWMT, commenting on racial and cultural barriers and human equality. I use educational, political, cultural, and social activities to fight racism, sexism, homophobia, and other inequities in our communities and in our lives. nabwmt.substack.com

1d ago

Ken amd Paul talks about the NABWMT Upcoming Convention

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

11 min
Jun 6

Don’t just boo A.I. — do something.

Those who have tried to inspire the next generation of graduates have used their speeches as opportunities to extol the limitless possibilities that artificial intelligence will bring. But they’re speaking to graduates who are entering a shaky job market and are already burdened by tens of thousands of dollars of student debt. However, companies of all stripes are using A.I. as an excuse to slow entry-level hiring and lay off workers. Tech executives have been warning that their technologies will be job destroyers. In many cases, the students expressed their displeasure at the speakers’ blatant A.I. boosterism the best way they could: with loud boos. When Eric Schmidt, a former chief executive of Google, told graduates at the University of Arizona about their A.I.-shaped future, the shouting got so intense that he paused and said that graduates feared “that the future has already been written, that the machines are coming, that the jobs are evaporating, that the climate is breaking, that politics are fractured, and that you are inheriting a mess that you did not create.” Mr. Schmidt of Google fame, told graduates to make the best of it. “The question is not whether A.I. will shape the world. It will. The question is whether you will help shape artificial intelligence.” What? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps? His approach is peak billionaire brain, directed at the young people who have, for the better part of a decade, been treated as woke, and lazy. The problem isn’t woke; the problem is work. It’s a lack of social mobility. It’s that college may no longer elevate a graduate to the middle class. It’s that nobody even bothers to pretend that a house, a good job and the ability to start a family are at all guaranteed. Think of this from the graduates’ perspective: Wealthy old people telling you your future is being pulped by electricity-sucking, water-guzzling data centers. Companies are trying to automate your future away. No wonder you’re furious. According to a recent working paper from researchers at Harvard, hiring for entry-level roles at companies that have adopted generative A.I. has dropped each quarter since 2023. What is not clear is whether A.I. is taking people’s jobs or if companies are using A.I. as an excuse for not hiring. Even in the best of times, commencement speeches are uncomfortable: The kids you’re speaking to are basically hostages; they can’t leave without their diplomas. Tell the graduates getting a degree is a bit of a foundation, but tell the kids the truth of the messiness of one’s 20s! One is right to be worried. But none of this is as inevitable as it seems. Remember putting everything on the blockchain? Remember NFTs? Hell, some of us are old enough to remember that the world was supposed to end in the year 2000. Right now, A.I. is in its dark hype period — but who knows how useful any of this actually will be in the end in creating efficiencies (as in, replacing the young with bots). It’s within young people’s power to stop. Demand regulation of tech companies. Elect people who will legislate that regulation. Organize against data centers in your hometowns. Don’t just boo A.I. — do something. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

5 min
Jun 3

Young Americans are losing faith

A new national poll from the Harvard Kennedy School finds young Americans under intense economic pressure and increasingly losing faith in the political system. The 52nd Harvard Youth Poll shows that for many 18- to 29-year-olds, the cost of living — especially inflation and housing — defines what they see as a true crisis. Also. trust in government, elections, and national leadership remains strikingly low. Even as young voters lean Democratic, uneven turnout, low enthusiasm, and widespread skepticism about the fairness of elections suggest that participation in the 2026 midterms may be shaped as much by doubt as by political preference. The most defining shift among young Americans is a loss of perceived agency — a growing belief that what they do no longer shapes what happens next. Half now say people like them have no real say in government. Trust in the federal government has fallen to 15 percent, and confidence in the military has dropped sharply, from 51 percent to 39 percent. Political engagement is still present, but its meaning is changing. Fewer young Americans believe participation delivers results, and most see elected officials as driven by self-interest. What once converted concern into action is becoming something more conditional — a generation still paying attention, still showing up, but increasingly unsure that their voice carries weight. Economic pressure defines this moment for young Americans: Inflation and housing drive both lived experience and urgency, alongside widespread financial strain and a sharp decline in long-term optimism. Military action in Iran is seen as not in the best interests of Americans: A majority say military action is not in the U.S. interest. The country feels off track: Only 13% say the U.S. is headed in the right direction, while 59% say it’s on the wrong track, and approval remains low for President Trump (25%) and both parties in Congress (26% Democrats, 25% Republicans). Young voters favor Democrats: Democrats lead 45% to 26% among young registered voters in the generic ballot. While Democrats say they are more likely than Republicans to vote in November (Democrats 55%, Republicans 35%, Independents 25%), a plurality remain cynical about the system as a whole. A pervasive sense of threat is defining everyday life for young Americans, and they are increasingly losing faith in fundamental systems of democracy and political participation/ Findings from the 52nd poll in the biannual series are below. A clear Democratic advantage is offset by weak trust in election fairness and uneven enthusiasm, raising early questions about turnout in 2026. While Democrats hold an advantage, majorities of young voters believe both parties prioritize elites over people like them, fueling demand for candidates who are younger and more aligned with their values. While many young Americans recognize the need for government action during emergencies, they express clear limits on how much power leaders should have. There is broad concern that emergency powers could be overused or abused, reflecting deep skepticism about unchecked authority. For example, A majority of young Americans (53%) say it would be unacceptable for a president to bypass Congress after declaring a national emergency. President Kennedy once said, “It is a time for a new generation of leadership to cope with new problems and new opportunities.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

14 sec
Apr 17

Anxiety, Democrats, and Reagan

The moment we are living through is looking ever more like the 1970s — in the depth of the crises we face, and in its potential to create a genuine rupture with what came before. I remember Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Britain. Iran has reoccupied center stage and fears of stagflation looms again. In the late 1970s, Americans sensed that their country was growing weaker in the world, (Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian hostage crisis. Today there is a war and an economy without a coherent strategy or clear objectives. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment hit its lowest point in more than 70 years, and the International Monetary Fund warned on Tuesday that war in the Middle East could slow growth and fuel inflation, risking a global recession. Voter discontent is a normal part of a democracy. But what we saw in the 1970s and what we are seeing now is distinctive: a comprehensive loss of faith in the future, a collapse of respect for our governing institutions and alarm that American influence in the world is doomed to diminish. The Democrats are called upon to make the leap past our problems. Perhaps they need to ask themselves: What would Reagan do? Anyone seeking to change our trajectory can learn a lot from his understanding of the political imperatives and possibilities of his moment.Democrats can’t win by just opposing the president. Specific proposals grow out of what needs fixing. A place to start: commitments to end corruption of the current administration, its favoritism toward a select group of very wealthy people. The success of the opposition to Viktor Orban in Hungary’s election on Sunday suggests the power of these issues when they’re linked to economic discontent. Reagan was shrewd about turning a specific problem that was on voters’ minds into a rationale for policies he wanted to pursue anyway. He made the gas lines Americans hated into a case for deregulating the fossil fuel industry. While this may not work now it should be a winning point. Like now Reagan used stagflation to argue for tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy. Neither policy was necessarily popular then and now , the way inflation was driving people into higher tax brackets and rising property taxes helped make his supply-side approach sound positively populist. Reagan noted that in a time of crisis, the public is inclined to say: Above all, try something. In Democratic campaigns last year, they used public concerns about higher prices to make a case for government action in areas such as health care, child care, housing and electricity prices. Voters don’t usually make foreign policy a priority, but they do sense when the country is in trouble in the world. That’s how they felt in 1980, and it’s how they feel now. American should vote after asking: Is the United States stronger and more respected now than it was three and a half years ago? Is the world today a safer place in which we live?” Then ask: are you spending more on essentials than before? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

6 min
Mar 29

The “Manosphere,” Misogyny and Modelling

With more than 5.5 billion people online – and nearly as many on social media – digital spaces have become central to how we learn and connect. But alongside its benefits, the internet is also being used to spread hate, abuse and misogyny. The “manosphere:” a loose network of communities that claim to address men’s struggles – dating, fitness or fatherhood, for example – but often promote harmful advice and attitudes. These groups are united by an opposition to feminism and misrepresent men as “victims” of the current social and political climate. Two-thirds of young men regularly engage with masculinity influencers online. Experts are finding that the popularity of extreme language in the manosphere not only normalizes violence against women and girls, but has growing links to radicalization and extremist ideologies. These communities promote the idea that emotional control, material wealth, physical appearance and dominance, especially over women, are markers of male worth. The manosphere targets male audiences on social media, podcasts, gamer communities, dating apps and just about all digital spaces. Many participants engage with it while searching for forums to openly discuss or learn about men’s issues. But while content may appear focused on men’s self-improvement, many of these groups promote unhealthy behaviors, like instructing boys and men to build themselves up by putting others down. It is normal to seek community in digital spaces. Many of us build a sense of identity, nurture interests and find like-minded people online. But, the manosphere’s lifestyle coaches have drawn young men in by claiming to teach personal responsibility. But ironically, instead of encouraging the self-exploration that can get to the heart of men’s challenges, they suggest men are victims of society’s prejudice against men. While groups within the manosphere do not all share the same beliefs, many are united in their misogyny – a prejudice and resentment of women and girls. In many ways, the manosphere is descended from a long line of anti-feminist movements. Involuntary celibates (incels): believe that men are entitled to sex, and women purposefully deprive them of it. This culture promotes rape and assault and brings together other ideologies, including racism and homophobia. There is a real-world impact: gender stereotypes harm everyone In the manosphere, everyone loses. Misogyny and gender inequality are harmful to men, as well as women. Incels are also more prone to depression and suicidal thoughts. If boys and men aren’t encouraged to speak openly about their emotions or issues, they may gravitate towards these online communities as a place to get advice on topics like relationship struggles, fatherhood, anxiety and sexual health. Meanwhile, younger men today are more likely to hold regressive ideas about gender roles than older men, representing a backlash that could reverse hard-won gains in gender equality. Im addition, some of the men and boys who enter manosphere forums feel alienated by mainstream society. Even if relatively few users travel down rabbit holes to more extremist content, research suggests the pathway is there. Standing up to the manosphere requires we challenge the harmful beliefs and social norms that perpetuate gender inequality. In our social circles and communities, this work often begins and grows with conversation. It’s also helpful to talk to kids about gender equality and stereotypes. We need to promote healthy masculinity in the digital age and value empathy and communication, as opposed to stoicism or isolation. We need to build relationships based on trust, not dominance or status We need to normalize emotional expression and show that it’s safe to be vulnerable. Finally let’s model respect and ways to have healthy disagreements and point out and discuss gender stereotypes in the media This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

7 min
Mar 22

Identification, Citizenship and Voting

61 years ago when President Lyndon B. Johnson called on Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which empowered millions of people of color to vote. Yet, when a war is raging in the Middle East and an affordability crisis is brewing at home, the Senate is poised to begin what could be a marathon debate on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, a bill that would block millions of eligible American citizens from voting — reversing decades of progress. And now, Florida passed a bill on Thursday that would require voters to verify their citizenship when registering and limit which forms of identification they can present at the polls. The new requirements would result in the removal of perhaps thousands of voters from the rolls and in the disenfranchisement of young voters. The votes in both Florida chambers were along strict partisan lines, with all Democrats against the measure. Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican has supported the legislation. The bill’s enactment would make Florida the most populous state in the country to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements on voters. But the Florida requirements would take effect next year, not before this year’s midterm elections. “This is about the integrity of our elections,” one of the bill’s sponsors, State Senator Erin Grall, a Republican from Vero Beach, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “It is something that puts greater trust into our system.” Under the bill, Floridians would have to provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, when they register to vote. Every existing voters’ citizenship would be verified against government databases, such as Real ID, when the bill goes into effect. If no citizenship document came up, the local elections supervisor would notify the voter by mail; to stay registered, the voter would have to bring proof of citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate, to his or her county elections office. About 98 percent of Floridians have Real IDs, about 872,000 residents still do not. Separately, the bill would no longer allow voters to use either college IDs or those provided by retirement homes to identify themselves at polling places. Republicans said those types of ID were too easy to fake. Banning student IDs drew especially strong opposition from Democrats, who accused Republicans of trying to disenfranchise voters on a partisan basis. Young voters often lean Democratic. Eight states have banned student IDs for voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan organization, but six of them still allow voters to cast provisional ballots. The Florida bill was modeled in part after the SAVE America Act that would impose strict voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements nationally. That legislation has become so important to the president that he has said he will not sign any other bill until it passes. But studies have shown that requiring proof of citizenship across the country may end up affecting more Republicans states Mr. Trump won handily in 2024 have the largest percentage of citizens without valid passports, according to an analysis last year by the Secure Democracy Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that studies and analyzes voting policy. This is creating an issue where there are going to be a lot of impacted voters that are going to need to produce a passport or a birth certificate and on the margin, you’re going to have eligible citizens who are not going to be able to vote. Federal law is clear that only American citizens can vote in federal elections, and evidence suggests that noncitizen voting is exceptionally rare. Also, in Arizona, voters passed a ballot initiative in 2004 that required proof of citizenship for registering. That law created a bifurcated system, in which any state election required proof of citizenship, but voters without such proof could still participate in federal elections. In 2024, nearly 100,000 potential voters were at risk of losing their registration because of a glitch in Arizona state data: Voters who were issued driver’s licenses before 1996 might not have proof of citizenship on file. A court granted those voters relief before the 2024 election. In Kansas, 31,089 potential voters had their registrations rejected or denied because they had failed to produce documents proving their citizenship, according to federal court records. The court also found that almost all of the affected voters were citizens. The law was ruled unconstitutional and has not been enforced since 2018. In 2024, New Hampshire passed a law requiring all first-time voters in the state to prove their citizenship in order to vote. The law is being challenged in federal court. Louisiana also passed a law in 2024 requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering. This year, legislatures in South Dakota and Utah passed proof-of-citizenship laws that are awaiting signature by each state’s governor. Don’t forget this reminder that the stakes are immensely high. As the 2026 midterms fast approach, we see renewed efforts to control or undermine our elections on Capitol Hill and in States! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

7 min
Mar 13

Live with Ken Scott Baron from the NABWMT

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

5 min
Mar 9

Oil and Food

What’s happening in the Middle East can seem very far away — at least until you stop for gas. Prices at the pump have jumped since Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz at the start of the conflict, creating a gap in the energy supply chain that spans the world. It’s a reminder that war has profound effects on all those who are connected to it. And we are all connected to it, somehow. The longer the conflict in the Middle East continues the greater the likelihood that people around the globe will pay more for food. And those in the most vulnerable countries could face hunger. The Persian Gulf is a dominant source of the world’s fertilizers, especially those that deliver nitrogen to soils — a source of nourishment for crops that amount to half the world’s food. Fertilizer is produced in the region and shipped … everywhere. If the Strait of Hormuz remains strangled, prices for fertilizer will rise. And as a result, farmers may use less on their crops, if they can get any at all. The world will get less food, and it will cost more. We saw this happen at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, when the world received a lesson in the geography of agriculture. Both countries provided the world with substantial quantities of wheat and other grains. Without them, bread shortages soon developed in West Africa and South Asia, among other places. The Middle East won’t affect the harvesting of grain. But the effects of a fertilizer shortage, or more expensive fertilizer, may be even more intense. The volumes are greater this time around, potentially, than in the Russia-Ukraine conflict Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — supply more than a third of the world’s urea, an important nitrogen fertilizer, and nearly a quarter of another one, ammonia. And they all use the Strait of Hormuz to export their products. Farmers in the Northern Hemisphere, who will soon need fertilizer to boost their spring crops. Where might they get it? China’s the most obvious alternative. But last year the Chinese government imposed restrictions on the export of fertilizer, in part to shield its farmers from just the sort of geopolitical chaos this war brought on. Prices are already climbing. Over the past week, the price of urea sold in Egypt, a market that economists track closely, climbed more than 35 percent. If the trend continues, governments across the Global South could need to subsidize the cost of growing crops. And that could add to their debt burdens. The long-term solution is not to be dependent on fertilizer that has to be trafficked through Strait of Hormuz. We have become hooked on these imports. Those hooks are everywhere, once you start looking for them. War is hell on us all. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

5 min

Activist and media outreach NABWMT, commenting on racial and cultural barriers and human equality. I use educational, political, cultural, and social activities to fight racism, sexism, homophobia, and other inequities in our communities and in our lives. nabwmt.substack.com

Creator

Ken Scott Baron
Years Active

2019 - 2026
Episodes

52
Rating

Clean
Copyright

© aron
Show Website

Ken Scott Baron Podcast