All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:16
Episode 238 Scott Adams: False Memories, Kavanaugh and Confirmation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in here.
Hello Savannah.
Hello Mike.
Hey. Other people, Jerry, Fuzzy, Jim, Tyler.
If you come in early, I'll say your name out loud.
It's quite a treat. And now, We have a thousand people and it's time for the simultaneous sip, the best sip of the day.
Grab your mug, your chalice, your vessel, your cup, your glass, fill it with your favorite beverage, lift it to your lips, and enjoy the simultaneous sip.
Somebody mentioned the name Feinstein in the comments just now, and I have to laugh.
Every time the president mispronounces her name as Feinstein, I always think to myself, does he do that intentionally?
Does he not care?
Or is he just confused like most of us are on whether it's Steen or Stein?
So, let's talk first about all the inconsistencies.
So there's this general feeling I'm hearing in the pundits.
The pundits are saying that if people are lying about the little stuff, that's an indication that they're lying about the big stuff.
So if somebody was definitely lying about the little details, that should take away the credibility of what they say about the big point.
Well, I disagree with that totally.
In this case, anyway.
There might be some general sense where that's true.
But in this particular case, you have two people, Ford and Kavanaugh, who are acting as advocates.
They're not really there to tell the truth.
They're both fighting for their life.
They're fighting for the fate of the country.
They're fighting for their families.
They're fighting for their reputations.
Neither Kavanaugh nor Ford are there to tell us the truth.
You know, on some surface level, that's why they're there.
But they're advocates.
They're advocates.
They're there to win.
And in those situations, when you have, let's say, the question of, did Christine Ford really remember she only had one beer, but she couldn't remember these other details?
Well, that's sort of ridiculous.
Did Kavanaugh really never drink to blackout or never drink too much or never have a time when he drank so much he didn't remember some details of what happened?
Well, it's sort of ridiculous.
Did he have the drinking age wrong?
Did he mischaracterize by a year when the legal age changed in 1982?
Well, it doesn't really matter.
Because you should expect that both of them would lie on all the little stuff.
The expectation should be that both advocates will shade The little stuff as much as possible to the point where it's just a lie.
So when they talk about whether they had one beer or whether somebody knew somebody, you know, this sort of thing, you should expect both of them are lying by shading and etc.
So don't make any conclusion about whether they were honest about the little stuff because they're not there to tell you the truth.
They're advocates. Let's talk about Jeff Flake.
So Jeff Flake, one of the swing votes, He has come out and announced that he will vote for Kavanaugh and his reasoning in his announcement was interesting.
So what he said was that he was open to hearing both stories but when he did he said it was impossible to know who was telling the truth and therefore you must default to the system.
And the system Is essentially, at least an ethic of the system, is innocent until proven guilty.
So I think that's the protection that all of the Republicans and the people who might vote for Kavanaugh have now.
Because of the hearings, the testimonies, I think that everybody has the same cover that Jeff Flake does, which is they can credibly say, there's no way to know what happened.
And once you've said that, you're free to vote for the one you want.
So I think confirmation is assured at this point, simply because the people who wanted to vote for him, but found it dangerous, have really good cover now.
Now Jeff Flake is the perfect one to go first.
Why? Why is Jeff Flake the perfect one to go first of the group of, I think, four or five people who are the only ones who haven't made a decision?
If you've never listened to me before, that might be less obvious.
If you've listened to my Periscopes, you know that this little group meets, and in fact they met right after the hearings, so the little group of undecideds, I think there were four or five of them, and And then out of that group, Jeff Flake went first.
And he tried out an approach, which is we can't really know, so you have to default to the system which says you're innocent until proven guilty.
Why did Jeff Flake go first?
It's because he has less to lose.
He's not running for re-election.
So he is A-B testing his explanation.
So the other people who would like to say what Jeff Flake just said are going to wait to see what the reaction is.
And then they'll know if they're safe or not.
The reaction will be safe enough.
Because when you say there's no way to know, it's pretty obvious when you look at the public that the public is split.
It's pretty objectively true that reasonable people are looking at all the evidence that's available and coming to different conclusions.
That's all you need to know.
And then you just default to the system and you've done the most credible thing that a leader can do.
So Jeff Flake going first is important.
He's the He's the canary in the coal mine.
He's the A-B test.
He's the one who's going first to see if he gets killed.
Because if he gets killed, it doesn't matter that much.
He's retiring anyway.
The others care more.
The discussion of...
Let's talk about fake memories here in a minute.
I'm making myself a note. When I'm watching people frame the situation and they're talking about Ford and Kavanaugh and their testimonies and how credible they are, you're watching what I told you would happen back in 2015.
You're watching a civilization that is ascending to a higher level of awareness about reality.
It's really exciting. And I've said this about the whole Trump administration, you know, from the beginning, even from the candidacy, that he would change the way we thought about reality.
Now let me ask you this.
Back in 2015 when I say the facts don't matter, of course they matter to outcomes, but in terms of our decision making, we just ignore them.
Have you ever seen a cleaner example of where the facts don't matter?
This is a real obvious situation where you can see people who have made a decision and then they reason backwards to what the facts must be.
Oh, I've decided I like Kavanaugh, therefore I'll reason backwards to the facts of, oh, it's a fake memory.
So, when I first said this in 2015, I think most of you will remember that it just sounded crazy.
In 2015, this is just a few years ago, to say that the facts don't matter to our decisions just sounded crazy.
But now you're watching it.
It's unambiguously true that the facts don't matter.
And the reason, of course, is that we never know the facts.
So the facts would matter totally if we actually knew what they were, but we tend to think we know the facts and we're just wrong.
We just believe it without having evidence.
All right, so the people who have already risen to the higher level of, let's say, understanding reality, Are not saying that one of them lied and one of them is telling the truth.
Anybody who's framing this as there's one liar and one telling the truth, and that's the end of the story, they have not yet risen to a higher level of awareness where I think much of the public, not all, but much of the public is starting to understand.
And the higher level of awareness goes like this.
Both of them Could very easily be telling the truth as they understand it.
So if you're looking for lies, I think you're not gonna find any.
Because on the little stuff, of course, they're shading, they're manipulating all the little stuff about who had a beer and stuff like that.
How did I get home? Whatever.
That stuff is just total bullshit, but you should expect that from advocates.
On the big question of whether the main allegation was true...
To me, the most likely situation, and certainly the one that should be in every conversation, whether it's the best explanation or not, it should be prominent in every summary that both could be telling the truth as they see it.
So that means that both could have faulty memories.
One of them could have faulty memories.
Or we live in a simulation in which the history isn't really set.
The history is variable until you confirm it.
So watch for people like Geraldo, who has risen to a higher level of awareness.
Maybe he was already there. I think he was already there.
And Geraldo has said they're both telling the truth as they see it.
That is a higher level awareness.
Doesn't mean it's accurate.
It just means that he is aware of that possibility being a prime possibility, not just some obscure little maybe weird possibility.
It's the prime possibility that they're both telling the truth as they remember it.
And then you have to default to the process because there's no other credible thing to do but default to the well-known, understood processes of how you handle things when you don't know the facts.
Dr. Ford, when asked about whether she could not remember the main fact, you know, is it possible she wouldn't remember the main fact, talked about her hippocampus and chemical reactions in the brain and how the brain normally remembers the big details.
but it's normal to be sketchy on the small details.
Was Dr.
Ford correct that it is normal to remember the big detail While not remembering what people wore or the exact wording or stuff like that.
Yes, that is completely accurate, scientifically backed.
Everybody would agree that it is more likely you will remember the big facts than the little facts.
However, the question that was not asked, and I wish it had been, is Dr.
Ford, do you believe there is such a thing as false memories?
Being a memory expert, she's going to say yes, because she knows that other people have had false memories.
Then you follow up.
Dr. Ford, the people who have false memories, are they positive that their false memory is true?
Dr. Ford's an expert on this stuff, or at least she's an expert in this general field.
She would say, I think, yes, those people with false memories, which are fairly common and do happen in traumatic situations more often than others, they are positive and they're also wrong.
That's a thing.
Without that question, I feel like, you know, we just didn't get a good hearing.
Now, I do understand why the lawyer that the GOP hired did not go hard at her, because it would have been an unnecessary abuse.
Whatever is going on with Dr.
Ford, it's not pleasant.
She's not having a good time.
She's a victim of something, whether it's events, this event, other events, just a baseline anxiety that she talked about.
She's a victim of something, and there is a limit to how hard you go as someone who is clearly a victim of something.
So I think the GOP probably chose right to, and I'm guessing that the lawyer that they hired probably had some instructions to go easy, or at least not to go as hard as you would go in a trial.
So, I think they played it right, but we'll never know.
I still would have liked to hear some more probing questions, but we didn't.
So, here's the question.
Can people have a false memory of somebody that they know?
So the fact that she says she knew Brett Kavanaugh, which is also in dispute, by the way, because he doesn't know her, or at least didn't hang around the same circles.
Is it possible to have a false memory with a whole different person in it?
Well... I've told you my story of being robbed as a bank teller and how I gave a completely, 100% wrong.
The only thing I got right was the gender when I gave my description of the robber.
And I know that because later I saw bank video, video surveillance of me being robbed, and it was a totally different person from my memory.
So I hold in my memory a perfect memory of the person who robbed me While also holding a perfect memory of looking at the video of me actually being robbed by a completely different person.
So there's one example in which I have a different person in my memory and it's confirmed.
But the question is, okay, this was a stranger.
I didn't know the person robbing me.
If you actually know the person, can you have a false memory of somebody you know?
Because that would be weird to get that wrong, right?
Well, I have two of them.
One of them involved my brother.
I can't remember the details now, but I remember where I was telling a story in which I was the center of the story and I did X. And my brother sat in the room and said, you didn't do X. That was me.
I have a memory of doing something that was actually my brother doing it.
I'm forgetting some of the details, but it was like a mind-blowing situation.
Because even if you assume that my brother was the one who has the false memory, one of us has a false memory, if not both, even if you assume he was, it's still a situation of having a memory about your own brother, That you substitute yourself for, or vice versa. That is as deep a memory as you could possibly have.
I also have a false memory involving my mother.
A very detailed story of something that happened in which, when I check it with my mother, so when she was alive, I recounted the story that was about her.
A very detailed story.
It involved a gun.
And a dog. It literally involved, you know, shooting a dog.
Now that's the sort of story that if you're a kid is pretty traumatic, right?
Somebody actually shooting a dog.
And in this story it was my mother shooting the dog.
Or actually threatening to shoot the neighbor's dog because the neighbor's dog attacked our dog.
So the story was a little bit traumatic because our dog got eaten, you know, got pretty chewed up by the neighbor's dog.
And in my recounting of it, my mother took her a gun, which we kept loaded and leaned in the corner behind the front door.
True story. We had a loaded gun.
Leaned in the corner of my kitchen, just all the time, in case we needed it.
When you grow up in the country, that's actually more normal than you think.
It was actually there because there were animals that would get in the garden and my mother would go out and shoot the rabbit or whatever it was that was in the garden.
So my mother was the one who used the gun most of the time.
And my memory is that she went to the neighbors with her gun Loaded, knocked on the door and said, your dog just attacked our dog.
You've got two choices.
You can either shoot your dog or you can watch me shoot your dog.
And then the neighbor went in the back and shot his dog.
Now, I recounted that story to my mother and she said, that never happened.
And I said, well, maybe I got some of the details wrong, but the basic idea that you went to his house and told him to kill his dog, or you would, and you had your gun with you at the time, that part's true, right?
And she said, nope.
Nope. Nothing like that ever happened.
Look how detailed this story is.
And my mother, either my mother or I, Have a complete false memory.
Because how would you forget that, right?
So it's far more likely that my memory was the false one, because she has the negative memory of it, and you would remember something like that, right?
That's really not the kind of thing you'd forget if you were the principal.
Then, let me give you another one.
So last night, and this literally happened, it was sort of mind-blowing.
Last night, while I was looking on social media and talking about this false memory stuff, I got into a conversation with Christina, my girlfriend, in which I recounted a story that she and I, a conversation we had.
I remember the place we were.
I remember talking about it.
I remember how it made me feel.
I remember how it made me feel after the fact.
And ever since that moment, it had sort of a lasting impact on me.
But it didn't happen.
And so I told the story of a very detailed event that involved Christina and a conversation with her, but she presented evidence that I think completely confirms that that conversation never happened.
You don't need to know the details.
But I have a complete false memory that I know now is a false memory, and it doesn't change the memory.
I still have a complete memory Of something that didn't happen.
And I know it didn't happen because her counter argument was perfect.
So... Can drugs affect memory?
Yeah, lots of things can affect memory.
So can time.
And so can therapy.
Those are two things we know will affect memory.
Let's go on. So...
Can you have a false memory that involves someone you know?
And the answer is yes.
I've had them.
I've had them in complete form with details.
And so anytime I see this conversation, and I was tweeting about this this morning, so I tweeted around a number of stories talking about the unreliability of eyewitnesses.
Now if it's true that eyewitnesses are deeply unreliable, and the science is very clear on that, how different would that be if you were the subject of the event?
Now, the thing that makes eyewitness accounts unreliable, or the thing that makes them more unreliable, relatively, is when there's any kind of shock or trauma or your fight-or-flight instincts get elevated.
So whenever that's happening, your memory suffers.
So with eyewitnesses, if they watch an event that's sort of routine, they might remember it better than if somebody came in and committed a crime and somebody got hurt and then somebody ran away.
Under the latter situation, they're less likely to have the same memory because their emotions are jacked up at the moment of the event.
Now if you're the one who is being attacked Your memory should be jacked up far more, or at least your emotions would be jacked up even more than witnesses.
So if somebody's standing right next to you getting attacked, would have, in theory, an unreliable memory, because eyewitnesses are unreliable, but the person being attacked would have even more of that effect.
In other words, they would have more trauma, they would have more emotional involvement.
So I don't know if that specifically has been studied, but if you're using your, you know, kind of sense of reason, that if that is the thing that makes your memory unreliable, the amount of emotion that goes into it, Then the person having the most emotion probably has the least reliable memory.
Now, one of the things I've taught you way before any of this Kavanaugh stuff came up is that if two people have a different memory or a different observation, one of them is seeing an elephant in the room and the other person is right next to you and they don't see the elephant, which one is telling the truth?
Well, it's usually the person who doesn't see the thing, who doesn't see the memory.
That's the person who's usually telling the truth.
Not every time, right? But in my experience, I can't think of any exceptions.
It's the person who's invented the elephant who's having the hallucination.
And so with these memories, if you have somebody who says, I was there, and somebody says, no, I would remember that, Usually I would rely on the person whose memory says they weren't there.
But of course this is all shaded by the fact that they are advocates.
So you should expect You should expect neither Kavanaugh nor Ford to be reliable witnesses because they're advocates.
They're not uninterested observers.
You should expect them to be unreliable, both of them.
And therefore you have to default to the system because you can't determine who's telling the truth.
Now, what about the...
What about the simulation?
You know, the smart people like Elon Musk and people like me say that reality is probably a simulation.
And if it is, the creators of the simulation would want to reserve or conserve resources.
Unless they needed them. So they would not create a reality that had every possibility and every history that's complete and fits.
It would just be too hard to program.
Or it would be harder than it needs to be.
You would instead have the past determined by the present whenever you needed it.
So the past would be developed on demand.
And that allows for the fact that there could be two legitimate pasts that people believe in.
At the same time that neither of them is true.
They're both simulations.
So you're not ready to accept this explanation of reality and I understand.
But you will.
You're getting there. So in my world, it is more likely that both of them are telling the truth and that they both have a valid history that supports their truth.
But that's because we live in a simulation, and since there's no way to decide which one is true, they can both be true forever.
Because there's nothing that makes, that requires them to be solved.
Now let's talk about, let's talk about the people who are talking about this.
The people who are talking about The Ford vs.
Kavanaugh situation. If they don't mention in every major conversation that eyewitness reports and memories are unreliable, they're either anti-science or they're just advocates and you could ignore them.
You could ignore anybody who's just an advocate.
And so look for the people who are willing to say, okay, let's understand that memories are very unreliable.
And this is true of Kavanaugh, and it's true of Ford, it's true of you, it's true of me.
Memories are very unreliable.
And if that's not part of every conversation, then somebody's being illegitimate in even talking about it.
So, in summary, you should expect that both Kavanaugh and Ford are intentionally lying about the little stuff.
Because they're advocates, they're not there to tell the truth.
They're there to get a result.
So they're probably both lying about how much beer they had and how certain they are about their memories and stuff like that.
Now, you want to see another false memory that happened today?
Here's one. I'll read it to you.
This is on Twitter. This is someone having a false memory right in front of you.
Just see how common it is.
Here's a tweet.
This is a tweet from somebody named Greg, just random person on the internet on Twitter.
And he says, how about Ford's most credible witness, her lifelong female friend?
She emphatically says it didn't happen.
As do all the remembered witnesses.
That's why it's obvious Christine is having false memories.
This tweet is based entirely on a false memory.
The friend said she didn't remember it.
The friend did not say it didn't happen.
So this very tweet about the situation is based entirely on a false memory.
There was no memory of Christine Ford's friend saying this didn't happen.
No memory of that.
But this person believes they have a full memory of reading a news report or seeing a news report in which the friend said it didn't happen.
The only thing the friend said is she has no memory of it.
That's completely different than saying I have a memory of it not happening.
Very different. So false memories are the norm.
Our memories are terrible.
We are learning so much during the Trump administration about how reality is constructed.
We're learning the facts don't matter.
We're learning that our system is not what you thought it was.
In this Supreme Court decision, what is the process for picking a Supreme Court person?
What is the process for confirmation?
Let's say confirmation specifically.
If you live in the second dimension, you say to yourself, oh, well, the president nominates somebody, the Senate does advice and consent, they have to get a majority, blah, blah, blah.
So that's what your impression is of how the world works.
Or it was. Now what do you think?
Now you saw that mostly everybody made their decision without regard to the facts.
They just joined their team and then they reasoned backwards to why they must be right.
You all saw this, right?
You all saw that the facts didn't matter to the vast majority of people.
Now there's a small group, the four or five people, who had not decided yet and Jeff Flake has now left that group because he's decided.
But The entire decision of who gets on the Supreme Court came down to four or five people.
I'm not wrong, am I? The decision about who got on the Supreme Court was not the Senate.
It didn't matter what the rest of the Senate did.
It only mattered what those four or five people did, because they're the only ones who matter.
The only ones that matter.
So that's our system.
We have a system where four or five people get to decide who's on the Supreme Court.
That's it. That's what we're watching right now.
Four or five people deciding.
And I'm not even sure those four or five are deciding.
I told you before that it's more like the four or five are hiding than deciding.
Because they needed to hide until everything that could be known was out.
And then they could find something to be their fake because.
You saw with Jeff Flake.
His fake because was that, okay, now we've hurt everybody, and it's unreliable on both sides, and now it's safe for me to say, since we can't tell, we have to go with, you know, innocent until proven guilty.
And we have to conserve the system, so to speak.
Preserve the system.
Yeah, so here's what I ask myself.
Given that only four or five people are running the show, why would you ever vote with the majority?
Imagine this scenario.
Imagine that Senator Scott Adams gets elected.
So on day one, I get elected.
And it doesn't matter which party I'm in.
But let's say... Well, it does matter in this case.
Let's say I'm...
Maybe it doesn't matter.
Let's say I'm...
Yeah, it doesn't matter which party I'm in.
So I get elected, and it doesn't matter if I got elected, Democrat or Republican.
What's the first thing I do to take power?
To essentially overthrow the government?
All I do is not vote with my party every time.
Do you get that? If I became senator, I could run the country as one senator just by not reliably voting for my party every time.
I would be the only one who's making the decision.
Because these votes are coming down to one vote.
And I would be that vote.
Now, if I got elected...
By either party, Democrat or Republican, and then I just always voted with my party, what power would I have?
None. I would have no power.
I would not be part of the decision-making process.
Not in any important way.
But by sometimes going against my group and always waiting for the last minute, like this little group of four or five swing voters, they have effectively taken over the country.
You get this, right?
That there are only four or five senators who run everything now.
They're deciding who's on the Supreme Court.
They're going to decide Obamacare, you know, healthcare.
They're going to decide on probably prison reform.
They're probably going to be the important swing votes on taxes.
There are only four or five people.
That's it. They're running the country.
And if you get elected to the Senate and you immediately join a team and just vote for the team, well, you're a freaking idiot.
You're an idiot. Let me put it another way.
There are four or five smart people in the Senate, and then there are a bunch of idiots.
Because four or five are making all the decisions.
And the others are just sort of, I'm a Republican.
I'm a Democrat. I'm a Republican.
I'm a Democrat. Four or five people go in and say, well, let's make this decision.
What do you think, Jeff? What do you want to do here?
Yes, McCain, for all of McCain's alleged and real faults, McCain was simply smarter than most of the people because he was willing to cross sides, willing to talk to the other side.
That gave him real power.
I'll drink to that.
I believe I've talked about everything I want to talk about.
So I'll double down on my prediction that the Republicans have enough cover to vote for this candidate and that Kavanaugh will be confirmed.
Yes, and the same thing with the Supreme Court.
Now, when people say...
We're putting these justices on the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will decide if it's a conservative majority, they're going to do a bunch of conservative stuff.
Therefore, we have to be really careful who we put on the Supreme Court.
And I would say, back up a little bit.
You're missing it. You're missing it.
Back up. The four or five people who decided if he gets confirmed, they're the ones who are deciding all the future decisions.
The Supreme Court is a given.
You know that the Supreme Court is going to line up by majority, most of the time.
They're just going to line up by majority.
So the Supreme Court doesn't really make decisions anymore.
I think there might have been a time, maybe, you know, I could be corrected on this, there might have been a time when the Supreme Court actually made decisions.
Well, we're not in those times.
All you need is a majority of either the liberal side or the conservative, and you'll already know what the decision is before it's even picked up by the Supreme Court.
So the decisions will now be made by the four or five senators who can go either way.
That's it. Somebody's asking about Dershowitz.
I've said many times that I like to wait until Dershowitz speaks to have an opinion because his legal opinion is just better than everybody else's and he's one of the few people who can have an opinion on both sides of the aisle.
So Dershowitz is sort of like those four or five senators.
He has wisely staked down a position where he can go left and he can go right and therefore he can be credible.
In a way that other people can't be.
So it's sort of a superpower and he's smart enough to know it.
He has suggested that the confirmation should wait until the situation is investigated.
I think he's suggesting the FBI, but he's talking about doing an investigation.
And those of you who have been watching Dershowitz seemingly support the president in various opinions, but really he's just supporting the law, and the law supports the president in a number of cases, you're confused, because it feels like, wait a minute, why is Dershowitz trying to hold up this nomination?
Is he a secret Democrat?
And the answer is, no, he's not a secret Democrat.
He is a public Democrat.
He says explicitly he would not prefer this candidate's opinions on the Supreme Court, but he would like to see an investigation.
Now let me give you my opinion on that.
It's the same thing I said.
I also said I don't see any reason to not have an investigation because there's nothing it can do.
It can't change the results.
So, if you don't have one, you can certainly argue that it wouldn't have changed the result.
People may or may not believe that.
If you do have one, then at least you can say, well, we had one, and it turns out it was a big nothing, because the only thing the FBI can do is talk to other witnesses, and it wouldn't matter what the other witnesses said.
It wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter if some extra witnesses confirmed one side or the other.
It wouldn't matter. It's still just hearsay.
It's bad memory.
It's ancient. All the decisions are made.
So the best argument against Alan Dershowitz is that we know the decision won't be changed, but I think he knows that as well.
I think Dershowitz knows that an investigation won't change the decision, but it is fair and credible of him to say in this case an investigation would make everybody feel better about the system and credibility The way you feel about the system, the credibility does matter.
The credibility is the glue that holds the whole thing together.
So if you lose your glue, it all falls apart.
So Dershowitz is correct that an investigation, even at this late date, would make the country more comfortable.
But there's also a little extra risk Because you never know.
You never know if your investigation is going to kick up something that's a whole unrelated matter that the FBI can't ignore, right?
So there's extra risk.
If I were the president or the Republican senators, I would push through with the vote and I would get this behind us as quickly as possible.
If I were Alan Dershowitz, I think his brand is well served by exactly his position because his brand is trying to be credible no matter which way that falls.
And his position of, you know, why not?
Let's have a little extra credibility, a little extra certainty.
There's not really a chance it's going to change the result, but it might make us feel different about the result.
That's a pretty credible strategy, credible opinion.
Even if you disagree with it, it's completely well-grounded, well-reasoned, and credible, as is basically everything Dershowitz says.
By the way, look at Alan Dershowitz at age 80.
And then look at the senators who were questioning the folks yesterday.
Boy, 80 is not the same thing for different people, is it?
Dershowitz at age 80 looks and acts like age 60.
I don't even see him losing anything.
You can't even see a trace of Of anything different at 80?
I mean, that's pretty impressive.
But you look at some of the Senators, you know, Senator Feinstein, Leahy, Orrin Hatch, those guys, they do clearly send the impression that they've lost a step.
So 80 isn't 80 anymore.
Dershowitz is impressive.
Yeah, and Trump is 72 is certainly a whole different character than a lot of people at 72.
All right. Do you think the term witch hunt is offensive to witches?
Yeah, I mentioned yesterday that watching this show, Watching Kavanaugh respond to the senators felt like elder abuse because the senators just weren't on his level intellectually.
They just clearly have lost a step.
And no matter what you think about this situation, I think it pulled the lid back on who it is who's in charge.
And it's scary to see that senior citizens who have quite obviously lost a step are making important decisions.
That's a big deal, and I think we ought to fix it.
But beyond that, we have a more complicated environment, we have new technology, new issues, new questions, and I think you need more diversification in the Senate.
So we should diversify the Senate in every way that that makes sense.
So we should diversify more women, we should have more ethnic representation, because that's what looks like the country, but we should also have some science people, some engineers in the Senate, you know.
Having all aging lawyers, or seemingly all aging lawyers, is not diversification.
Forget about the fact that most of them are old white guys.
That's a risk profile by itself, just because you don't have enough perspectives.
But the fact that they don't understand technology, and they never will, and they're 80, and technology will be all the important decisions in the future, that's just not a good look.
You need some younger people on there, some more diversity.
All right.
I think we've covered it.
Thank you.
I think we've said everything we need to say.
And now it's time to get back to work.
Hey people, get back to work.
Is there any kind of a decision on when the vote will happen?
I haven't heard that yet.
In the coming days, I'm going to be talking about my company's app, the interface by WinHub app.
There's some exciting things happening that I think have an implication for the bigger world, an implication for you, all of you watching this.
So if you don't mind, I want to warn you in advance.
I'm going to be talking about the app, not today, but soon, and pretty exciting stuff happening.
▲
Export Selection