free 2 think
free 2 think is a podcast hosted by Cody Davis and Jacob Cady, exploring faith, culture, politics, and the ideas shaping our world. Through thoughtful conversation, respectful disagreement, and a commitment to curiosity, we tackle hard topics without the outrage. Think deeply. Listen carefully. Stay free to think.
free 2 think
Ep. 7 | Politics, Polarization & can you be Too Reasonable?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Politics feels more divided than ever, but why? In Episode 7, we discuss the current state of American politics, how today's movies often reflect the culture that creates them, the rise of extreme political positions, and why reasonableness is a virtue—but can become a vice when it leads to complacency. When is it time to compromise, and when is it time to stand firm? Join us as we explore one of the defining tensions of our time.
I did that perfectly this morning. Our intro, the music, I didn't mess anything up. Better than last week. Better than last week.
SPEAKER_02You can't do the quotes.
SPEAKER_01Then they're gonna know that we did it an hour ago. Started an hour ago. Yeah. We've just changed our costumes.
SPEAKER_02And got hot coffee. It is hot. Oh, it burns when it goes down. I drink too much. So I watched Jumanji last night. Like the original. Are you okay? Yeah. Do we need to pause?
SPEAKER_01It burns. No, go ahead. Keep going. Okay. Oh my god. All right.
SPEAKER_02So that's one of my favorite movies. The old one or the new one? The old one from 95. Yeah. Because I remember seeing it in theaters. It's one of those kind of the movies that you remember in theaters are usually the good ones. But like the CGI holds up really well. You know? I mean, you can you can tell. Yeah. But it's better than some that I've seen today. It's amazing.
SPEAKER_01It's funny, my kids they obviously prefer the new ones, but we started watching the old one, it was a couple years ago, um, with Robin Williams, and they actually, it was intense. It was it was scarier. It yeah, it was darker than the new ones. Yeah. And so we actually had to turn it off after a while because they were like the younger kids, I think Javen was probably seven or eight. He was just it was getting too much for him. So I was like, hmm, interesting. Because I never remember it being like dark, but it was.
SPEAKER_02It was it was uh it's a weird combination of humor and darkness. It is kind of a dark comedy, yeah.
SPEAKER_01But yeah, they they love they love the new ones with you know the rock and those ones are okay.
SPEAKER_02But I was trying to separate whether I I feel it's just a good movie or if it's good because of nostalgia, because I remember it. And that's hard. I was just trying to think about it. And it's just something different about movies from that era, right? It just because it really blended, it's kind of like Jurassic Park in a way, is it just kind of was this mostly driven by practical effects and then kind of augmented by CGI? Just really came together really well. But I don't know, it's one of my favorite movies. Who's the actor that just died? That just died from uh Jurassic Park. He's the dude. Oh, Sam Neal. What's his name? Sam Neal.
SPEAKER_01Sam Neal, yeah, yeah. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00He seemed so young.
SPEAKER_01He was 78. I know, but it's just like when he was a young character, when you grow up and you see it, it's oh yeah.
SPEAKER_02Because you usually don't see too many of their older movies and then you don't.
SPEAKER_01I mean, that he did he did act in Jurassic Park New World or something like that. The newest one.
SPEAKER_02Oh, I haven't even seen that one. Yeah. I'm becoming kind of a nostalgia snob. I was gonna say. Because I just don't. These new movies, they seem so sloppy. I love the glasses, by the way. Oh, thank you. I can't even see your eyes. I have myopia. Myopia? Myopia? I thought it was myopia. I don't know. And astigmatism. But, anyways, that's my normal glasses I usually wear. A lot of podcasters, they were the they wear the aviators. Bro, you I was gonna try it out. Bro, you look cool. That's all I gotta say. Oh, well, thank you. So, but don't you feel the same way? I mean, name a couple movies in the last decade that have just really nailed it, shot it out of the park.
SPEAKER_01In the last decade?
SPEAKER_02In the last decade, yeah.
SPEAKER_01Well, we'll do this in the future, but I I just watched The Odyssey or Odysseus. What's the name of the movie? Odysseus?
SPEAKER_02The Odyssey. Odysseus is the main character.
SPEAKER_01I can't remember what they named the movie, though, the new movie. The Odyssey. It is The Odyssey, okay. Yeah. Okay. Um I watched, it was good. It was really good, actually. I really enjoyed it. But I tell people I'm pretty easily entertained. Um I'm not I'm not a movie critic. Yeah. So like just there, and there are some movies where I'm like, that was dumb. I didn't like the I didn't and I think it's those movies who who try to be very like progressive and not like have like a an arc and they're just weird and dark and like, nah, I'm good. Like, I want a hero, um, I want a villain, I want I want character development, I want an arc, I want the good guys to win. All those good storytelling mechanics. Yeah, like, and that's what the Odyssey is, you know? Not trying to give anything away if you haven't read the Odyssey, it's been out for a few years.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, roughly 3,000. Yeah. But of course for a while there was just in Greek, so how long has it been in English? I have no idea.
SPEAKER_01Do you want me to do you want me to Google that?
SPEAKER_02Yeah. Yeah, put that into AI. When was the Odyssey um crap?
SPEAKER_01Translated. Translate, jeez. This is the problem with AI, you start to uh lose words.
SPEAKER_02That's what I worry about. We should have said that last week. Just like collective dementia because everything's online.
SPEAKER_011614, George Chapman, the first complete English translation of the Odyssey. It was written in poetic verse and is famous for inspiring the poem On First Looking into Chapman's Homer by John Keats. And then in 1715, Alexander Pope, 1871 by William Cullen Bryant. 2017, Emmy Wilson, the first English translation of the Odyssey by a woman. Anyways. So yeah, 1614 was when it was translated in English.
SPEAKER_02We'll spoil the fact that we're gonna talk about it. I have not seen the movie, so it'll be interesting to have a scene and unseen dichotomy. Okay, interesting.
SPEAKER_01So that's what we're gonna do maybe next week. Yes, the scene versus the unseen. Okay.
SPEAKER_02That sounds like a good like filmmaking podcast. Scene versus unseen. I like it. Yeah. Maybe that'd be the next one.
SPEAKER_01Anyways, you talked about nostalgia. Yes. You just and it was it was a pointy question. Do I like the movie just because it's nostalgic? Because like I've tried to I've tried to watch Star Trek with my kids, and I love it. I love the interaction like between Data, who is like a humanized version of AI, but he has like real personality, which I don't think AI has. Yeah. Um and I I I love it, and my kids they they despise when I try to watch Star Trek. They think it's boring. They don't like these guys have actually deep conversations.
SPEAKER_02Like when it was a very philosophical show.
SPEAKER_01Like when John Luke Picard goes into the bar and talks to Gyna or anyways. Gynon? Gynon, the the bartender. Yeah. Whoopi Goldberger. Yeah. Um, when he goes in and talks to Whoopi, it's like they have these deep, deep conversations. Which again, if they have one of those translators that creates drinks, I forget what it's called. A replicator. The replicator, yeah. Synthesizer? Something. Something. But you can make whatever you want. You could have a chocolate shake with cherry on top, um, or you could have like a martini, but they have a bartender. Why do they have a bartender when they have a synthesizer? Because you need that deep philosophical human connection. We'll always need humanity. We always want to talk to somebody, and that's that's where I think AI is gonna always be short of is this ability for authenticity, like being real. Like at the end of the day, we want humanity, we want to touch, feel, we want something that's authentically created. And we're getting into the whole AI thing. But and and my point to say was they had deep conversations. John Luke Bicard and Whoopi had some very deep conversations. And I did I didn't realize that as a kid, but I've watched a couple episodes, and I'm like, I need to go back and watch the entire thing because they have deep moral, theological, philosophical conversations all the time.
SPEAKER_02And I well, that's that's kind of the backbone of the whole series.
SPEAKER_01Well, and I but you miss that when you were born in the 80s and you kind of watched it through your 90s, you just you completely miss that.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Um or when you're not really old enough to fully comprehend. You don't comprehend it, but now you go back and watch, and it's actually pretty cool.
SPEAKER_02I probably won't agree with everything, but I love it too, yeah. It's just but it challenges you, right? It does. And I mean that brings up a good question of just you know, you say your kids don't like it. Well, why did we like it as kids and they don't like it these days? Cheesy graphics. That's probably one thing. But I mean, if you look at and it probably wasn't really marketed as a kid's show, right? It wasn't kids enjoyed it.
SPEAKER_01It was a I think they were only like half-hour episodes, anyways, maybe. Yeah, but they were they were short. Um, I I I remember coming home and it was always on at like five or six, so it was like we'd have dinner, and then my dad would we'd watch uh you know Star Trek Next Generation, you know, with John Luke Picard. That was always my favorite. Um the original Star Trek was before my time, so I never got too nostalgic about it.
SPEAKER_02But well, the original one was in the 60s, right? And they had the movies Star Trek the motion picture. I couldn't tell you.
SPEAKER_01I always thought the original one was with shoot, what's his name?
SPEAKER_02William Shatner. William Shatner. Leonard Nimoy. Yeah, DeForest Kelly, James McGuin.
SPEAKER_01Lived Long and Prosper. Spock. Spock. I do like Spock. Who's Spock in the next generation? Like who's is it data? Kind of that replica of like pure logic and probably. Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. Yeah, I think so. Anyways. So yeah. Emotionless, but like pining for emotions, right? Because the thing about Spock is he was half human. So he sort of had that emotional I kind of fought with him in himself, emotions versus non-emotions. Yeah. And I think they bring that. And Data was just like pining for those that human experience he wanted to be human. It was Pinocchio.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Except his nose didn't grow.
SPEAKER_01I remember when uh Riker, who's second in command of the Star Star Trek or uh the Enterprise Commander was talking to Data and uh Riker had just shaved, and Riker said, uh smoother than an Android's butt. And uh Data goes over and feels it and goes, no. Android humor. See, that's good.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, that's a good humor. So but I I truly believe that things were just better back then in the 90s, big culture.
SPEAKER_01I I read an article yesterday. They were talking about uh Star Trek and Star Wars, and his favorite series used to be Star Wars. But he's he's gone back to Star Trek because he says that Star Wars has been polluted, it's been overused, it's been overcommercialized, especially since uh Disney bought it in what 15? Something like that. Yeah. Um and that Star Trek still has its original you know attraction. It's it's its original vibe. Um whereas Star Wars has kind of lost that. And you you even the even the new Star Trek series is amidst even the new Star Trek uh movies and series and stuff and stuff like that. He still thinks it has kind of that original vibe and lure, whereas he's and and I I disagree with him. I love Star Wars. Um and again, I'm kind of easily entertained, but he said he he referenced like solo, the movie solo. He said it it just flopped at the box. I actually really like the movie solo. It's it's actually in terms of the new ones, it's kind of up there in my in in kind of the offshoots of Star Wars.
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_01I love the backstory of Solo, I think they did a great job. Um still one of my favorites. Um, and then they he referenced uh The Mandalorian and Grogu. And how that series has just kind of been ho-hum. And I actually really liked the series. I went to this, I went to the movies with my kids and we watched the new movie Mandalorian with Grogu movie. It was fun, it was exciting. Um I I kind of like the continuation of the whole lore and um it hasn't degraded Star Wars. Um yeah, when they get political and they've gotta, you know, kind of make a sacrifice to the to the to the wokeness of our culture, that kind of annoys me. But um for the most part, I I I do enjoy the extension of the of the lore.
SPEAKER_02What about Rise of Skywalker?
SPEAKER_01The Rise of Skywalker? Like, what do I think about the movie? Yeah. Which number was that?
SPEAKER_02Nine.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, is that where he's they find him on the island?
SPEAKER_02Or is that that was well, I mean Force Awakens at the very end, Ray finds Luke Skywalker on the island, and then the last Jedi was mainly on the island, yeah, between Ray and Luke, and then yeah, that was I was but the the Rise of Skywalker was when Ray at the end is like calls herself Ray Skywalker.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. So what do you what do you think of that movie? I think I was originally kind of disappointed that Luke wasn't more involved, and that even when he does get involved in the end, he's just like um I don't even know what you call it, but he was projecting himself, you know, when he was fighting Kylo Wren. Not fighting Kylo Wren, but yeah.
SPEAKER_02That's in the last Jedi.
SPEAKER_01Oh, is that the last one?
SPEAKER_02Well, I mean, it's the middle of the sequel trilogy.
SPEAKER_01Regardless.
SPEAKER_02So yeah, I mean, uh maybe that's case in point, right? It's like what happened in Rise of Skywalker?
SPEAKER_01Do you even know? I don't really know. I mean, if I went back and watched it, I'd remember, but I I I know I was disappointed that Luke wasn't more involved. He wasn't like, you know, in in four, five, and six, he's like the savior, right? And now he's and he's always been kind of whiny. That's what I've always never really liked about Luke, is he's just whiny.
SPEAKER_03Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And it's and maybe it maybe that was just a continuation of his character, but he just seemed whiny again, and like he wasn't that savior that he was, or that he was supposed to be at least.
SPEAKER_02Wasn't the hero that had kind of been set up at the end of Return of the Jedi?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, like I was at the end of not Return of the Jedi, but at the end of the the seventh one with where we get introduced to Ray, or is that with the eight eighth one?
SPEAKER_02Oh, the seventh one. That would be Force Aweekens.
SPEAKER_01And at the end of that, is that when she meets Luke?
SPEAKER_02Yeah, because she's like walking up to him on the island.
SPEAKER_01At the end of that one, when he kind of crested and you see him, I was like, This is awesome. Like the next one's gonna be awesome. And I was disappointed with the with the falling one, yeah. Like how they how they did him and how he was just like they turned him into a frumpy old man.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, it's like a failure. Failure, but yeah, there's a character assassination, but I mean Rise of Skywalker, uh I don't like it. I I did not see that one in theaters because I was just totally disinterested. And I saw it once on a you know, DVD or we had Disney Plus or something, and it was just uh just terrible as far as and it wasn't even the woke stuff. I mean, there's a little bit of that, but it was just the storytelling strategy was just awful. I mean, you could tell that JJ Abrams didn't like what Ryan Johnson did with The Last Jedi, so he like wrested control of the trilogy and just tried to redefine what happened. I mean, the meme of the century, right, is just like the somehow Palpatine returned. Is like I know it is the quintessence of stupid storytelling, of just like at the end of I mean, Anakin's sacrifice at the end of Return of the Jedi is like the stuff that dreams are made of, right? It's just like here is this person that was so corrupted, but this little seed of good that was in him, and then he destroys the emperor, and then what 40 years later, somehow the emperor returned. Yeah, and we're not gonna explain it, we're not gonna do anything, we're not even gonna give homage to the fact that Anakin sacrificed himself, and it's just like we've so it was just so because no matter how many times you kill him, he'll just keep coming back. Yeah, like if you can just always bring him back in the future, and that's the problem with the MCU, right? Is like nobody stays dead. It's like you have a million multiverses, and then it's like, well Marvel Marvel cinematic universe. Okay, yeah. It's like nobody dies, right?
SPEAKER_01Yeah, because you can always just go back in time and and and resurrect them.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, and so you have powerful moments like um Tony Stark sacrificing himself with the infinity gauntlet and just like basically yeah, killing himself so that everyone else can live. Yep. Is those sort of poignant moments end up not meaning anything. So with Rise of Skywalker, it's just like, oh my gosh, I cannot believe that they went in the direction that they did. Yeah, that sacrifice has to mean something.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, you can't just reverse it in the next episode.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, because it was like the whole prophecy of like, oh, Anakin's gonna bring balance to the force and everything. So it's like all of that lore that was like so crystallized in the the first two trilogies, it's like we're not gonna do that. Yeah. And so that's and maybe we'll get into this a little bit next week of just like if you have a filmmaker, how much respect should they have for the source material? Yeah, and I think that's the controversy around the Odyssey, is that's what it boils down to. So more spoilers.
SPEAKER_01But well, and in reference to like real sacrifice, I was just re-watching the uh the Spider-Man, the most recent one. I know there's a new one coming out um this summer sometime or this fall, but uh like in The Last Spider-Man, he sacrifices everyone remembering who he is so that everything can come back to normal. Right. It's a genuine sacrifice, and then you see in the tree in the future trailers he's he has to win back their affection. So like, and I hope they don't just give it all back to him, because then it just makes it just makes it a cheap trick.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Where in the last one he forgets it all and then I all remember him. But like he's gonna have to reacquaint himself with people, get to know them again, even though he already knows them, but they don't know him. Um, I want to see them have to put the work in um to remember, you know, or not even to remember, but to uh to build that back again. Because then again, that previous movie, the previous episode was pointless. It was a cheap trick.
SPEAKER_02And I think that's again, uh, you know, it's so much maybe it's just because it's on my brain, but the postmodern mood, right? Of just if if I have a complete distrust of any sort of meta-narrative, then all those things like you talked about, like the hero's journey or a nice character arc or things like that, they go out the window because I mean, the main criticism that movies enjoy today is just the fact that it seems like the characters are so flat. It's like we see time and time again, they have to have they don't have a main character in the story, they have a main character group, right? Because the characters are so flat and so one-dimensional that they need five characters to do the work of what previously one character did. And you say, Well, Star Wars had an ensemble cast, right? But Luke and Han and Obi-Wan, they all had such depth that if you took five characters with that depth, you had a whole universe. Yeah, whereas today you have five characters and they're all one-dimensional, so in their addition, the sum of the parts, you just get one character, right? Yeah, so it's kind of like a hive mind character, and it's kind of this weird thing, but also just the stories are so unsatisfying because there is absolutely no change. Like if you take take a look at the character of Ray, right? That's the classic one that gets to kind of picked on these days. If you look at Ray at the very beginning of the sequel trilogy versus at the very end, she's basically the same person, and there was very little growth. I mean, if you look at Luke, I mean he was pretty whiny, a little petulant little baby at the very start. Sure. But at the end of Return of the Jedi, you know, he had kind of grown into that hero. And it was the same as, well, maybe not exactly the same, but if you look at Anakin in the prequel trilogy, you know, he started out as a petulant little kid, and then of course he he went to the dark side, but his ultimate arc was back to the light side, right? And so there was change, there was growth, there was success and failure and so many things. But I don't think today it's it's almost like um, and I don't know who's responsible. Is it the screenwriters, is it the directors, is it the studios? They all probably interfere and have their fingers and things. But if you talk about a main character, they don't want to beat up their main character, you know? Yeah, and it's they don't want to make them succeed, they don't want to make them fail, they want them to be the same at the beginning and the end, and it's totally unsatisfying. So if you talk about like for instance, the new Jumanji versus the old Jumanji. In the old Jumanji, you have this character, Alan Parish, who at the beginning he's kind of this coward, you know, because he he runs away from the bully, Billy Jessup, and then when He puts the shoe on the conveyor and the machine like eats the shoe. He doesn't cop to it, he just walks away and he lets Carl take the fall, you know. But then at the end, you know, it's a complete reversal, and he's this brave guy that's willing to sacrifice for other people. And then at the very end, he says to his dad, you know, it's like it wasn't Carl that did that, it was me. And he's like, I'm glad you told me, son, you know. Yeah, so you can see how his character changed, right? But if you look at the characters in the new one, I mean, you have these four characters, you know, if you look at all of them, they're pretty much the same exact character from beginning to end. I know there's a little bit of growth, but again, because you have you know four characters that are basically one-dimensional forming one sort of mega character, and you don't have I mean, the the the arcs are just not satisfying in those movies to me. So the spectacle is there. I mean, it's fun. You see the rock riding around on a motorcycle, and you sure you Jack Black's humor is always, you know, funny, funny and inappropriate as always, and stuff like that. But that's all you're really left with. You're not really left with any sort of connection to that. Like, I see this person and I connected with him, and then they changed over the course of the narrative, and then you know, you you you feel the change that has happened in their life because you can make that connection. I just don't see that these days.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. So is that a product of our culture? Is that the reason politics is the way it is today?
SPEAKER_02Is it uh are you trying to launch into politics? 100%. Yeah. That's right. That's what we want to talk about.
SPEAKER_01I mean, it's culture, politics, and media are part and parcel. I mean, one reflects the other or one informs the other. Um they're still good movies today. Um I think Yodice is a great movie. I really, really liked it. And and again, I I've I've I've uh admitted that I'm easily entertained, but it was beyond me being easily entertained, it was a good story. You know? Um it was almost three hours.
SPEAKER_02So so how does that translate to to politics, right? If you're talking about maybe I could make the connection here. If you're talking about fictional stories being a fictionalized but honest appraisal of the human condition, you know, what's the human condition in politics these days? Cheap tricks. Well, you can't nobody can be honest. They can't be honest with themselves, they can't be honest with their staff, they can't be honest with the the general electorate, they can't be honest with the media. Nobody can be honest and vulnerable and seem human in politics. Because that doesn't poll well.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Because suddenly if you if you show some honesty or you show some contrition or something like that, you're weak. You're unelectable. Why do we even put you in office if you can't handle the job, you know? I mean, you're you're an elected official. Is this is this true? Do you feel that poll of I have to put on a facade or else I'm just gonna get booted out of this office?
SPEAKER_01I remember I had someone in politics tell me one time, I said never admit you're wrong. Because it shows weakness.
SPEAKER_02So someone actually told you that. Someone actually told me that. As like a strategy.
SPEAKER_01As a strategy. As a political strategy, never admit that you're wrong. As a political strategy, just pivot. Never admit you're wrong. And that's again, I I think it's it's cheap, they're cheap tricks. Just much, much like um media today, much like movie making and stuff like that, they're they're cheap tricks. You know, when they killed off Senator Palpatine or what's his name? The Emperor? The Emperor. When they killed off the Emperor, and then brought him brought him back 60 years later. It's a cheap trick.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And and politics is full of cheap tricks today. It's what what can I do? What act can I perform that will get me the most support rather than just rather than just having an honest conversation? And again, it's the impetus for our podcast, right? Let's just talk real. Let's think out loud. Let's be free to think rather than circumscribed by culturally appropriate things for the masses, right? Like this is this is on a whole a culturally appropriate topic to talk about and how to talk about it and things like that. Let's not think outside the box, let's not talk differently, let's let's hem it in. Um, and I I think culture, not culture, but but rather politics absolutely reflects um what we see in both media today, what we see in culture, what what we see in social media, you you name it. They're they're all cheap tricks to get something. And and and that's the extreme. I think there are there is a bevy of honest individuals who want something real. And I think that actually represents the whole um of humanities, people who want something real. But then you've got the the actors, um, you've got the the people in charge, you've got the kind of more extremists who uh who want to win power. And again, we've talked about this before, but um most arcs of politicians or leaders is to amass more power. Rarely do you see leaders give up power. Rarely do you see leaders self-limit um their own power. I mean, that's a true sacrifice, right?
SPEAKER_02Um for instance, George Washington saying, No, I'm gonna serve two terms.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and there's there's a handful of even senators in our history that have said, I'm going to limit myself, or even House of Representatives, I'm gonna limit myself to certain terms. Now, funny or not, a lot of people who make that pledge break that pledge. Yeah. Because they get whatever, whatever pledge they made, whether it was eight years, sixteen years, whatever it is, they get to that point and they go, Wow, I can't let go of this power. Power must be addictive. It probably is addictive. Like a drug. But there are many who have said, I I committed to eight years, I'm gonna stick to eight years, and they've they've given up that power. And it's like, shoot, those are the type of people we actually need in in politics.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01The ones who are willing to give it up. Yeah. Because then the guy who re or gal who replaced him or her is now perpetually in power because they're not gonna make that same pledge. And the alternative is you have to force them with term limits. You would have to force them, but they're the ones that have to put it essentially on the ballot, you know. And so you have to get a majority of Congress to say we want term limits, and then it's gonna have to go to the states and convention of states or whatever. Yeah. And it'll never happen. Yeah, it's just it's just not in the self-interest of senators and representatives to term limit. And I I I've heard the other argument that the the the ultimate term limit is the voters, and if the voters continue to put them into office, then there's your term limit. There's what the voters wanted.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01But there's just such a power to incumpency, it's almost almost insurmountable. Although we've seen a lot of uh turnover this last election. It's been tumultuous. It has. We've seen on both sides kind of kind of the more uh extreme uh uh uh candidates winning. Yeah. So even here in Colorado, we've seen some um people associated with the Democratic Socialist Party of America, you know, um, which is again mind-boggling, but yeah.
SPEAKER_02It's wild. It is. So any specific politicians that you could point to and just say here's an example of just extreme in on inauthentic inauthenticity? That's a hard word to say. Inauthenticity.
SPEAKER_01I think you see it in an arc, right? Like I I think a lot of politicians start out really, really genuine and then this this thing called audio audience capture starts, where like they start out honest and genuine, and then they put something out, they put an idea out, and the response was big. So they go, ooh, I need to do more like that because it boosted my fundraising amounts, it boosted my support, it boosted my YouTube algorithm. I need to do more things like that. And so then they continue to do things like that rather than rather than being honest and genuine about topics, they focus more and on things that are getting them hits and stuff like that. And so you start to get this audience capture. Then the only people that are supporting you are people that would have supported you anyways. They're not people who are genuinely interested in what you have to say. Yeah, you've then just become a political prop or tool um for the system.
SPEAKER_02And you've put all the people that agree with you closer to you and the people that disagree with you, even though if you're ideologically on the same side, yeah, their opinions are going to be harder for you to actually encounter. So you've you've siloed at that point.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and I see that a lot in po in podcasts too. Like um, I'll give one example. I I used to really like to listen to Megan Kelly, who used to be on Fox News. Like she started her podcast, it's just like, oh, she's a heart. And she's still she's still like that to a large degree. But I I get this feeling that she's starting to uh tune in to a specific group or algorithm that gets her her a better response. And maybe it's not even perceptible to her, yeah. But I just I just start to see it, and it it frustrates me because I used to like how she just thought outside the box. Yeah. And here's what everybody else is thinking, and she's willing to call it out. Um and there's examples of that in both politics and and in podcast. I think uh Ted Cruz used to be, I used to love Ted Cruz. Um he was just like bare bones, conservative, he was principled and things like that. And I think there's over the years there's been this capture um of him. And I think he's become a brand? Because he's become a brand now, and he he plays that brand. And I just there's just something inauthentic about it, and sometimes it's hard to explain. It's like the whole AI debate, right? We create, we crave authenticity. And when something ceases to be authentic, or there's a there's a mixture of inauthenticity or audience capture that's mixed in there, I I just slowly get turned off. Um I I think that's why podcasts like Joe Rogan, and he's probably he's probably done this better than anybody, but he's just purely authentic. Just bounced around on any topic no matter what. Bounce around on any topic. Um, they do stuff on there that nobody else does. He's just free to just let's just talk. And that has been what is so uh so attractive about this. Who else? I mean, who else can create a four or five hour podcast and literally have tens of millions of people listen to it? Like it's one thing to have a 30-minute podcast and be super popular and people listen to it, but to have multiple hours where people it's legendary and do it five days a week. You almost don't have enough time to prep.
SPEAKER_02Well, it it probably doesn't, you know. Or or he has a team that does all the preparation too, which I mean, which is fine. Yeah. But I think then then again you run the risk of if I have a team, if I have a marketing team and I have a research team, and I have a uh I have a whole organization that's centered around me and my personality, I think that polarizing effect is gonna happen no matter what. Yeah. Because, you know, it's very few people, you know, Abraham Lincoln or Winston Churchill that will just purposefully bring in people that disagree with him, yeah, and and seek that alternative viewpoint. Most people because because the a cognitive bias is the group think cognitive bias, right? We all want that affirmation and we all want people to shout our praises and adulations and things like that. So, you know, it takes a pretty humble attitude to say that no, if I get caught up in the whole in the churn of all this affirmation, I'm gonna need somebody that's gonna like ideologically slap me in the face and say, Hey, you need to think about this a different way. So it's super easy, and it's also super disappointing. I mean, you you I mean, there's the three that are kind of going on right now of Candace Owens, Tucco Carlson, and Megan Kelly. Of the three of those, I think the Megan Kelly that one kind of hurts the most. Yeah. Um, but yeah, it seems like there's got to be some sort of like psychological there, there's there's something at work that I think is going on that I'm not sure I completely understand, but it seems like it's just forcing them into the into a silo, right? And it and it's not only a silo of what their opinion is on an issue, but it's that issue in itself, right? I mean, Tucker Carlson can't seem to shut up about Israel and anything related to you know Jews. And it's like there's literally billions of other things going on in the world, and you want to harp on this one issue time and time again, and and then and then not only that, if you focus on this one issue, then you have to start drawing connections with other things because somehow you have to be diverse in what you're talking about, but it all has to come back to what and so that your web of conspiracy in your own mind sort of starts growing, and it's like everything's connected. There's this, there's this it's like people can't think that there's issues that are just completely separate. I mean, things are connected, yeah. You can't disagree with that, but some issues are just separate from other issues. But if you start like, you know, if you start with birds aren't real and then you end with you know, Winston Churchill was the the villain of World War II, it's like, what are we even what are we doing? Yeah, you know, it's like you need to just start over, hit the reset button, and start rethinking all these things.
SPEAKER_01Why do you think like conspiracy theories are so accepted today or so rampant?
SPEAKER_02I'm glad you asked that.
SPEAKER_01That's a good question. It didn't seem like it was that way when I was growing up.
SPEAKER_02I think if you take a conspiracy theory, it's almost like Gnosticism and it's it's like nihilistic, fatalistic Gnosticism because here's this conspiracy which is so big and so powerful, ultimately I can't do anything about it, but I can be the expert on it, right? And so I have this conspiracy that I've set up in my own mind that I completely understand and believe, but I can't do anything about it, so then I'm not expected to actually like do real work to unveil the conspiracy. So it's interesting, it's like self-inflicted straw manning because because I want to be the holder of the secret knowledge, but I don't want the secret knowledge to actually force me to do anything. So if you have a conspiracy, I don't know, take your pick. They're usually so huge, you know, the deep state or whatever. It's like there's nothing that an average individual can do against it. Flat Earth. But if you yeah, if you talk about uh something like the abortion industry, I mean, A, that's not really a conspiracy, and B, there's things that we can do as individuals that that can have an effect, you know, can save a life of a baby. And that's the ones we shy away from because once I uncover those because they're actually real, then I'm expected to actually do something about it, you know. That's so true. And then, but if my conspiracy theory is the moon landing was faked, well, who gives a darn? Yeah, it's like there's nothing I can do to go back in time to make the moon landing real, fake, or otherwise, but I'm the holder of the secret knowledge. So I think that's just it. The other part is that because of these things, we have, I mean, going back to the Dunning-Kruger effect, it is a Dunning-Kruger playland, right? Because we have access to more information faster than we've ever had in the history of humanity, right? Yeah, we are in unprecedented unprecedented times, especially with AI, of how quickly we can become that like artificial expert. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01And again, the Dunning Kruger thinking you understand something more than you do because you have access to cheap information.
SPEAKER_02Yeah.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. And so you do a Google search, suddenly you're an expert, you know, suddenly you're a neuroscience scientist.
SPEAKER_00Yeah.
SPEAKER_02It's like, no, you literally do not understand a single thing, but yet you think you do. And so then you start drawing conclusions this way, that way, every other way. And the conspiracy forms in your mind. And then on top of that, once you've said it so many times, again, with this not being able to say I was wrong, you have to keep reinforcing it, right? If Tucker Carlson came out and said, guys, I've been really thinking about this, and I was totally wrong on this issue, the people that were his silo are going to abandon him. Yeah. Toot sweet. And the people that otherwise wouldn't have been his silo are going to be reluctant to return. So suddenly his media empire collapses, right?
SPEAKER_01They'll be grateful that he was honest. But they shouldn't go back and listen to him because they can't trust him anymore.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. I mean, it's it's it's the same as when you have a moral failure at a high level in a church, right? It's like, sure, there's forgiveness, but their influence and their status is never ever going to be the same. So it's the same with political punditry or even being a politician. Yeah. It's like once you admit you're wrong, there are like extreme consequences to that, even though it's probably the right thing to do.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. It's a perverse incentive for sure. Yeah. Perverse. And that's probably why I got the the advice to, you know, when I was early in politics, someone said, never admit that you're wrong. Yeah. You know, because the numbers say if you admit that you're wrong, you're going to lose more than you have. And that it's that that that ideology, I guess. I I don't know if it's really an ideology, but um, it's that idea that is so pernicious in politics, in media, um, this idea that um never admit that you're wrong. Yeah. And with but what that does is it drives you deeper into the hole, farther down the rabbit hole. Because if you can't admit that you're wrong, then you have to have justifications. And your justifications get get broader and broader and more secretive and more Gnostic in nature, yeah, to the point where you're like, where did he go?
SPEAKER_02Yeah. And it's like then you become just unrecognizable.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and your explanation for reality is just clearly unattached to reality, it's so out there and bizarre. And the ability for intelligent people to follow these people down the rabbit hole is just mind-boggling. Yeah. Um, I don't know if it's they need something to cling to, they need an answer. Um, they're they're so unsettled without having answers. Um and it again, it's this labyrinth of connections, right? Like, I don't trust my government, therefore the moon landing couldn't have happened. Yeah. I I mean, I I'm I'm all in support of like people being critical or skeptical of their government. 100%. But that doesn't mean the moon landing didn't happen. You know, that doesn't mean you can't trust your your government to properly process your tax payment or or something like that.
SPEAKER_02And what an exhausting way to live of just continuously being mistrustful of everything. It's like a healthy amount of skepticism is fine, but then let your skepticism be satisfied and say, yeah, I was wrong, right? Yeah. I was skeptic, I was a skeptic on this certain point, and then I have evidence that I'm pretty sure is true and believable. And yeah, my skepticism was unfounded. So and so people can't even be honest with themselves, right? I mean, we have this rampant like external dishonesty and inauthenticity. Again, there's that word. But also, can I be authentic with myself? And going back to the storytelling, I think the the most poignant movies, novels, plays, whatever storytelling technique or medium that you're using, ultimately it's a mirror on yourself. The ones that really resonate are the ones that have like complex moral issues and complex moral characters, and then you reflect that on yourself and you say that the the author has painted this tapestry of humanity while fictional, it has eternal truths in it. Yeah. And then it comes back to me and to say, if I put myself in this framework that they've created, like what does that say about myself, you know? Yeah. And so when you can't be honest with yourself and you can't be honest with your constituents or media or whoever, it's just it's so defeating in every way. Like real true progress, like addressing injustices becomes ultimately impossible, I think.
SPEAKER_01Well, and it puts people who are I don't I don't want to I don't want to claim, you know, that I'm the most reasonable person in the world, but it puts people who who who struggle with ideas because honestly. Like claiming that you become unreasonable? No. Um it's it's just that you know, I hear people all the time say, Well, I'm the reasonable one. Well, and I don't want to claim that I am the that I'm perfectly reasonable, um, because I have my own biases. I know that. But at the same time, I'm struggling. I want to struggle through ideas. Yeah. And I don't want to just lockstep, take for granted everything I'm told. I want to question things. Um and I can't even remember where I was going with this this thought.
SPEAKER_02Well, think about this. I mean, if you have somebody who is just completely reasonable, then they're just like the milk toast. You don't even care what they have to say. Correct. But if you have somebody that's reasonable in a lot of areas, and then in this one area, they finally take a stand, they become unreasonable, they they stand up for what they're believing in, then you take notice, right? Yeah, you do. But if someone just bounces back from all these extreme positions, Positions, then it's like the the perfectly reasonable person seems to be the passive person. Now you're just you know a feather in the wind. But if the the other person's just a stick in the mud, to use a bunch of metaphors, they're equally un you know, they don't get anything done because the one person just sits there like a bump on a log, another metaphor, and the other person because they are so unreasonable, you don't want to work with them. Yeah, and I don't know where I'm going with that. But I think I remembered my point.
SPEAKER_01And you helped make make this point is that you have people who are sticks in the mud, extreme, extremely so. They take extreme positions and they force people who are reasoned, um, not necessarily milktose, but who are reasoned, who want a reasonable position. And they're they're stuck between two extremes, right? Like who are you gonna vote for? Are you gonna vote for the the the democratic socialist over on this side, or are you gonna are you gonna vote for the weirdo conspiracy theorists on this? Because that's our only option, right? And then if you make a decision well between you know the lesser of two evils, then you say, How could you s possibly support this person? Well, the same was true if you went the other way and said, I'd vote this, but how could you possibly support this person? And so it puts reasoned uh people, people who are reasonable, people who who want truth, who are reasoning with tough topics, it puts them in this uh dichotomy of picking between between two extremes, and then people left a gas that they could pick vote for such a person, um, even though that's the only option they had. And I it's the state of politics today.
SPEAKER_02Um it's it's an extreme unfortunate uh circumstance that a reason reasonable and agreeable personalities are kind of there's no overlap in zealotry, right? Yeah, it's like if you are zealous, it seems like overwhelmingly you are an extreme, you have an extreme opinion on stuff, right? But it's almost like we need zealotry in the reasonable sphere. Yeah. And once you maybe I'll characterize it like this World War I and World War II, the criticism is well, the US shows up late to the party every time. But it's like that's a good thing though, because we showed up late, but then when we showed up, we showed up. Yeah, we were there, right? And once you get to that critical mass of like, okay, now you've done messed up Aaron, and then you go in and you just right, the reasonable thing to do at that point is to stop Hitler from taking over Europe and ultimately the Western Hemisphere, and then but the zealotry is like, no, we are we are on board, we are full force, we are gonna stomp this thing out.
SPEAKER_01100%. And the the reasonableness is also an evil, too, because if if you look at most of England, you had Winston Churchill who was like, We've got to take this evil man on head on, we gotta go take him out, we gotta go to war. Yeah, and the reasonable people be like, no, he's actually a decent guy. We may not totally agree with him, and they were trying to reason with evil and trying to find that happy Chamberlain appeasement. Yeah, yeah. And so they were trying to find this reasonable middle ground with pure evil, and Churchill was like, no, we're not gonna negotiate with terrorists.
SPEAKER_02I think that's why we like the hero villain stories, because today all the villains are so nuanced. They have a tragic backstory, or they have trauma, or they're they're just misunderstood. And it's like we've both alluded to no, we like the stories where the the the bad guy is the bad guy. Yeah, he's just evil, he's just the bad guy. He's powerful and he's gonna make a huge mess if he succeeds. And then the underdog good guys do everything, they make every sacrifice, they change, they learn, they get better, yeah, and then they defeat the evil bad guy. Yeah, those are the stories that are so satisfying, and the ones where the evil is kind of nuanced, and it's like, well, you know, I don't know if he's really truly evil. It's like those are so unsatisfying. Yeah, they are. So, you know, if you talk about this historical revisionism of it's like, well, maybe Hitler was just this misunderstood artist, it's like, no, some people are completely captivated by the evil of the age and they need to be defeated. Yeah, they do. Case in point, the most evil man on earth, yeah, right. And so, you know, translate that to modern days, it's like and that's what's so bizarre about this Iran versus Israel thing, because Israel, if they go into a place and they need to do military action, they're trying to clear the buildings of all civilians because Hamas has built a network underneath that building. They're using human shields, yeah. And yet Israel is cast as the bad guy? That's unfathomable. It is on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz, we have Iran, which last year killed tens of thousands of people, their own people, of their own people that were rising up in the streets, you know, they just slaughtered them. And yet, no, we need to, you know, this this whole Iranian regime is they're just misunderstood. You know, we need to negotiate with them. Yeah, it's like, no, these are some of the most evil people on the face of the planet, and yeah, maybe they just need to be eliminated. On top of that, you know, every president for the last 50 years has had to, in some way, shape, or form, they've been, they've encountered this Iranian issue, and they've done absolutely nothing, Republican or Democrat, right?
SPEAKER_01But negotiate with them.
SPEAKER_02They've negotiated, and all the while Iran has increased their position, they've solidified, they've fortified, they've developed the network between them and China and them and Russia, and then their little terrorist uh, you know, satrapies. And so you have this situation where over the past four decades, neither party has dealt with this, and yet they get closer to a nuclear weapon, which, for all intents and purposes, they will use once they get it.
SPEAKER_01It's not as though their stated purpose isn't a secret.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. It's like, no, they are the Iranians are the only honest people on the planet.
SPEAKER_01They are. Like their goal is to destroy American Israel. Like that's their only stated goal.
SPEAKER_02The big Satan and the little Satan. Yeah. That's what they want to do, right? So then you have a president who finally wants to do something about it. And of course, we've gotten a hu a massively bad taste in our mouth of Middle East on the ground conflicts, right? Over the last 20 years. Rightfully so. But here we have a president who says, no, Iran having a nuclear weapon is completely unacceptable because of the human toll that it will exact. And I'm gonna do something about it. And then it gets criticized. Yeah. It's like Republicans and Democrats over the past 40 years have just kicked the can down the road. Yeah. And the can gets bigger and stronger and heavier, and then finally you got a president that wants to actually do something.
SPEAKER_01I I love the idea of like quick strategic strikes just to neutralize um Iran. I think it's a beautiful I but it's it's just not possible, right? Yeah. Um he he kind of bombed them back into the Stone Age a little bit. And what do you do when you get bombed back to Stone Age? You have nothing to fight for other than just inflict pain on people. They're they're firing missiles on their allies, you know, on their on their neighbors, you know, to try to inflict some type of pain on the world. And so now we're in this position where it's like, you know, it's an unintended consequence. Um was it justified in the end? Absolutely. The bunker buster bomb that that uh neutralized their um uranium sites and you know their nuclear development sites, like, yeah, 100%. I'm all on board for that. Um, taking out their their navy and their air force and stuff like that to neutralize them, 100%. I agree. But now they're just running around shooting rockets off, which in the end isn't gonna be to their benefit.
SPEAKER_02I mean, it's it seems like an act of desperation. And they're trying to characterize it as an act of like, no, we're still the strength, we have the power when they don't. And I I think that if we're operating under the assumption that Trump was gonna go in there and basically cut the head off the snake and then allow the people to rise up, it seems like the only mistakes that have been made is the assumption that the people would rise up again so soon after a slaughter of thousands of people. You're right. And then the other thing that I'm just so is perplexing is, and maybe it's because Trump is ultimately the art of the deal guy, he wants to negotiate. But I think with with this regime, because it's a theocracy and because it is believing so fully in its Muslim faith, that they are zealots, and so I think their deception and their obfuscation, and if you assume, you know, the tenets of the Muslim faith being that if you have an enemy, you can basically do whatever you want with that enemy as long as you subdue them in the end, yeah, then that's what they're gonna do. They're gonna deceive, they're gonna destroy, they're gonna kill their own people as long as the regime maintains power, right? And so that regime, I don't think there's any way you could negotiate with it because they're gonna come to the negotiation table saying, I'm gonna say whatever I want or whatever is necessary, yeah, so that in the end, I wriggle out of this and I can rebuild. And so 100%.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, a ceasefire is only a ceasefire until Iran fires on us.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, but I don't think they would ever go into a negotiation you know setting with good intentions or honest intentions. Yeah. It's ironic, I just said they're the only honest people on the planet, honest in their intentions of destroying the great Satan and the little Satan. But if you're talking about a negotiation across the table, I think they're probably the most dishonest and they have no qualms about it. Yeah, it's like, no, I am commanded by my religion to be a dishonest negotiator because in the end, I need to come out on top no matter what. Yeah, no matter what.
SPEAKER_00No matter what. Is that a song? I'm gonna love you no matter what. You have the voice of an angel.
SPEAKER_02We could do a duet. What song do you want to sing?
SPEAKER_01We should probably spare our audience. I mean, we we've given them a fair warning, so I mean uh we can. I have no idea what that is. Maybe it'll come to start singing.
SPEAKER_02Baby, when I met you, there was peace on noon. I set out to get you like a fine tooth comb. I have never heard this. Kenny Rogers, Dolly Parton?
SPEAKER_01Either you just butchered it, I've never heard the song before.
SPEAKER_02I did butcher it, and you probably never heard the song.
SPEAKER_01So we can synthesize the voice later and make it sound beautiful. Just auto-tune it, just like that part of the podcast is auto-tuned. Well, what are we at here? Or 55, bro? It goes quick. 55.
SPEAKER_02So, what do you think of this grand platinum?
SPEAKER_01I don't know much about him, be honest with you. I mean, I know he's he's out. Um and again, he was in this position where he probably could have squeaked it out. You know? Yeah. I don't know what you always wonder what deal happened behind the scenes. Like what what millions did he just make? What millions just got put in his account or promised to make it um for him to drop out because he had the primary. Or and maybe they honestly thought he would lose to what is it, um Susan Collins. And she and he probably would if with all that controversy. So maybe in the end it was you need to get out, but he I don't think he gave up control. I think uh I think control was arrested from him with with some pressure um to get him out. So and I and beyond that, I don't know much about his story or what even happened.
SPEAKER_02Um so but if we lose the ability to be honest with ourselves, then we lose the ability to give somebody a moral appraisal.
SPEAKER_00100%.
SPEAKER_02Like if you take somebody who's a candidate that has a Nazi tattoo and has, you know, certain bad allegations against them, yeah. Allegedly, you have to use that word, and then you say to yourself, I mean, that really what killed his campaigns is that he was trailing in the polls. It's like we've talked before about the ad hominem attack of if you're trying to reason with someone and you just attack them personally, that's not really a legitimate strategy. But there should be some way of if we have a candidate to say this person over here is a better, more moral, upstanding person than this person over here. I think that's a fair thing to do because if we talk about the people that we want to represent us and we want to send to Washington or Denver, we want good moral people, don't we? 100%. You know? So it's just it's just a fascinating case study of like how much moral controversy can one campaign suffer through and still because it was like one thing after another, right? Yeah. It's like the tattoo, you know, the womanizing, the, you know, the SA, alleged SA, uh, you know, and look up what that means. But it was just one thing after another, right? Yeah. And the fact that he's a democratic socialist, you know, and he was criticizing uh other like veterans, and and and it's just like, man, how many blows can one campaign take and you still put forth this person as a viable candidate for US Senate? Like the most prestigious, one of the most prestigious lawmaking bodies in on the planet. Yeah. Are we sending our best? It it doesn't seem like we're sending our best.
SPEAKER_01We're not sending our best. Um, but at the same time, it's it's like by design, right? Like we're not sending people to Congress to build spaceships, right? We're sending people to Congress to represent us.
SPEAKER_02But if you say that we're sending people to Congress, we're sending them so that they can make laws that affect our everyday lives across the entire country and decisions that affect the entire globe. I would rather send somebody who is a moral upstanding citizen.
SPEAKER_01Correct. A hundred percent.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. So it it it just boggles my mind that somebody's campaign can go through that. And and he almost got he almost made it, you know, because he there was like a deadline. Yeah. It's like after that, he he couldn't have because they couldn't replace him. Yep, and he almost made it to that, and it's just wild.
SPEAKER_01Well, look at look at Trump. Like he's almost controversy almost helps him, right? Like he's he's had tons of allegations. Oh yeah. And but but we also have him on film saying very sexually charged and degrading things about women, you know, which would have killed any other can in the world. Oh yeah. He gets to joke about it and he gets more support for it, you know. Yeah, which is just strange at some level, you know.
SPEAKER_02It is. I mean, it's a fascinating study too, of just the cult of personality of Trump, Trumpanism, Trumpianism. Trumpism, Trumpianism. Yeah. I mean the ma the MAGA movement is just completely centered around him as a person, actually personality.
SPEAKER_01I actually thought his his most ardent supporters would uh again, I voted for Trump, I wouldn't call myself an ardent supporter of Trump himself, but um I always thought his most ardent supporters would never um would never depart from him. But when he went to war against Iran, it actually showed kind of a an honesty because you know, and it's and it's not not saying that that movement is super honest because it's kind of represented by Tuckle Carlson and and stuff, but like when they uh when he went to war and continues to go to war, there was actually a lot of criticism of him going to war from that group that has been just so connected to him and unwilling to really criticize him. Um so there was a little little bit of honesty in in my opinion there, yeah, where they stuck to their guns, they stuck to their principles, um, and called Trump out on it.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. Well, it's an extreme, extreme measure that he went to. It is super extreme. So yeah, one of those one of those things that kind of forces you to just show your cards and yeah. I think another one is the pro-life movement of just like when rubber meets the road in the pro-life movement, you figure out who are the actual pro-life people and who are the pro-life and name only. Plinos.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, the people are just looking for YouTube.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. So yeah. All right, man. Well, all right. Politics fascinating, and uh, did we solve every political problem? Just about. I think we probably solved none of them.
SPEAKER_01Pick them up, we'll pick it up next week, though.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_01Tune in next week, we're gonna do the Odyssey.
SPEAKER_02Tune in next week, we're gonna talk about the Odyssey. Probably uh it is it. I mean, you have like the epic of Gilgamesh and stuff like that, but it's one of the oldest like fictional narratives on the planet, right? 3,000 years old, isn't it?
SPEAKER_01It is yeah, crazy, huh?
SPEAKER_02Which is just crazy to think.
SPEAKER_01It's wild.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. And how many manuscripts do we have of the Odyssey?
SPEAKER_01Not very many. Yeah, and they're thousands and thousands of years away from the original. Yeah. Unlike the Bible.
SPEAKER_02Unlike the Bible, it's like 100 years away from the original. Or less, yeah. And we have like ten times the manuscripts.
SPEAKER_01Yeah. But we have ten times the management. Copies of the direct original manuscript.
SPEAKER_02So, anyways, yeah, topic for another day, but as we always say, as we always say.