Episode 247 Scott Adams - Biased Judges, Amy Schumer, Soros

all the people who have names i can't pronounce maria i can pronounce that tyler tyler you're always in here early you have fast fingers kelly hi mike donna come on in here because you know what time it is it's time for the simultaneous sip the people who got here first get the best sips of all if you'd like to join me lift up your cup your mug your chalice your glass your container of liquids and join me for the simultaneous coffee preferred oh that's good stuff so i got in a little uh twitter exchange this morning with an anti-trumper who said and i'm paraphrasing this is this is somebody said this in public so here's the funny part about it you think you're living in the same world with everybody else and you think well everybody must see what i see right you're seeing what i see right i'm watching this you're watching that we're all seeing the same thing right and if i've taught you nothing it's that that isn't true and i thought it was a little more obvious by now and again this twitter exchange with an anti-trumper who said i'm summarizing everyone can see what trump is like now so if you support him well you're you're responsible because according to her everybody can see what trump is like now and i responded that is the lowest level of awareness you're ever likely to see the lowest level of awareness is to imagine it's all it's mind-boggling there's somebody there's somebody who can walk and talk and read and write someone who's smart enough to tweet so they can use a device of some sort an adult and yet they have not noticed have not noticed that people have a different perception of who trump is so for her to start from the presumption that we're all seeing the same thing is the lowest level of awareness that you're ever going to see now there was a point in the evolution of the civilization and the human mind and that point wasn't long ago it was just maybe 2015.

i would say if you said in 2015 hey everybody's looking at the same thing so if you're still supporting this president or this anything well you're going to have to own it because we see what we're getting that was so 2015.

i warned you back then that trump was going to rip a hole in the fabric of reality and you were just going to see reality in a whole new way for most people i think they've made the leap they've made the leap from the what i'd call the second dimension to the third dimension the second dimension is you think that everybody sees what you see and this poor tweeter was stuck in the second dimension i forgot anybody's still there and the third dimension is that it's obvi it's absolutely obviously true that we're watching two movies on one screen we're looking at the same stuff some people say kavanaugh definitely guilty some people look at the same stuff definitely innocent how could it not be obvious now i i completely understand if in 2015 somebody was still saying i think we're all looking at the same stuff so if you've come to a different conclusion you're evil you're either evil or stupid because we have the same information we now know that that's two-dimensional thinking and that we're all living in in a world of our own creation that that exists almost entirely in our own experience in our own mind and it does not mean that if somebody supports president trump they must be evil on the inside it just doesn't mean that it just means we're seeing something different than you're seeing here's a curious one we're having this big national discussion about uh judge kavanaugh's temperament now of course as i've told you temperament is a sexist term it's an anti-male term because you don't really see it applied that much to women in a similar way you don't see the word hysterical applied to men hysterical is sort of a sexist word applied to women temperament seems to be the sexist word that's applied to men but what we're watching is a lot of people saying well we've all watched the same thing we've watched judge kavanaugh's let's say emotional response in in his comments in front of congress and some people are saying that especially his references to clinton and the democrats trying to get him that that makes him and on that makes him a biased judge that he can never be unbiased because he's talked about clinton he's talked about clearly one side out to get him and i said to myself did you say the same thing about judge curiel do you remember the judge curiel case the judge curiel case presumed that because he had mexican heritage he was not he was not mexican citizen he was second generation but because his whole family had heritage from mexico you would imagine that he had a lot of family influence and that his family in all likelihood we don't know but in all likelihood members of his family were anti-trump because the media had set up that that fight and they turned the you know trump strong on immigration into some kind of an anti-mexican thing so that's what half of the country was seeing so it was completely reasonable in that context in the legal context to say well there's a situation here that has a unique potential can't guarantee it but a potential impact on the bias of this judge is that fair to say is it fair to say that if this judge is likely surrounded by family members who don't like president trump that that could have at least the appearance of bias in his decisions and people pushed back on that and they said no you can't call a judge with mexican heritage you can't you can't call him potentially biased because that's racist well it was crazy then because people and still crazy because people are biased machines that's what we are we are pattern recognition machines and when we see patterns we're influenced by them and in the legal context it's perfectly appropriate to say i think these patterns are having a larger than normal influence on a judge maybe this judge should recuse in this specific case likewise with judge kavanaugh just so we can be consistent either judges are are never biased by their situation or judges are biased by their situation it can't it can't be true that both are true you know in general we're not talking about these specific judges now but it can't be simultaneously true that judge curiel could not be biased by his family which is weird i mean if there's anything that's going to bias you it's going to be your family right your family is going to bias you pretty much what is it that's bothering judge kavanaugh well to a large extent it's the effect on his family too and he's feeling that this is coming from one direction sort of the democrats sort of the clinton-friendly part of the world and so he called it out now i would only ask people to apply the same standard if you're willing to say that this judge has shown a political opinion or a political yeah a political opinion if you think that him displaying this political opinion makes him unqualified to be a judge just be consistent that's all i'm asking i'm not asking you to change your opinion i'm asking you to be consistent because if it's true that kavanaugh could be could be biased by his situation in a way that would make him ineffective as a judge stick with your opinion but also extend it to judge curiel who having nothing to do with his particular um his that his ethnicity wasn't really even the issue it was that his family is very likely to be influenced by this and it would be hard to imagine that his family doesn't influence him right so i'm of the camp that biased judges are the only kind there's no such thing as an unbiased judge because they're human there's no such thing as an unbiased human there are however judges who can learn to read and interpret the law in a way that they can do in public and other people can say okay you're probably biased on the inside but i'm looking at your opinion i'm looking at your reasoning i'm looking at your conclusion and i would say that was fair you know compared to the law right so you've got two drug two judges here who are accused of bias in a way that should make them ineffective i say pick one pick a side either judges are biased by their situation their environment especially things involving their family of course they are of course they are but are they too biased well it's hard to know um you saw maybe uh judge kavanaugh's uh he wrote an op-ed for the wall street journal i think and he in it he said uh i'm not going to quote him because i don't want to take time to look it up but essentially he he said that his primary audience for his um testimony and statements in front of congress that his primary audience was not necessarily the public at large not just the people in the room but that his primary audience was his family where have you heard that before who was the first person who told you that if you're evaluating whether brett kavanaugh was exactly accurate when he said how much he drank if you're evaluating to see if he was exactly accurate about the meanings of those words in high school on his yearbook i said to you he's talking to his family you cannot judge a man who's talking in front of his family because if he's talking in front of his family and he's talking in front of you he's not thinking about you you get that right if his family is in the room or you know they're part of the audience his family the people he cares the most about it his children his children that he's trying to raise right trying to be a good role model if they're in the room he doesn't care about you do you want him to be different do you want him to care about you when his family's in the room i don't i don't i want him to care about his family if he can sit in that room and care more about me or more about senator feinstein or even more about getting the job if he could care about any of those things more then he would care about you know the example he's setting for his family the the way that they exist as a cohesive family unit the way they think about themselves their reputation what experience the children would have when they when they're dealing with their friends if you think he could ignore his family in favor of giving the the technically correct answer about something trivial really his the things he did when he was 17.

uh and i'm not talking about the alleged allegation i'm talking about the you know drinking in general and i'm talking about the comments in general on his yearbook so to me and i didn't see anybody call it out for what it was i haven't seen anybody until i'm doing it right now when kavanaugh wrote that editorial and he said my primary audience was my family let me interpret that if it wasn't obvious to you let me interpret it my primary audience was my family means that on the little how much he drank did he black out did he say some inappropriate things in a yearbook when he was 17 he lied he just admitted he lied and he told you why in very clear language in my opinion now apparently it wasn't clear enough because i think i'm the first person saying it have you heard anybody else say this but now that you hear it it's obvious right once i explain it to you it's obvious that when he says my primary audience was my family he is explaining that that low-level stuff that everybody's saying well if he lied about how many beers he's had he must have lied about raping somebody or whatever he's not accused of rape let's be clear about that um so i believe he just told you the most adult thing you've ever seen in your life think about it it's the most adult thing anybody ever told you he just came out and said listen adults in his wall street journal editorial i'm talking to you adults because guess what he's saying guess what but his children probably are not the audience for the wall street journal maybe they did because it's their dad in this case but he's talking to adults when he writes an article in the wall street journal wall street journal is for adults he's talking to adults and he's saying adults understand i was in public but my primary audience for some of these questions for some of these questions my primary audience was my family is there anything else you need to know so if you're such a freaking idiot that you're gonna say that he lied about how much he drank in front of his daughters and now that he's told you explicitly that's what he was doing i think you have to see this in a different light the parent filter thank you yes you have to put the parent filter on this that's a perfect way to say it he wasn't he wasn't a judicial candidate or candidate for the supreme court he was not a supreme court nominee every minute during that testimony of course he is he was a supreme court nominee technically in every sense but depending on the question he was answering he was he was changing his mode he was putting his his dad mode on there for a while and he has a pretty long history of showing that he's willing to give it up for the kids if you know what i mean right he coaches he he sacrifices for them so this is a guy you know gives it up for the kids we know that about him you know he's got a long record of that so keep it in context all right um so you may have seen that amy schumer and an actress that i don't know what she's in but emily radakowski ratajowski so emily radokowski orzowski she's a i guess she's a well-known actress i don't know what she does um and amy schumer were protesting the kavanaugh situation and they got arrested now here's a problem with hollywood now i'm usually not the one who rails against the uh the famous people in hollywood who have bad political opinions i believe it is true as a general statement that the um the famous actors it's famous hollywood people it does seem to me that they're less informed than the average person but maybe that's an illusion because the average person is pretty uninformed but let me put it this way the hollywood people seem consistently less informed than the professional pundits who are also on television talking about issues on either side so i'm not talking about which side doesn't matter which side they're on they're they are they're significantly less informed it seems than the average hollywood celebrity now i usually go easy on them for the obvious reason that i'm a little bit famous you know i'm obviously better known for being the creator of dilbert and i would not want that same filter i would not want the hollywood filter to be put on me because i think yeah this is my own opinion of myself your your mileage may may vary but i feel like my uh education and the way i approach politics is additive it's it's adding a little something that wasn't there now your opinion may differ but i don't think i'm in the same category with some of the the famous folks so i normally go easy on them but here's the problem if your situation is a potential uh drunken sexual assault and that's what this all gets to right the complaint is about drunken sexual assault who are you gonna send as your representative to speak out against drunken sexual assault well i'm gonna pick as my worst choice amy schumer what is she famous for if you if you know her act her famous her she's famous for talking about getting inebriated and having a lot of casual sex now i'm completely in favor of both of those things she can have as much casual sex as she likes and i like her a lot as a as an artist as a as a humorist um yeah i'm a big fan i think she's terrific and i have no complaints i have no moral qualms i don't have any you know i'm not judging her lifestyle and i don't even know if her lifestyle actually matches the things she says on stage in any important way so there's no judgment here i'm not judging her as a person not judging your lifestyle i'm more of a fan than anything else but if you're gonna put a famous face in front of let's not get drunk and have uh too much groping she would be the worst choice right i'm certainly in favor of her having a voice and exercising her free speech and trying to make a difference and those are all good things and i think she's well-meaning so in my opinion she has no evil intentions i think she has only good meaning but i'm just saying as the face of this movement very bad but if you think she's a bad choice and again good person good intentions just as a match for this topic a bad choice but it turns out emily ratajowski is perhaps a slightly worse choice even than that and i don't know if you'll be able to see it but i'm going to show you the picture uh let's see if i can do this so here she is her sign says respect female existence or expect our resistance which is a lot of words not as clever as it could be but respect female existence yeah this is this is what she wore so this is what she wore to the protest against women being objectified so here's my little protest tip if you're protesting about women being objectified probably don't go like that probably don't go like that so so all i'm saying is and again i don't know this i don't know this actress i don't know emily reddick ratachowski kowski i don't even know how to pronounce it and i apologize to her for that i have nothing bad to say about her she i i believe she's probably a good person who thinks she's i'm doing the right thing trying to help i like people get involved i like all of that and oh and i even i respect the fact that she obviously knows a lot about diet and exercise and fitness so if you were to ask me my personal opinion of her i'd say well pretty hot looks like she has lots of talent looks like she's done a good job with her fitness looks like looks like a pretty solid citizen and she's getting involved in an important issue i like all of that all i'm saying is all i'm saying is if you're going to put a famous face on this movement not your right choice unless you dress down a little bit to make your point all right so that's all i'm saying so trump um oh and let me clarify that because if this is taken out of context it's going to look worse than i mean it i'm completely in favor of women wearing anything they want wherever they want so i don't have any i have no problem with women dressing any way they want and i don't believe that that you know gives anybody a right to attack them so there's no there's no retrograde thinking like that going on i'm just saying that for a branding purpose it's a little bit off-brand that's all i'm saying um trump went full soros today he actually mentioned george soros being a funder of protests now you might wonder and a lot of people have asked me this why i don't talk about george soros and i don't know what to think about all the george soro stuff my first my initial thoughts about it all was that it was just a conspiracy theory on the right and that you know yeah george soros funds some organizations who are involved in some things and he likes different things and we like but is it a big deal or is it just a convenient you know a convenient person to blame for stuff i never really had a sense of it and then if you try to look into it it's the rabbit hole just goes down forever and you can't really tell what's true because if you read anything uh written on the right about george soros you get you know three sentences in and you start scratching your head and you say yeah i don't know how true any of this is it just didn't feel like it just feels too impossible to be true which doesn't mean it's not true it just it doesn't pass the sniff test with me but i'm sure it is true that he gives to groups and some of that money ends up in the protest groups that's probably true but i don't know how important it is and then i say to myself where is the dividing line between um being active and funding things and you know trying to be a good cause in the world where is it where's the dividing line between that and influencing an election from a different country if george soros is doing what he is accused of being of doing shouldn't the u.s be sanctioning him so here's where the disconnect is if we don't like other countries influencing our elections and he seems to be universally accused of doing exactly that by funding groups who are protesting and clearly trying to change the outcome of politics why isn't that foreign foreign interference and why aren't we why isn't the u.s actively acting against him as we would if russia did it as we would if china did it so so one of the reasons i don't talk about the soro situation is that none of it makes sense to me it doesn't make sense that the people who have the power the trump administration and you know their supporters it doesn't make sense to me that we're accusing them of all these things but then we're acting as though they're not happening so what we're saying and what we're doing don't seem to have any connection so i'm hoping somebody can explain them oh he's a u.s citizen soros is a u.s citizen where does he live though he doesn't live in america does he somebody told me where soros lives i'll have to look that up soros he's an american citizen but he was born in hungary right let's look him up here george soros i should dig deeper into sorrow scott i think you underestimate him well um here's my problem the the problem is that when you dig deeper into him you can't really be sure that what you're reading is true all right so um he's a hungarian-american investor so born in hungary and then an american citizen as as as you said but does he live here um he was born in budapest his children relatives website but where does he live and emigrated to england but where is he now well let me ask you this he doesn't live does he live in new york now i can't believe that he lives in new york and he's in favor of open borders unless he plans to leave new york he's in austria somebody says all right well he probably has a number of houses but here's my question that i just generated just now if it is okay for soros who is an american citizen as as you've informed me if it's okay for him to influence our elections directly would it be okay if he lived in another country and did it suppose he was an american citizen and he lived in russia would it be okay for him to try to influence our elections if he lived in russia right it's an interesting question isn't it let's say he lived in russia but he was an american citizen could he do anything he wanted them to influence our elections i'm not sure he could but maybe he could i don't know it's sort of an interesting question but he lives all over the world yeah so he's financing a lot of people uh on the on the left well i guess i just have more questions about soros and i don't think we completely understand what's going on with that um now is it still true that there's a senator who's planning to he might miss the vote i think he's a republican he might miss the vote on kavanaugh because his daughter has a wedding is that still true uh because i saw i heard it yesterday but then i didn't see it on the news so i'm going to say wedding kavanagh sent it or i forget which senator it was uh oh senator daines will be on saturday and they might hold open the vote overnight all right so you've got a a republican who's you know every vote is necessary but here's a republican senator whose daughter has a wedding on that day what would you do what would you do if your two choices were this your daughter's wedding that you really can't change you know it's kind of hard-coded at this point you got your daughter's wedding you can be at or you can be the important final vote to change the course of the courts for maybe generations in a way that your side wants what do you do what would you do would you go to the wedding if it were if it were your daughter would you go to the wedding or would you stay for the vote if you had to choose he might not have to choose he said he'd vote um here's what i'd do and i'm i'm just gonna i'm just gonna put my thing out there if it were me i'd go to the wedding if it were me i'd go to the wedding but here's what i would also do i would go to my democrat friends and let let's say that by the time of the vote everybody's already announced their vote so let's say that the undecided people by the time of the vote have already decided so that there's no doubt which way the vote will go at the last minute when they actually vote uh oh don jr fixed it because he's gonna fly him or something um but just hypothetically here uh wouldn't senator daines of the gop suppose he asked his democrat friends once they knew that the vote was going to go for a confirmation then there was no doubt about it but the only way it could happen is if he the only way it could happen is if he got somebody who was a democrat to vote for him don't you think it would be completely legitimate to ask for a volunteer just one person who is a democrat to vote his way so that he can go for the wedding wouldn't you like to see that now that person would have a little bit of a problem in their own district because in their own district they'd have to explain no it wasn't a real vote i was just voting so this gop guy could go to his daughter's wedding it's it would be nice and maybe it could work in favor of the person who did it but here's a better suggestion if we get to the point where we know which way the vote's going to go and the only difference is whether this poor guy gets to go to his daughter's wedding or he doesn't if it came down to that and it looks like maybe we've solved it so that won't be a problem but if it came down to that i think the democrats should vote unanimously for a confirmation because if the if the democrats voted unanimously for confirmation no single democrat could be singled out as the one who flipped and it would be a bigger story and it would say yeah we've had this huge fight over this thing but when it got down to the final thing we're human beings and the human thing to do would be to preserve the vote the way the gop was going to get it anyway if this poor guy you know didn't stay for his daughter's wedding and still let him go to the wedding because the the result is going to be the same you still get the confirmation of kavanaugh that's a done deal but why not why not be nice people why not give some cover for a colleague it would be tremendous just it would be just tremendous um you know a good look for the democrats because they would take the the human element as a priority and that that feels on brand to them and it would be a good collegial act i don't see any of that happening by the way and it looks like it's solved but it's fun to talk about um the vote is over somebody says uh you'd have to trust them to do that well would you or would you just have them come back and do the whole thing again and vote him in yeah i'm not i'm not saying any of that's going to happen but it was certainly would be the it would be a fun and memorable and uh and good for the world votes are taken in alphabetical order and he is danes so he's going to be upfront all right um you just jumped the shark do you know how many times people have told me that i jumped the shark you can can you imagine uh well first of all so dilbert is entering its 30th year so for 30 years i've been drawing dilbert and it's been you know one of the top comics in the world for most of that 30 years probably 25 of those years it was one of the top comics in the world and for at least 25 years i get about one message a week at minimum in which somebody tells me well now you jumped the shark you know you were okay for those first four years but now you jumped the shark so for 30 years people have been telling me well today you went too far well it was okay yesterday but now you've gone too far so i always laugh when i see it because if it's such a such a low awareness comment in my case um let's talk about 3.7 unemployment uh as we enter you know the let's say the zone of the midterms we're we're kind of now in the midterm zone meaning it's so close to the midterms that that's all we're thinking about it gets harder and harder to say that the economy is all obama's good work now i'm one of the few people in the world who is willing to say obama did a good job trump is also doing a good job yeah i think it's possible to hold both of those thoughts in your head when it comes to the economy they did different things and i think different things had to be done at different times i think obama was probably a good fit for this emergency situation because he was a calm voice and the economy was going off the edge and you didn't want any extra risk introduced into the system so he was sort of a calm standard voice but once once things get moving along pretty well which obama did he got things moving along pretty well along with just you know the economy has its own cycles uh but i think that trump's extra juice of cutting taxes cutting regulations you know uh being sort of the the cheerleader in chief for american industries negotiating tariffs and all that stuff i do think that added the extra juice he was the one who put extra risk into a system that was ready for extra risk so you don't want any extra risk in 2008 because the economy was on the precipice it was ready to go off a cliff but once you're strong you don't want that same calm voice obama would be exactly the wrong leader for 2018.

he might have been exactly the right leader for 2008-2009 but today you need more of a cheerleader you need a marketer you need somebody to put a little energy into it you need some juice you need some enthusiasm you need some optimism and these are all these are all the president trump's you know bread and butter this is the stuff he does so i think he gets credit for um you know for a strong and not just strong performance but innovative when you say that president trump's approach to the economy in terms of his cheerleading optimism cutting regulations really his whole the whole package of what he's doing it seems to me innovative because we haven't quite seen anybody who put together this package of economic ideas breaking us senate votes to advance the nomination is that the case let's see let's see if cnn agrees with you random person cnn says the vote is underway uh susan collins is a yes for now but we'll announce her final decision later i i think it's smart for all the people who uh the people who are undecided now kavanaugh was not just confirmed i believe the vote was for cloture now uh remember i told you before that we've learned so much about our government because of the the trump years did you know what cloture meant last week how many of you knew what a vote for cloture c-l-o-t-u-r-e how many of you even knew what that was a week ago now my understanding is it's a vote to close the debate so that you can later have the real vote so it's only a vote to stop arguing it's not a vote that's the final vote so this this vote if it went the way that we think it did or will uh means that they've agreed to vote tomorrow why am i not watching the vote because i'm doing this i'm doing this and and i didn't think there was any mystery about the cloture for me it seemed that it was obvious that they would vote they would vote to have a vote that part seemed easy to predict um 51 to advance all right that sounds there are enough votes to advance they just got 51 votes mansion and murkowski flipped now vote again voting voting to close the debate doesn't have to be the same as voting for it because you could vote to close the debate and then vote against the the proposition there's nothing wrong with that so there's still a little bit of mystery all right let me ask you this you know that i predicted from the start you know that i predicted from the start that kavanaugh would get confirmed how many of you didn't believe that because i think at this point it's sort of a done deal uh did did it did it help you at all that i was confident in this and that my predictions have been pretty good so far so my my prediction was that republicans would say unless there was some new information about kavanaugh's past my prediction was that the republicans would go with they would take the win and they would look at the bigger picture which is we can't have a world in which this sort of accusation derails somebody so to me it seemed like they would favor the bigger picture and the bigger picture is you can't have a world where uncorroborated accusations of 17 year old behavior ruins your uh career when you're in your 50s yes so they have agreed to the vote only that is correct but i think it's pretty safe to assume that the vote's going to go in the same way historically it's the litmus meaning that if the cloture vote goes one way the vote itself will go the same way so the vote tomorrow at 4 pm um you may be wondering where i will be tomorrow at 4 pm because i won't be periscoping at 4 pm i will be delivering the eulogy for my stepson my 18 year old stepson who died on sunday because of a fentanyl overdose maybe from china so fentanyl china the country of great shame they should bow its head in complete shame is likely the cause of the death of my stepson not certainly but likely and they must live with forever shame for being that country fentanyl china i'm always going to put that name in front of them they're just fentanyl china they're not even china fentanyl they're fentanyl china that's the first thing you think about somebody who's killing 30 000 of your people a year if china is killing 30 000 people a year or something like that with their illegal fentanyl um then i think fentanyl should be their first name not a good assumption says jp well i don't know which one you're making but apparently um much of the illegal fentanyl comes from china there's other stuff coming from other places south of the border as well i know all right um at three o'clock they will say their vote what's that mean will that make it into your eulogy no it will not all right thank you all for your good thoughts and i'm gonna sign off and i've gotta i have a eulogy for my dead stepson to write so that's that's my job today and i'll talk to the rest of you later

[Music]

all the people who have names i can't

pronounce maria i can pronounce that

tyler

tyler you're always in here early you

have fast fingers

kelly hi mike

donna come on in here because you know

what time it is

it's time for the simultaneous sip the

people who got here first

get the best sips of all if you'd like

to join me

lift up your cup your mug your chalice

your glass your container of liquids

and join me for the simultaneous coffee

preferred

oh that's good stuff

so i got in a little uh twitter exchange

this morning

with an anti-trumper who said and i'm

paraphrasing

this is this is somebody said this in

public

so here's the funny part about it you

think you're living in

the same world with everybody else and

you think

well everybody must see what i see right

you're seeing what i see right

i'm watching this you're watching that

we're all seeing the same thing right

and if i've taught you nothing it's that

that isn't true

and i thought it was a little more

obvious by now

and again this twitter exchange with an

anti-trumper who said

i'm summarizing everyone can see what

trump is like now

so if you support him well you're you're

responsible because

according to her everybody can see what

trump is like now

and i responded that is the lowest level

of awareness you're ever likely to see

the lowest level of awareness is to

imagine

it's all it's mind-boggling there's

somebody

there's somebody who can walk and talk

and read and write

someone who's smart enough to tweet

so they can use a device of some sort

an adult and yet they have not

noticed have not noticed that people

have a different

perception of who trump is so for her to

start

from the presumption that we're all

seeing the same thing

is the lowest level of awareness that

you're ever going to see

now there was a point in the evolution

of the civilization and the human mind

and that point wasn't long ago it was

just maybe 2015.

i would say if you said in 2015 hey

everybody's looking at the same thing

so if you're still supporting this

president or this anything

well you're going to have to own it

because we see what we're getting

that was so 2015.

i warned you back then that trump was

going to rip a hole

in the fabric of reality and you were

just going to see reality in a whole new

way

for most people i think they've made the

leap

they've made the leap from the what i'd

call the second dimension to the third

dimension

the second dimension is you think that

everybody sees what you see

and this poor tweeter was stuck in the

second dimension i forgot anybody's

still there

and the third dimension is that it's

obvi

it's absolutely obviously true

that we're watching two movies on one

screen

we're looking at the same stuff some

people say kavanaugh

definitely guilty some people look at

the same stuff

definitely innocent how could it not be

obvious

now i i completely understand

if in 2015 somebody was still saying i

think we're all looking at the same

stuff

so if you've come to a different

conclusion you're evil

you're either evil or stupid because we

have the same information

we now know that that's two-dimensional

thinking

and that we're all living in in a world

of our own creation

that that exists almost entirely in our

own experience in our own mind

and it does not mean that if somebody

supports president trump

they must be evil on the inside it just

doesn't mean that

it just means we're seeing something

different than you're seeing

here's a curious one we're having this

big national discussion about uh judge

kavanaugh's

temperament now of course as i've told

you

temperament is a sexist term it's an

anti-male term

because you don't really see it applied

that much to women

in a similar way you don't see the word

hysterical

applied to men hysterical is sort of a

sexist word applied to women

temperament seems to be the sexist word

that's applied to men

but what we're watching is a lot of

people saying well

we've all watched the same thing we've

watched

judge kavanaugh's let's say emotional

response in in his comments

in front of congress and some people are

saying

that especially his references to

clinton

and the democrats trying to get him

that that makes him and on that makes

him a biased

judge that he can never be unbiased

because he's talked about clinton he's

talked about clearly one side out to get

him and i said to myself

did you say the same thing about judge

curiel

do you remember the judge curiel case

the judge curiel case

presumed that because he had mexican

heritage

he was not he was not mexican citizen he

was second generation

but because his whole family had

heritage

from mexico you would imagine that he

had a lot of family influence

and that his family in all likelihood we

don't know

but in all likelihood members of his

family were anti-trump

because the media had set up that that

fight

and they turned the you know trump

strong on immigration

into some kind of an anti-mexican thing

so that's what half of the country was

seeing so it was completely reasonable

in that context

in the legal context to say well there's

a situation here

that has a unique potential

can't guarantee it but a potential

impact on the bias of this judge

is that fair to say is it fair to say

that if this judge is likely surrounded

by family members who don't like

president trump that that could have at

least the appearance of bias

in his decisions and people pushed back

on that and they said

no you can't call a judge with mexican

heritage you can't you can't call him

potentially biased

because that's racist well it was crazy

then

because people and still crazy because

people

are biased machines that's what we are

we are pattern recognition machines

and when we see patterns we're

influenced by them and in the legal

context it's perfectly appropriate to

say

i think these patterns are having a

larger than normal influence on a judge

maybe this judge should recuse in this

specific case

likewise with judge kavanaugh

just so we can be consistent either

judges are are never biased

by their situation or judges are biased

by their situation

it can't it can't be true that both are

true

you know in general we're not talking

about these specific judges now

but it can't be simultaneously true

that judge curiel could not be biased

by his family which is weird i mean

if there's anything that's going to bias

you it's going to be your family

right your family is going to bias you

pretty much

what is it that's bothering judge

kavanaugh well to a large extent

it's the effect on his family too and

he's feeling that

this is coming from one direction sort

of the democrats sort of the

clinton-friendly part of the world

and so he called it out now i would only

ask people to apply the same standard

if you're willing to say that this judge

has shown a political opinion or a

political

yeah a political opinion if you think

that him displaying this

political opinion makes him unqualified

to be a judge just be consistent

that's all i'm asking i'm not asking you

to change your opinion

i'm asking you to be consistent because

if it's true that kavanaugh

could be could be biased by his

situation in a way that would make him

ineffective as a judge

stick with your opinion but also extend

it to judge curiel

who having nothing to do with his

particular

um his that his ethnicity wasn't really

even the issue

it was that his family is very likely to

be influenced by this

and it would be hard to imagine that his

family doesn't influence him

right so i'm of the camp

that biased judges are the only kind

there's no such thing as an unbiased

judge

because they're human there's no such

thing as an unbiased

human there are however judges who can

learn to

read and interpret the law in a way that

they can do in public

and other people can say okay you're

probably biased on the inside

but i'm looking at your opinion i'm

looking at your reasoning i'm looking at

your conclusion

and i would say that was fair you know

compared to the law

right so you've got two drug two judges

here who are accused of bias

in a way that should make them

ineffective i say

pick one pick a side either judges are

biased

by their situation their environment

especially things involving their family

of course they are of course they are

but are they too biased well it's hard

to know

um you saw maybe uh judge kavanaugh's

uh he wrote an op-ed for the

wall street journal i think and

he in it he said uh i'm not going to

quote him because i don't want to take

time to look it up but essentially he

he said that his primary audience

for his um testimony and statements in

front of congress that his primary

audience was not necessarily the public

at large

not just the people in the room but that

his primary audience

was his family where have you heard that

before

who was the first person who told you

that if you're evaluating whether

brett kavanaugh was exactly accurate

when he said how much he drank

if you're evaluating to see if he was

exactly accurate about the meanings of

those words in high school

on his yearbook i said to you

he's talking to his family you cannot

judge a man

who's talking in front of his family

because if he's talking in front of his

family

and he's talking in front of you he's

not thinking about you you get that

right

if his family is in the room or you know

they're part of the audience

his family the people he cares the most

about it

his children his children

that he's trying to raise right trying

to be a good role model

if they're in the room he doesn't care

about you

do you want him to be different do you

want him to care about you

when his family's in the room i don't

i don't i want him to care about his

family

if he can sit in that room and care more

about me

or more about senator feinstein or even

more about getting the job

if he could care about any of those

things more then he would care about

you know the example he's setting for

his family the

the way that they exist as a cohesive

family unit

the way they think about themselves

their reputation

what experience the children would have

when they when they're dealing with

their friends

if you think he could ignore his family

in favor of giving the the technically

correct answer

about something trivial really his the

things he did when he was 17.

uh and i'm not talking about the alleged

allegation i'm talking about the

you know drinking in general and i'm

talking about the comments in general

on his yearbook so

to me and i didn't see anybody

call it out for what it was i haven't

seen anybody

until i'm doing it right now when

kavanaugh wrote that

editorial and he said my primary

audience was my family

let me interpret that if it wasn't

obvious to you let me interpret it

my primary audience was my family means

that on the little how much he

drank

did he black out did he say some

inappropriate things in a yearbook when

he was 17

he lied he just

admitted he lied and he told you why

in very clear language in my opinion now

apparently it wasn't clear enough

because i think i'm the first person

saying it

have you heard anybody else say this but

now that you hear it it's obvious right

once i explain it to you it's obvious

that when he says my primary

audience was my family he is explaining

that

that low-level stuff that everybody's

saying well

if he lied about how many beers he's had

he must have lied about raping somebody

or whatever he's not accused of rape

let's be clear about that um so

i believe he just told you the most

adult thing you've ever seen in your

life

think about it it's the most adult thing

anybody ever told you he just came out

and said

listen adults in his wall street journal

editorial i'm talking to you

adults because guess what he's saying

guess what

but

his children probably are not the

audience for the wall street journal

maybe they did because it's their dad in

this case but

he's talking to adults when he writes an

article in the wall street journal wall

street journal is for adults

he's talking to adults and he's saying

adults understand i was in public

but my primary audience for some of

these questions

for some of these questions my primary

audience

was my family is there anything else you

need to know

so if you're such a freaking idiot that

you're gonna say that he lied about how

much he drank

in front of his daughters and now that

he's told you

explicitly that's what he was doing i

think you have to see this in a

different light

the parent filter thank you

yes you have to put the parent filter on

this that's a perfect way to say it

he wasn't he wasn't

a judicial candidate or

candidate for the supreme court he was

not a supreme court nominee

every minute during that testimony

of course he is he was a supreme court

nominee

technically in every sense but

depending on the question he was

answering

he was he was changing his mode he was

putting his

his dad mode on there for a while and he

has a pretty long history

of showing that he's willing to give it

up for the kids if you know what i mean

right he coaches he he sacrifices for

them

so this is a guy you know gives it up

for the kids

we know that about him you know he's got

a long record of that

so keep it in context all right um

[Music]

so you may have seen that amy schumer

and

an actress that i don't know what she's

in but emily

radakowski ratajowski

so emily radokowski orzowski she's a i

guess she's a

well-known actress i don't know what she

does um

and amy schumer were protesting the

kavanaugh situation and they got

arrested

now here's a problem with hollywood

now i'm usually not the one who

rails against the uh the famous people

in hollywood

who have bad political opinions i

believe it is

true as a general statement that the

um the famous actors

it's famous hollywood people it does

seem to me that they're less informed

than the average person but maybe that's

an illusion because the average person

is pretty uninformed

but let me put it this way the hollywood

people seem consistently less informed

than the professional pundits who are

also on television talking about issues

on either side

so i'm not talking about which side

doesn't matter which side they're on

they're they are they're significantly

less informed

it seems than the average

hollywood celebrity now i usually go

easy

on them for the obvious reason that i'm

a little bit famous

you know i'm obviously better known for

being the creator of dilbert

and i would not want that same filter

i would not want the hollywood filter to

be put on me

because i think yeah this is my own

opinion of myself

your your mileage may may vary but i

feel like my

uh education and the way i approach

politics

is additive it's it's adding a little

something that wasn't there

now your opinion may differ but i don't

think i'm in the same category with

some of the the famous folks

so i normally go easy on them but here's

the problem

if your situation is a potential

uh drunken sexual assault and

that's what this all gets to right the

complaint is about

drunken sexual assault

who are you gonna send as your

representative

to speak out against drunken sexual

assault well i'm gonna pick as my worst

choice amy schumer what is she famous

for if you if you know her act

her famous her she's famous for talking

about getting inebriated and having

a lot of casual sex now i'm completely

in favor of both of those things

she can have as much casual sex as she

likes and i like her a lot as a

as an artist as a as a humorist um

yeah i'm a big fan i think she's

terrific and i have no complaints i have

no moral qualms

i don't have any you know i'm not

judging

her lifestyle and i don't even know if

her lifestyle

actually matches the things she says on

stage in any

important way so there's no judgment

here i'm not

judging her as a person not judging your

lifestyle

i'm more of a fan than anything else but

if you're gonna put a famous face

in front of let's not get drunk and have

uh too much groping she would be the

worst

choice right i'm certainly in favor of

her having a voice

and exercising her free speech and

trying to make a difference and

those are all good things and i think

she's well-meaning

so in my opinion she has no evil

intentions i think she has only

good meaning but i'm just saying as the

face

of this movement very bad

but if you think she's a bad choice and

again

good person good intentions just

as a match for this topic a bad choice

but it turns out emily ratajowski is

perhaps

a slightly worse choice even than that

and i don't know if you'll be able to

see it but i'm going to show you the

picture

uh let's see if i can do this

so here she is her sign says respect

female existence

or expect our resistance which is a lot

of words not as clever as it could be

but respect female

existence yeah this is this is what she

wore

so this is what she wore to the

protest against women being objectified

so here's my little protest tip if

you're protesting

about women being objectified

probably don't go like that probably

don't go like that

so

so all i'm saying is and again

i don't know this i don't know this

actress i don't know emily

reddick ratachowski kowski i don't even

know how to pronounce it

and i apologize to her for that i have

nothing bad to say about her

she i i believe she's probably a good

person

who thinks she's i'm doing the right

thing trying to help

i like people get involved i like all of

that and

oh and i even i respect the fact that

she obviously knows a lot about

diet and exercise and fitness so if you

were to ask me

my personal opinion of her i'd say well

pretty hot looks like she has lots of

talent

looks like she's done a good job with

her fitness

looks like looks like a pretty solid

citizen and she's getting involved

in an important issue i like all of that

all i'm saying is

all i'm saying is if you're going to put

a famous face on this movement

not your right choice unless you dress

down a little bit to make your point

all right so that's all i'm saying

so trump um

oh and let me clarify that because if

this is taken out of context

it's going to look worse than i mean it

i'm completely in favor of women wearing

anything they want

wherever they want so i don't have any

i have no problem with women dressing

any way they want

and i don't believe that that you know

gives anybody a right to attack them so

there's no there's no retrograde

thinking like that going on i'm just

saying that

for a branding purpose it's a little bit

off-brand that's all i'm saying

um trump went full soros today

he actually mentioned george soros being

a funder of

protests now you might wonder

and a lot of people have asked me this

why i don't talk about george soros

and i don't know what to think about all

the george soro stuff

my first my initial thoughts about it

all

was that it was just a conspiracy theory

on the right

and that you know yeah george soros

funds some organizations who are

involved in some things

and he likes different things and we

like but is it a big deal

or is it just a convenient you know

a convenient person to blame for stuff i

never really had a sense of it

and then if you try to look into it it's

the rabbit hole just

goes down forever and you can't really

tell what's true

because if you read anything uh

written on the right about george soros

you get

you know three sentences in and you

start scratching your head and you say

yeah i don't know how true any of this

is

it just didn't feel like it just feels

too

impossible to be true which doesn't mean

it's not true

it just it doesn't pass the sniff test

with me

but i'm sure it is true that he gives to

groups and some of that money

ends up in the protest groups that's

probably true

but i don't know how important it is and

then i say to myself

where is the dividing line between

um being active and funding things and

you know trying to be a good cause in

the world

where is it where's the dividing line

between that

and influencing an election from a

different country

if george soros is doing what he is

accused of being

of doing shouldn't the u.s be

sanctioning him

so here's where the disconnect is if we

don't

like other countries influencing our

elections

and he seems to be universally accused

of doing exactly that

by funding groups who are protesting and

clearly trying to

change the outcome of politics why isn't

that foreign

foreign interference and why aren't we

why isn't the u.s actively acting

against him

as we would if russia did it as we would

if

china did it so

so one of the reasons i don't talk about

the soro situation is that none of it

makes sense to me

it doesn't make sense that the people

who have the power

the trump administration and you know

their supporters

it doesn't make sense to me that we're

accusing them of all these things

but then we're acting as though they're

not happening

so what we're saying and what we're

doing don't seem to have any connection

so i'm hoping somebody can explain them

oh he's a u.s citizen soros is a u.s

citizen

where does he live though he doesn't

live in america does he

somebody told me where soros lives

i'll have to look that up soros

he's an american citizen but he was born

in hungary right

let's look him up here george

soros

i should dig deeper into sorrow scott i

think you underestimate him

well um here's my problem

the the problem is that when you dig

deeper into him you can't really be sure

that what you're reading is

true all right so

um he's a hungarian-american investor so

born in hungary

and then an american citizen as as as

you said

but does he live here

um he was born in budapest

his children relatives website

but where does he live and emigrated to

england

but where is he now

well let me ask you this he doesn't live

does he live in new york

now i can't believe that he lives in new

york and he's in favor of open borders

unless he plans to leave new york he's

in austria somebody says all right well

he probably

has a number of houses

but here's my question that i just

generated just now

if it is okay for soros

who is an american citizen as as you've

informed me

if it's okay for him to influence our

elections

directly would it be okay

if he lived in another country and did

it

suppose he was an american citizen and

he lived in russia

would it be okay for him to try to

influence our elections

if he lived in russia

right it's an interesting question isn't

it

let's say he lived in russia but he was

an american citizen could he do anything

he wanted them to influence our

elections

i'm not sure he could but maybe he could

i don't know it's sort of an interesting

question

but

he lives all over the world yeah

so he's financing a lot of people uh on

the

on the left well i guess i just have

more questions about soros and i don't

think we completely

understand what's going on with that um

now is it still true that there's a

senator who's planning to

he might miss the vote i think he's a

republican he might miss the vote on

kavanaugh because his daughter has a

wedding

is that still true uh because i saw i

heard it yesterday but then i didn't see

it

on the news so i'm going to say wedding

kavanagh sent it

or i forget which senator it was

uh oh senator daines

will be on saturday

and they might hold open the vote

overnight

all right so you've got a a republican

who's you know every vote is necessary

but here's a republican senator whose

daughter has a wedding on that day

what would you do what would you do

if your two choices were this your

daughter's wedding

that you really can't change you know

it's kind of hard-coded at this point

you got your daughter's wedding you can

be at or you can be the important

final vote to change the course of the

courts

for maybe generations in a way that your

side wants

what do you do what would you do would

you go to the wedding

if it were if it were your daughter

would you go to the wedding or would you

stay for the vote

if you had to choose he might not have

to choose

he said he'd vote um

here's what i'd do and i'm i'm just

gonna

i'm just gonna put my thing out there if

it were me i'd go to the wedding

if it were me i'd go to the wedding but

here's what i would also do

i would go to my democrat friends

and let let's say that by the time of

the vote everybody's already announced

their vote

so let's say that the undecided people

by the time of the vote

have already decided so that there's no

doubt

which way the vote will go at the last

minute when they actually vote

uh oh don jr fixed it because he's gonna

fly him or something

um but just hypothetically here

uh wouldn't senator daines

of the gop suppose he asked his democrat

friends once they knew that the vote was

going to go for a confirmation then

there was no doubt about it

but the only way it could happen is if

he

the only way it could happen is if

he got somebody who was a democrat to

vote for him

don't you think it would be completely

legitimate

to ask for a volunteer just one person

who is a democrat to vote his way

so that he can go for the wedding

wouldn't you like to see that now that

person would have

a little bit of a problem in their own

district

because in their own district they'd

have to explain no

it wasn't a real vote i was just voting

so this gop

guy could go to his daughter's wedding

it's it would be nice and maybe it could

work in favor of the person who did it

but here's a better suggestion if we get

to the point where we know which way the

vote's going to go

and the only difference is whether this

poor guy gets to go to his daughter's

wedding or he doesn't

if it came down to that and it looks

like maybe we've solved it so that won't

be a problem

but if it came down to that i think the

democrats should vote unanimously for a

confirmation

because if the if the democrats voted

unanimously for confirmation

no single democrat could be singled out

as the one who flipped

and it would be a bigger story and it

would say yeah we've had this huge

fight over this thing but

when it got down to the final thing

we're human beings

and the human thing to do would be to

preserve the vote the way the gop was

going to get it anyway if this poor guy

you know didn't stay for his daughter's

wedding and still let him go to the

wedding

because the the result is going to be

the same you still get the confirmation

of kavanaugh that's a done deal

but why not why not be nice people

why not give some cover for a colleague

it would be

tremendous just it would be just

tremendous

um you know a good look for the

democrats

because they would take the the human

element

as a priority and that that feels on

brand to them

and it would be a good collegial act i

don't see any of that happening by the

way

and it looks like it's solved but it's

fun to talk about

um the vote is over

somebody says

uh you'd have to trust them to do that

well

would you or would you just have them

come back and

do the whole thing again and vote him in

yeah i'm not i'm not saying any of

that's going to happen but it was

certainly would be the

it would be a fun and memorable and

uh and good for the world

votes are taken in alphabetical order

and he is danes so he's going to be

upfront

all right um

you just jumped the shark do you know

how many times

people have told me that i jumped the

shark

you can can you imagine

uh well first of all so dilbert is

entering its

30th year so for 30 years

i've been drawing dilbert and it's been

you know one of the

top comics in the world for most of that

30 years probably 25 of those years it

was one of the

top comics in the world and for

at least 25 years i get about

one message a week at minimum in which

somebody tells me

well now you jumped the shark you know

you were okay for those first four years

but

now you jumped the shark so for

30 years people have been telling me

well today you went too far

well it was okay yesterday but now

you've gone too far

so i always laugh when i see it because

if it's such a

such a low awareness comment in my case

um

let's talk about 3.7 unemployment

uh as we enter you know the let's say

the zone of the midterms

we're we're kind of now in the midterm

zone

meaning it's so close to the midterms

that that's all we're thinking about

it gets harder and harder to say that

the economy is all obama's

good work now i'm one of the few people

in the world

who is willing to say obama did a good

job

trump is also doing a good job yeah i

think it's possible to hold both of

those thoughts in your head when it

comes to the economy

they did different things and i think

different things had to be done at

different times

i think obama was probably a good fit

for this emergency situation because he

was a calm voice and the economy was

going off the edge

and you didn't want any extra risk

introduced into the system so he was

sort of a

calm standard voice

but once once things get moving along

pretty well

which obama did he got things moving

along pretty well along with just you

know the economy has its own cycles

uh but i think that trump's extra juice

of cutting

taxes cutting regulations you know uh

being sort of the the cheerleader in

chief for american industries

negotiating tariffs and all that stuff

i do think that added the extra juice he

was the one who put extra risk

into a system that was ready for extra

risk

so you don't want any extra risk in 2008

because the economy was on the precipice

it was ready to go off a cliff

but once you're strong you don't want

that same

calm voice obama would be exactly the

wrong

leader for 2018. he might have been

exactly the right leader

for 2008-2009 but today you need more of

a cheerleader you need a marketer you

need somebody to put a little

energy into it you need some juice you

need some enthusiasm you need some

optimism

and these are all these are all the

president trump's

you know bread and butter this is the

stuff he does

so i think he gets credit for um

you know for a strong and

not just strong performance but

innovative

when you say that president trump's

approach to the

economy in terms of his cheerleading

optimism

cutting regulations really his whole the

whole package of what he's doing

it seems to me innovative because we

haven't quite seen anybody who put

together this

package of economic ideas

breaking us senate votes to advance the

nomination

is that the case let's see let's see if

cnn agrees with you random person

cnn says the vote is underway

uh susan collins is a yes for now but

we'll announce her final decision later

i i think it's smart for all the people

who

uh the people who are undecided

now kavanaugh was not just confirmed i

believe the vote was for

cloture now uh

remember i told you before that we've

learned so much about our government

because of the the trump years did you

know what

cloture meant last week

how many of you knew what a vote

for cloture c-l-o-t-u-r-e

how many of you even knew what that was

a week ago

now my understanding is it's a vote to

close the debate

so that you can later have the real vote

so it's only a vote to stop arguing it's

not a vote

that's the final vote so this this vote

if it went the way that we think it did

or will

uh means that they've agreed to vote

tomorrow

why am i not watching the vote because

i'm doing this

i'm doing this and and i didn't think

there was any mystery about the cloture

for me it seemed that it was obvious

that they would vote they would vote to

have a vote

that part seemed easy to predict

um 51 to advance

all right that sounds

there are enough votes to advance they

just got 51 votes

mansion and murkowski flipped now vote

again

voting voting to close the debate

doesn't have to be the same as voting

for it because you could vote to close

the debate and then vote against the

the proposition there's nothing wrong

with that

so there's still a little bit of mystery

all right

let me ask you this

you know that i predicted from the start

you know that i predicted from the start

that kavanaugh would get confirmed

how many of you didn't believe that

because i think at this point it's

sort of a done deal uh

did did it did it help you at all

that i was confident in this and that my

predictions have been pretty good so far

so my my prediction was that

republicans would say unless there was

some new information about

kavanaugh's past my prediction was that

the republicans would go with

they would take the win and they would

look at the bigger picture which is we

can't have a world

in which this sort of accusation derails

somebody

so to me it seemed like they would favor

the bigger picture

and the bigger picture is you can't have

a world where

uncorroborated accusations of 17 year

old behavior

ruins your uh career when you're in your

50s

yes so they have agreed to the vote only

that is correct but i think

it's pretty safe to assume that the

vote's going to go in the same way

historically it's the litmus meaning

that if the cloture vote goes one way

the vote itself will go the

same way so the vote tomorrow at 4 pm

um you may be wondering where

i will be tomorrow at 4 pm because i

won't be

periscoping at 4 pm i will be delivering

the eulogy for my stepson my 18 year old

stepson

who died on sunday because of a

fentanyl overdose maybe from china

so fentanyl china the country of great

shame they should bow its head

in complete shame

is likely the cause of the death of my

stepson

not certainly but likely and

they must live with forever shame for

being that country

fentanyl china i'm always going to put

that name in front of them

they're just fentanyl china they're not

even china fentanyl

they're fentanyl china that's the first

thing you think about somebody who's

killing 30 000

of your people a year if china is

killing 30 000 people a year

or something like that with their

illegal fentanyl

um then i think fentanyl should be their

first name

not a good assumption says jp well

i don't know which one you're making but

apparently um

much of the illegal fentanyl comes from

china there's other stuff coming from

other places

south of the border as well i know

all right um

at three o'clock they will say their

vote what's that mean

will that make it into your eulogy no it

will not

all right thank you all for your good

thoughts and i'm gonna sign off

and i've gotta i have a eulogy for my

dead stepson to write so that's that's

my job today

and i'll talk to the rest of you later