ood, good stuff.

So the big interesting news today is about the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. The accusations that come from decades ago, thirty or forty years ago, when he was a teenager. There's a woman who alleges that while classmates at a drunken party, he climbed on top of her and tried to have his way with her, and he was pulled off by his friend. What was the name of the friend who pulled Judge Kavanaugh, allegedly, off of the accuser? What was the friend's name? Judge. His actual name. So the friend's last name is Judge. Now, what are the odds of that? And I'll tell you why that actually matters in a minute.

So yes, I'm on the road. I'm in Las Vegas at the moment, just for fun. So let me give you some context, because there are a lot of low-information voters out there on the left who don't understand a few things that you already understand, or you're going to in a moment. So whether you were a low-information voter or not five minutes ago, you're going to be the highest-information voter of all the information voters. I'm going to take you up to the height, the height, the height of information on this topic anyway.

So the first thing we must ask ourselves is, what about the credibility of the accuser? The evidence we have is a memory from thirty or forty years ago while people were inebriated. That's the first piece of information. The second piece of information: she says she took a lie-detector test and passed. The third bit of information is that a reporter for the Washington Post claims that she came to him, or she came to her, the reporter, in July. So those who are saying, hey, why did she wait so long to come forward? Well, you can question how long it took her, but she did come forward in July. So that's the information we have.

Let's look at the credibility of each of these. Lie detectors: are they credible? Nope. No, lie detectors are not used in court, and the reason they're not used is because they're not credible. So they're not backed scientifically. What they're good for is when somebody doesn't know they don't work and they're afraid that they might work. You can get a reaction on the machine just because somebody's panicked that you've forced them into a lie detector. So it can be a useful tool if you're, let's say, checking an entire department and you're trying to find the mole who leaked something. You could probably find somebody in that department who, if they knew who the leaker was, they might panic a little bit, and maybe you could convince them to give up their secrets because they thought they failed the polygraph.

So polygraphs do have a place. They are useful in certain situations, but only to narrow down things. So if you get lucky and somebody panics because they think they're failing a polygraph, you can sometimes, well often, get them to confess. So it has that value. But as a measurement of accuracy of truth, they don't have a purpose. All right, you got that? As a measurement of truth, they don't have a purpose. Polygraphs don't.

Now, there are several problems. One is that people who believe their own lies can pass. Secondly, we don't know what questions were asked, if they were the right ones. Thirdly, if she had a false memory, she would also pass the polygraph because she would believe her own memory. So the pol