S1: This podcast may have explicit content and also has this implicit request, if you follow me on Twitter. Why not follow the gist at Slate Gist?
S2: It’s Tuesday, January 14th, twenty twenty from Slate’s The Gist. I’m Mike PESCA. The Democratic debate in Iowa tonight is the seventh debate, this time with only six candidates, 15 and Tom Stier, who is not a politician. He has that niche, but also not a multi boldy billionaire who ran the largest city in America. Michael Bloomberg has that distinction.
S3: But Michael Bloomberg is not invited because he is not the kind of billionaire who hits up citizens for their dollars to augment his billions of dollars. Tom Stier is such a billionaire and that lands him on the stage of Democratic Party rules. Cory Booker, as with the last debate, will not be on the stage because he is no longer running for president. Have essentially done an obit for most of the major candidates who dropped out because most at the time of dropping out made a claim that they were unfairly ignored. Cory Booker didn’t explicitly do that, but also because unlike Gillibrand, Castro, Williamson and Harris with them, I had strong countervailing reasons to explain why they lost.
S1: But with Booker, he didn’t do poorly in any debate. He didn’t have big, bold policies that people just didn’t like. He didn’t believe that he was once an attendant to jeezy’s in a past life. That does explain one of our recently departed. So always with us in spirit candidates. I will say this about one of Cory Booker’s policies, baby bonds. It would cost a lot, but it would do a lot, and the lot it would do would be profound. It would seat all children with wealth and it will greatly close the racial wealth gap. Michael Bennett, still running, by the way, has a more modest but also highly impactful version of this plan, which is why I guess he’s not breaking through either. I guess if you’re looking to sell the public on a costly program that helps some people, the people who want to help shouldn’t be babies.
S3: It should be people with student debt is what America is telling us right now. I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s just that the people who do a lot of arguing and re-tweeting on Twitter, they’re more likely to themselves have student debt than to be babies. I assume this to be true. I also know that Elizabeth Warren does want to forgive student debt. She also says as of today, she says she’ll do it on day one because she can and because Congress can’t be trusted to have a say in spending 1.5 trillion dollars over a decade. She hinted at this program less than a week ago with this tweet, quote, You deserve better. Dump the guy who goes. Did you convince the roommate to let you adopt a dog? And I’ll take care of canceling your student loan debt. Wow. Cool mom energy right there. Of course, the guy ghosting you. I mean, if he’s ghosting you, how do you get in touch with him to dump him? But anyway, I’m more concerned about the third part.
S1: See if you convince your roommate to get a dog and the American. See if you convince your roommate to get a dog. The American people don’t pay 1.5 trillion dollars for the dog. The American people don’t pay 1.5 trillion dollars for the ghosted boyfriend, though. In his new book, Michael Lind argues the ghost of Thomas Jefferson has cost Americans so much more. My point is basically Lavazza is conservation of matter.
S3: Debt can’t be cancelled or incurred, can only be transferred or absorbed. And we, the body politic, are being asked to absorb it. And in the spiel, I will like an early baboon heart recipient. I will reject that offer. But first, let’s talk about some bad stuff. Literally the stuff of badness when something is bad, when it’s a negative experience. It Syriza’s much more so researchers have found than a pleasant interaction lifts us. This makes sense, evolutionary. But now in 2020, still being governed by certain bery plucking strategies that served our ancestors might not be optimizing for current survival. What to do? How about. Listen to this interview with John Tierney, author of The Power of Bad of the Negativity Effect Rules US and How We Can Rule It.
S4: Are you a bit of a gambler or would you rather just keep your money and not risk it? I mean, I wouldn’t mind risking a few dollars, but I just don’t wanna go overboard, you know? Would you say you’re you’re a gambling woman? You like gambling? No, I don’t. I don’t really gamble. I’m very cautious and finicky, whether it’s eating or taking chances.
S5: Yeah. The risk of losing something is worth the gambling. I mean, I wouldn’t take a bank guys play that way.
S4: Were to play heads or tails. Would you want to do it if you won? You want a dollar. But if I won, I at all. Probably not. No, no, no, thanks. You knew the game was on the up and up and I were to flip a coin and I said, oh, look, I’ll pay, you know, a dollar twenty five. If you win, you only have to pay me. I ain’t doing it with you. I don’t know. It just doesn’t seem worth it. I said, look, I’ll give you a dollar fifty and you only have to put up a dollar. Would you do it then. No. Fifty cents. Now if I offered you a dollar. Seventy five if you. That’s a possibility. Maybe at that point you maybe start thinking, fine, I’ll give you $2. You only have to put up a dollar. Would you be sure. Yeah I would do that. I would do that. Yes, sure.
S6: Laughs Everyone seems to converge around two bucks. Two to one. Yes. So that means that like lost twice is painful. Yeah. You could say lost hurts twice as much as gain feels good. Why do you think that is? It must have something to do with, you know, when we’re all running away from lions on the savanna. Yeah. It always seems to come back to that, doesn’t it? I guess a wildebeest in the brush is worth a lion on the heels or something. No, no. What that means.
S7: Were there any people. So that right there is your humble correspondent from an episode of Radiolab a few years ago. And as you could hear what I was doing, I was in a park and offering up people would earn a dollar on a game of let’s flip a coin and no one was taking it. And then if I would offer upwards of a dollar fifty, someone take it. And at $2, people say, yeah, I’ll risk a dollar to win $2 on a 50/50 bet. This is a version of loss aversion that a lot of economists have studied. And it fits into the greater theory and the greater premise which is described a few ways and with a few labels. But in general, we hate bad things more than we love good things. And in fact, bad things have a greater effect on us than good things. This is all talked about and written about in the new book by John Tierney and Roy Baumeister. The Power of Bad How the Negativity Effect Rules US and How We Can Rule It. Bump, bump, bomb. Hello, John. Hi, Mike. So you could have called it a few things. You settled on negativity effect, right? Why do you think that’s the best way to think about it?
S8: I mean, negativity, biases and other, you know, fine word for it. But I think that it’s his overall effect. A bias is something inside your head. But also it’s got this effect on so many things in our lives that, you know, the way we see things, the way we act.
S7: So give us a couple of examples. I talked about money. Give us a non-monetary example or two.
S8: Someone pays you lots of compliments and has one word of criticism and you go home just obsessing about the critics.
S1: And that’s not just because the individual person is overly sensitive. That’s common among all of us.
S8: I mean I mean, all authors know that it’s a one line in the review. It can be a rave review if there’s one line. Oh, my God. How could they say that? I mean, there are other experiments showing that when people are shown a group of faces, they focus on the hostile face and they miss the smiling ones. You know, our brains just evolve as wired to focus on bad stuff.
S7: Yeah. And you also say that you went looking for, well, whatever the opposites, what are the areas of life where the good tends to be the thing that we anchor on couldn’t find many.
S8: That was the big surprise. I mean, the loss aversion stuff that you studied that was known in the 80s and there were some other examples in my co-author. Roy Baumeister is a great social psychologist. He was curious about this loss aversion. Why is this so? Let’s find some examples where good is strong, right?
S7: Maybe that’s with money, but maybe like the hope will outweigh the trying to avoid loss. I don’t know. Maybe with politics, maybe something about Americans are so optimistic that they’ll take these chances, you know, betting on the come just not true.
S8: Right. And they survey the literature in psychology, sociology, lots of fields, economics and just, you know, bad was relentlessly strong. You know that the prizes don’t work as well as penalties. The good parenting doesn’t make that much difference, but bad parenting makes a big difference and they keep finding it over and over again. So he wrote this much cited paper called Bad is Stronger Than Good.
S1: So much of good is just the absence of bad. If you look at education outcomes, there’s many, many ways to screw up a kid. There’s a huge tried and true way to have a kid well educated, except try to avoid the many bad ways.
S8: Exactly. I mean, we advise people just in general, be a good enough parent, be a good enough teacher. We don’t have to be perfect. You just have to avoid the bad stuff because you can’t really, Francis, raise a kid’s natural IQ. Right? I mean, you can hire great tutors. You can do lots of things. Boy, you can do is lower kid’s IQ in a bad environment. They’re shown that.
S7: Yes, I was for myself trying to think of counter-examples and I thought about sex and pizza. It’s like the old line pizzas like sex in that even bad pizza is pretty good. So that is maybe something where we focus on the good and the possibility of the thing being good or the assumption that the thing is going to be good outweighs the fact that some version of it might be bad.
S8: Now, one bad sexual experience can traumatize somebody’s short life, but nobody, you know, goes through life thinking about that one great afternoon of sex. It becomes kind of a fond, hazy memory. Doesn’t stick with you in the same way.
S7: Well, there is a logic to being very averse. 2 loss being very wary of doing something bad. Without it, we might not have evolved as a species like we really needed to avoid the poison mushrooms and we really needed not to pat all the cute dogs because one could probably bite us and we’d bleed forever.
S8: That’s exactly right. I mean, as we said, you know, life has to win every day. Death just has to win once.
S7: That’s right. Yes. There is no choice we could make. That gives us immortality. But there are literally infinite number of choices that you and I could make this afternoon that would kill us. And that would be the last choice we make. Exactly. So then you come to the fact that. Okay, that was true for most of human existence, but now we’re in a different place. And I want to take your observation and maybe add to it. I think that you can make the case that the formulation is adaptive, becomes maladaptive when you add abundance. All of these adaptive behaviors were in a forum of scavenging and trying to make choices that if you made the wrong choice, what to eat, you die. But you had to use very much, also had to make the right choice of what to eat. Right now there’s almost no choice to make. The only choices like to eat less and also with media. When the sources of information coming in, when there were very few of them, it was a very different calculation than now that the sources wash over us. So what was adaptive plus abundance often equals maladaptive.
S8: That’s a great way to put it. I mean, you’re right, because there were more real threats to our ancestors. I mean, people die young all the time, so they really had to be there. And as part of our abundance, we just don’t have that many fatal threats. I mean, there’s still social threads. There’s still things that go wrong, but we don’t face that. And one of the other things that they’ve found and we write about this in the book is that when the real threats disappear and when the serious stuff goes away, we invent new threats. We had first world problems. So we start obsessing about and there’s some really Edison experiments, how people just start inventing these things to make up for the fact that there aren’t fatal threats around anymore. We just start imagining all these doomsday as we start imagining threats.
S7: Right. Right. So what experiment is the experiment we’ve all lived through? And there is a mass panic about child kidnappings and it just isn’t true. But what are some experiments that they’ve done in the lab to show this?
S9: Dan Gilbert at Harvard did a real an experiment where they showed people a bunch of dots and asked me to identify the blue ones. And they even warned them. I think that now as this goes on, there’ll be fewer and fewer blue dots. Well, people keep identifying the same number of blue dots and they start seeing purple dots as blue. And that same thing happened when they asked would identify faces, you know, pick out the hostile faces as the prevalence of hostile faces declines. They start interpreting neutral faces as and you know, there’s an old saying that no food. One problem, much food. Many problems. We just have the leisure to start worrying about. Stuff in our brain naturally goes there.
S7: Right. As I always say, we catastrophize the normal. I mean, we normalize the catastrophic. That is true, but we catastrophize the normal. So talk about global warming. There are some hurricanes that are hurricanes and they always happen. And they maybe wouldn’t have been any worse if there was global warming. We might see that purple dot hurricane is a blue dot because we’re inventing problems and I use that advisedly because global warming is a real problem. But still, we could look at the problem, global warming, and think that everything confirms it because we’re obsessed with that, which is bad.
S9: Global warming is definitely a real problem. It’s a real threat to be concerned about. But it’s also an example of what we call the crisis crisis, which is this tendency of special interest to hype threats and inspire us to do solutions that help them in some of the problems with global warming, or that there’s been so much exaggeration that, you know, since the 80s, it’s always been a 10 years. They’ll be mass catastrophe. So a lot of people just don’t believe it at all. And then you also get the problem that the people who are pushing these alarmist things have their own agenda for doing stuff that often is not really doing much to solve the problem. And so you see places that have adopted the most advanced green policies like Germany are not making very good progress toward actually reducing carbon emissions because they’re basically doing policies that help special interests instead of solving the problem.
S1: OK. But why is that focusing on the bad? I mean, I really wanted to talk about global warming because to me, it is true. We think everything’s bad. But this this is the thing that really is bad. Just like before 9/11, we thought that every, you know, terrorist group without to destroy us. And then there was one to destroy us. And, you know, killed 3000 people against the world where we tend to see the purple dots as blue. How do we also properly adjudicate the actual blue dots?
S8: Well, I guess it’s trying not to look at the one her came to look at the big picture. I mean, that’s a general rule. And don’t look at the one terrorist attack because, you know, despite I mean, 9/11 was a terrible day, but there hasn’t really been a long term increase in terrorism to some extent.
S1: It’s because we’ve done some to fortify ourselves against that.
S8: I mean, it’s some of that. I think it helps, but it’s never been a really serious. Right to the average person. Right.
S7: So see, here’s the thing. You have so much social science in your book and we tend to focus on the bad. There’s also a raft of social science about how to convince people to do something about global warming. And the shame of it is that some of our incorrect assumptions, some of our gut assumptions that aren’t true actually could help us mobilize and think correctly about global warming. It’s probably not true that a hundred percent of what’s going on in Australia is only because of global warming. That without global warming, there wouldn’t have been any fires or any kangaroos dying or anything like that. But you think that it is. We’ll probably get the ball rolling, especially in Australia, which after America has probably the second worst society in terms of taking global warming seriously.
S8: Well, you’re right. It’s tough to get people to make a sacrifice today for a long term problem like global warming. And I understand why people say, you know, we’ve got to do something to motivate people. I do think that in the long run, though, it just makes people skeptical. I mean, we point out how John Holdren, who is Obama’s science adviser, he’s predicted in the 80s that a billion people will be dead from starvation by global warming by 2020, by today. And people see that and they dismiss the whole problem. I understand using emotional appeals and the power back can be used for good purposes. I mean, we cite that it teaches people more, gives people more motivated. You know, there were experiments where the Red Cross gets more people to donate blood. If they make it a negativeness, it’s helped someone avoid dying rather than just.
S7: Yeah, just be a good person. Save the Children. What about look at the children you saved? It’s called Save the Children. You got that sad kid with the flies on his face. And then most horribly of all, Sally Struthers.
S8: All right. Right. But the problem is, when you let these sort of doomsayers and activists, you know, run the agenda, then they’re proposing stuff that helps them as opposed to really solve it. And if you don’t look at the long term problem, put it in perspective, you can’t really figure out how to address it.
S7: Yeah, there’s a lot of great stuff in the book about relationships. A lot of great stuff about management. Bad apples really do spoil the bunch sometimes in an office.
S8: Exactly. Is much more important to not hire bad apples or get rid of them if they’re there than it is to hire stellar people that, you know, I’m interesting experiments where when you predict the performance of a team, it’s predicted not by the average ability of the team members, but by the worst member there, because one guy can just drag down the whole team.
S1: Yeah. There’s an offensive line. You are the weakest link. Now, if you want to be a good manager, though, even though in general it is a flaw of cognition to focus on the bad, a good manager, especially in this task, will focus on the bad.
S8: That’s right. Bad is stronger. So it’s more important to get rid of bad. And we talked about the rule of four words as a rough guideline that in general takes about four good things to overcome a bad thing. So you get a lot more leverage by eliminating the one bad thing than by trying to compensate with for a good thing.
S7: Researchers literally with rule of four, they look at couples who fight and then couples who have sex afterwards and a 4 to 1 ratio works.
S8: It’s a good predictor. I mean, if you’re having sex as often as you fight this, that’s a really bad sign, right? You need that. And it’s predictive. You know, some people have lots of sex and more fights. Some people never fight, but they don’t have much sex. That’s all right, then. It’s called the positivity ratio. It predicts depression in which people are flourishing and which aren’t is sort of the ratio of good to bad in your life.
S7: Okay. So a lot of the book and a lot of the if it is advice, the tenor of it is recognized that this goes on, recognize that this is a normal human trait, slash foible and maybe change your behavior. That seems really hard because if it’s true that it’s so baked in, just knowing about it is interesting. But I wonder if people who are fixated on the bad can actively employ a self-imposed change in their mentality.
S8: I’ve got confidence in people’s rational ability. People actually are eating healthier. They’re using their rational brains to overcome that primal impulse to just gorge yourself on something that got an appealing taste. And we’ve got lots of examples in the book of people who’ve done this.
S7: What? Of the last two books of this in willpower, what have you personally use to change your life from this one?
S10: I’ve really, you know, made an effort to work on their rule of four to minimize the negative and accentuate the positive. And some of the tips that we have fought to do in a relationship and how to respond when something good happens, you know how to capitalize on that. This simple little tricks, like when a friend of yours or your partner tells you something good happen, don’t sit there quietly, you know, capitalize on it. That’s great. As details about it, it makes such a difference. And the style gysin. It’s a verb that I discovered as I was reporting. There’s all this research. It used to be considered a pathology.
S1: Yeah, well, you know, Olja, I mean the root word. Yeah. Is from a pain for the past.
S10: Yes. And the ways that people were depressed thus far. But in the last, you know, 15, 20 years, they’ve done all these experiments showing that it is great for you, you know, that it boosts your mood and the present makes you more optimistic in the future, makes you closer to other people. So I really try to engage in the stallion. You know, share memories with a friend when you’re there with the person.
S7: Not just our personal reveries. You’re talking about using the style.
S10: Socially, both both are good. It’s great to share memories with someone to remember that and go over. But also just when you have some free time instead of, you know, worrying about, oh, I got six things on my to do list I got to do. Think back about a good time that happened.
S1: And yeah, it really does on time you completed it. It’s a good time.
S11: John Tierney is along with Roy F. Baumeister, the author of The Power of Bad How the Negativity Effect Rules US and How We Can Rule It. Thank you so much, John. Thank you, Mike.
S3: And now the schpiel. I do not believe a woman can be president who promises to eliminate all student loan debts on her first day in office. I don’t think a man could do that either. But it is Elizabeth Warren who’s proposing it. So let’s focus on her plan today. On the day of the Iowa debate, Elizabeth Warren, who is involved in a spat with Bernie Sanders and his supporters, went one further than Senator Sanders ever has. She issued a proposal to eliminate student debt up to $50000. And as the path goes beyond what she has proposed before, she says she can unilaterally as president do it without congressional approval.
S12: On day one. What a horrific idea.
S3: First of all, wouldn’t even be legal. Maybe, yes, maybe no. The theory is the president controls the Department of Education. The Department of Education controls debt. There is a written provision written back in 1965 that says that Department of Ed can modify debt. So why not modify it down to zero? Sounds simple. Well, look, hiring a Yale p_h_d_ candidate, Yale Law School p_h_d_ candidate wrote a paper for the Great Democracy Initiative supporting the notion of debt cancellation. So he lays out the steps to getting it done. Here we go. The Department of Education would issue an order to cancel debt after obtaining information from the IRS that any such cancel isation would not be counted as part of gross income. That’s important. Then there is the current executive branch policy of PAYGO, which means that you have to offset all payments with receipts. So because of this, the Department of Education would have to issue an order only after the Office of Management and Budget eliminates administration PAYGO or explains how it would handle it. The Department of Justice can be brought in to lean on the IRS. The IRS commissioner, of course, appointed for five years so it wouldn’t be Elizabeth Warren’s own. In other words, there is a lot of executive branch maneuvering to make this dream a reality. And so much of the legality of it rests on the idea that it would be hard to find an injured party to sue about debt cancellation. Well, what about someone who just recently paid their own debts off, who struggled and worked and sacrificed and took fewer vacations and lived on less and didn’t get the bigger apartment and all that? Might that person say, wait, what about me? No, that person would be legal term shit out of luck. But the law would probably not regard that person as having standing to bring a lawsuit.
S1: So maybe you’re thinking more about me as the individual taxpayer? Yeah. You can’t you can’t sue a law as a taxpayer that you don’t like. But if you’re saying but is the individual taxpayer I am subsidizing this, it will cost 1.6 trillion dollars over a decade. Yes. Yes. You’re right about that. Oh, yes, you are. And you didn’t need a college degree to figure that out, though. If you do have a college degree, I hope you didn’t already pay off your loans because the forgiveness fairy is a flight. Now, let’s think about let’s think through what happens when our new president without congressional approval, which presumably means without popular support, just cancels student debt. Let’s say you’re in the process of applying to college early in college. You’re accepted to college and you’re thinking of choosing which I choose as more affordable college. Should I choose this more expensive college and hope it all works out? What do you think you would choose? Would you make any concession to college cost if you knew your debt would be forgiven? Only if you’re too stupid to get into Trump you. In fact, every rational person should do anything to get a loan that they could label an education loan if they knew it was going to be forgiven. Moral hazard now more like a guaranteed boondoggle or not, because you know Elizabeth Warren’s not dumb. Would she really allow such a system to take hold? Wouldn’t she place limitations as to who could ask for their debt to be forgiven? Well, if she did that, I think she would come into office with credibility shot on day one. Wait. You promise to erase my student debt? What am I a sucker for voting for you? How would this affect the college loan industry? I’d say not. Well, I’m not sure how a loan would work if the government would automatically forgive it. Why would any lender make a loan? They’d never make any money in interest. I don’t weep for the lenders. I probably wouldn’t have to because there won’t be any left. Most student debt winds up being owned by the government actually, but not all of it. Even the experts agree that there is no plausible mechanism for debt forgiveness held outside the Department of Education. Sorry. Those five million people. So who had student debt. About a third of American adults never went to college. Another third did, but don’t have student debt. When you factor in children, you’re left with about little less than 50 million people who have some college debt. Who are they? They’re wealthier and whiter than the country as a whole. They’re more likely to be wealthier in the future if they are graduates. And they should be. College is long conveyed an earning advantage, though less so now. And burdensome debt is a problem. I’m not denying that. But there’s. Plenty of evidence, including from the liberal think tank Demos, that eliminating all student debt would actually increase the wealth gap between white and black households. That, by the way, is Bernie Sanders plan. That’s essentially a stimulus for anyone with debt. The Warren plan has always said it will exclude the very rich, but it does allocate trillion and a half dollars for college graduates where it could be spending that money on a variety of programs for the poor. Or hell, just cash transfers to the poor that most economists say would make the poor better off. All of us better off. True, 1.5 trillion dollars could also be wasted in Iraq. That is the case. But what does that prove? That cancelling student debt is a slightly better policy than canceling Saddam Hussein? And then there are the obvious issues of executive overreach. Why you’d have to do this? Why would you have to do this without Congress’s approval? That alone is troubling. More. More than troubling. It’s quasi dictatorial. Bernie Sanders. Like I said, has this plan for eliminating all debt, which, as I said, it wouldn’t be the, in my opinion, best use of resources for our country. But at least that proposal is a legislative one and therefore a constitutional one. It would be passed by Congress, not by fiat.
S12: When Donald Trump killed Suleimani, he said we had a crisis and couldn’t wait for Congress. Elizabeth Warren introduced her plan about student debt, accompanied by this tweet and I quote, We have a student loan crisis and we can’t afford to wait for Congress to act.
S1: This isn’t the Obama Dreamer policy that he tried time and time again to institute through Congress, to act to beg Congress to solve this glaring problem. Elizabeth Warren doesn’t even know what the composition of Congress will be. And still, she won’t be waiting for their input. Optional, though, it may be considered.
S12: You know, the people who favor college debt cancellation call it not really any debt cancellation, but they’re calling it with us. They call it the debt jubilee. It’s a jubilee. You’re paying for it. This jubilee has roots in the Bible where they admonish the forgiveness of debt every seven years. Of course, the preceding admonishment to that is we promise not to give our daughters in marriage to the peoples around us or take their daughters for our sons. I’ve always thought grand scale debt forgiveness was unfair, unwise policy, too, that Elizabeth Warren is adding the procedural vices of its own collaborative, unethical, possibly unlawful. I just think there are better ways to spend our money. They’re better recipients of our money. There are better ways to enact this suboptimal way to spend our money. There are so many second and third order ill effects of this policy. I almost feel like to engage with it intellectually as a serious proposal is strange and off because it has such glaring shortfalls like the moral hazards, I laid out the effects of this policy on the loan industry, they’re just hand waved with, oh, it’s just an idea. It’s just a negotiating strategy. Or even if it doesn’t work, she’s making a point. She’s getting attention. She’s responding to the Trumpian idea of being grabbing more important than being well thought out. Well, I don’t think like that. I don’t report like that and I don’t vote like that. I think this is the worst idea that Elizabeth Warren has endorsed. And pursuing it to its end would be pretty horrible, a horrible mistake. And abandoning it at this point as a mistake, if elected, would be a terrible breaking of faith with her voters. And I don’t know why she did it. This has not been tried in any country that’s not been tried by any state. Industry hasn’t done this. This would be an unprecedented social and monetary experiment for a problem that represents a burdensome reality, but not a tear up the constitution crisis. Elizabeth Warren’s brand has been I have a plan for that, but I always took the unstated premise to be I have a researched, considered, possibly tried and tested plan for that. This plan is not any of those things, not even much of a plan. It’s a salvo in a seemingly desperate one at that.
S11: And that’s it for today’s show. Daniel Schrader produces the gist.
S13: He is experiencing a sleep debt brought on by binge watching The Witcher. And he needs Marianne Williamson to come back to forgive it. The gist this entire podcast has been written on Ritz Carlton V.A. stationery, as has been our practice for Lo these past five and a half years who were desperate to Peru. And thanks for listening.