Republicans Horribilis

Listen to this episode

S1: The following program has words that were once banned in Boston, as they say, no, not Bucky Dent or Manhattan clam chowder, much worse words than that.

S2: The.

S3: It’s Thursday, January 28th, 2021, from Slate, it’s the gist. I’m Mike Pesca, Big Media News. Eric Bolling is going head to head with the gist. Yeah, he’s doing a podcast. And you will never guess who the former Sinclair radio personality will have on as his co-host. He debuted the pairing today.

Advertisement

S4: OK, let’s bring in the Hall of Fame quarterback and friend of mine, Mr. Brett Favre. Brett, great to have you back on the show.

S5: Their friends, Eric and Brett, remind me not to be included in that particular text chain bullying. It was dismissed from Fox News after an internal investigation revealed he had messaged co-workers with lewd material. And Farve inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame after sending lewd material to a female TV host. Working for father’s team at the time will be hosting this podcast that they have named Bowling with Favre. Bowling is spelled BAEO. L l i n g. Bowling for dullards, I guess was not available. Bolling’s weekend show was canceled by the Sinclair Group after it was criticized for misstatements about the coronavirus pandemic. But the show did have access to Donald Trump, who was a frequent guest. Boulding once interviewed a doctor who claimed Anthony Fauci invented the coronavirus in a lab and shipped to China and has claimed that vaccines aren’t effective, nor are masks. Well, maybe not masks. He phrased it, quote, wearing your tube socks around your face. A perfect opportunity then to team up with the something about Mary co-star Brett Favre. Brett Favre wrote in a preview of the kind of compelling content the podcast might feature. Bolling interviewed Farve and this banter about the Super Bowl ensued.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S6: You never know with Tom Brady. I would never bet against, you know, a lot of people having a lot of people blob’s.

S4: Yeah, I I’m better, you know, that I’ve put some money on some games and I got burned a few times betting against Brady, I don’t think you can do it, especially which I just found out from my producer that for the first time in NFL history, the Super Bowl, the the team, one of the teams in the Super Bowl is in their home stadium, the Tampa Bay Bucs. That’s amazing.

S6: It is. You know, all the years of football, it’s never happened. And teams have come close, but it’s never happened. Leave it to Tom Brady to be the first to do it.

Advertisement

S5: Eric Bolling is a sports gambler who just found out today that the Bucs are the first team to play a Super Bowl at home. Just found that out by someone else his producer mentioned. They hope you’re not putting big bucks on the game.

S7: And I like the idea of, yeah, leave it to Tom Brady to be the first to host the Super Bowl at home, because Tom Brady knew four years ago when the Super Bowl was scheduled and he was a member of a different team. OK, fine. It’s clearly going to be a salon of wit, banter and maybe the occasional bit of naughtiness. You want to sign up for their Instagram page or their Twitter feed or really anything with a visual component. You’ll want to clear it with a sensitivity reader before you check out the tile art for their show. But you do want to watch out. You really want to watch out for bowling with Farve, with their Super Bowl picks and other kinds of picks popping up, maybe without you asking in iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play or other entities. Sure to be mentioned in a deposition sometime soon on the show today, our show, this show that Anthony Pouchy invented coronavirus thing, not the nuttiest theory, will delve into you today because the opinions and intellectual pursuits of Marjorie Taylor Greene is in the spiel. But first, Loganberry is a Harvard trained psychologist whose area of expertise is both understudied and at the same time is the thing that makes the world go round. It’s love or at least attraction. Coupling dating. Uri has been a behavior researcher for Google, is a consultant for the dating app Binge, and also is a very in demand dating coach. Now you get access to her wisdom for free.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: Loganberry, author of How to Not Die Alone The Surprising Science That Will Help You Find Love, next.

S7: Loganberry and I have some things in common, for instance, we both got married this year in the middle of a pandemic, lots of masks, lots of distancing. She, however, is the author of How to Not Die Alone The Surprising Science That Will Help You Find Love.

S3: She is a Harvard trained researcher who who was the co-founder of the Irrational Lab at Google. And she’s sort of the brain behind Hinge and its its methods of matching people up. What an interesting book. What an interesting person. What an interesting topic. Well, you know, that’s the promise, at least. Let’s find out. Hello, Logan.

Advertisement

S8: Hi. Thanks for having me.

S3: Oh, absolutely. No, this book is very the potential audience. You know, it’s very much I don’t want to say self-help because that sounds dismissive, but it’s very practical. There are guidelines, there are matrices, there are checklists and appendices. I really do think that if someone is saying, why can’t I find someone to share my toothbrush with that this book is perfect for them. But I’m kind of interested in your general philosophy, a step away from the book, the stuff that informs the book. So my first question is, were you interested in psychology and relationships before you got into specifically the matchmaking game, or were you always the sort of person maybe as a little girl who was into matchmaking or kind of a kind of perhaps a yenta with your stuffed animals and then psychology found you?

Advertisement

S8: Oh, I love that question. And thank you for starting there. I would definitely say that I’m psychology first. It’s not that I grew up daydreaming about my wedding or thinking about different people’s crushes. That’s really not necessarily how my brain works. I’m much more interested in decision making. And the type of stuff that I think about all the time is why do people behave the way they do? And so that’s why I pursued studying psychology at Harvard. And the interesting thing is that even though I’ve always been focused on psychology, there has sort of been this underlying level of the psychology of relationships in the psychology of sexuality.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S9: Is it your experience that given how important relationships are to people, it is understudied as a academic matter?

S8: Yes. So you are right on the money about the fact that decision science has been applied to so many areas of our life. There’s so much great research here, but it hasn’t been applied to this area of relationships. I think some of that is the type of person that’s drawn to studying behavioral economics, behavioral science. And some of it is the fact that it’s sort of seen as something fluffy, right? It’s love. It’s this chemical reaction, like why would we apply this decision making theory to it?

S9: From reading your book and reading about this field, there is tons of overlap between how love, science, relationship science is just like any sort of decision making science. You know, there’s the paradox of choice, right, that is absolutely prevalent in both. There’s confirmation bias. There are so many of the different biases that we as humans have. But what are the areas where relationship science really stands alone? I could think of one, but I’ll come back and I’ll say what mine is. But are there areas where, you know, relationship science is a little different because dot, dot, dot.

Advertisement

S8: So as you as you mentioned in the book, I take a lot of the well-known nudges and behavioral science, cognitive biases, things like the status quo bias or the sunk cost fallacy. And I apply them to relationships. When you think about just the field of relationship science, people who are studying how people interact, I think what’s so fascinating is some of these longitudinal studies about couples over time. So one of the most famous people in this space is Dr. John Gottman, who many of your listeners may be familiar with. And he had this fascinating lab. It was called The Love Lab associated with the University of Washington. And he used to have couples stay there for the weekend and the entire house would be outfitted with cameras, microphones. They even had this thing on the chair called a jiggle ometer that would see how much you were jiggling in your chair. They would even measure your pee and the testosterone and everything in your pee. And what they would see is how couples interacted. And they had a series of measures that they were looking for. For example, this concept called bids. And so what bids is, is, you know, you and I are staying in the apartment and I look out the window and I see a boat go by and I say, hey, Mike, look at that boat in that moment. How do you respond? You could turn towards me and you could say, oh, well, look at that boat and come stand next to me. You could turn away from me and ignore me. Or you could turn against me and say, why are you always going on and on about the boats? I’m trying to read. And what they found is that when they looked at these couples six years later and they saw the couples who they succeeded, what they call the relationship masters versus the couples who failed the relationship disasters, so much of that could be predicted by whether they turned towards or turn. Against their partners and relationship masters turned towards their partners. Eighty six percent of the time and relationship disasters turned towards their partners. Less than a third of the time. So that’s just one little take away that I think is so fascinating about the longitudinal studies and relationship science.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: So in your book and in your writing, you’re very critical of a number of the apps. You consult for one of them. But one of the things that you point out is that the thing that the app is in most cases maximizing for is not the same thing, is what will lead to a successful relationship. It in fact, why what is the app exists to get people to use the app. So you can even argue that maybe it’s maximizing for unsuccessful relationships that make people come back to the app.

S8: Yeah, that was my concern with all of the apps. And I actually had the chance to interview the Hinche CEO for my book process. And I walked in there and was very critical and basically said, you know, your tagline is designed to be deleted. If your users leave and delete the app, that’s bad for business. I just don’t really believe that this is how you’re how you’re working because, like, the business of the app is keeping people on the app. And he was able to convince me that when they change their tagline to that and they kind of shifted to be the relationship app as opposed to, you know, something more similar to Tinder, then they saw a huge amount of growth and that has continued. And that’s because when people meet each other on the app and then tell their friends, oh, we met on Hinge, that’s way better than kind of game of buying things and having people just spend time on the app. And since I’ve worked there for the last year, I’ve definitely found that that’s true. All of our conversations are really how do we teach people to make better profiles? How do we teach people how to date? And basically we’re evaluating our success on people deleting the app because they get into relationships. We’re not measuring things like time on app.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: Mm hmm. But with Tinder, for instance, which you were using, and there’s parts of your book where you talked about why you swipe left on a guy who maybe you shouldn’t have swiped left on history would prove, is it too simple to say, you know, it’s like 90 percent looks.

S8: Yeah. I mean, if you think about how people evaluate each other on the apps, I think the first thing they’re looking at is your picture. And then if they like the picture, then they’ll scroll down and see the rest. And some of what I talk about in the book is that we used to participate in what’s called relationship in the process of finding a partner. And now we participate in relation shopping, which is seeking a partner the way that we would seek a purchase. And so when we’re evaluating wireless headphones on Amazon and we look at the specs and we compare them to another set of wireless headphones, we really shouldn’t be taking that process and applying it to humans. But when humans are reduced to these two dimensional objects and we’re trying to evaluate them against each other, there’s this concept called a value ability. And basically, when something’s measured and easily compare, it becomes more important. So height on the apps becomes disproportionately important versus if we met somebody at a bar and we saw that they were one or two inches taller or shorter.

S1: Right. And so this gets back to the point that not only can humans not be reduced to the wireless set of headphones that can be researched, we’re probably not even doing the best we can by researching just to buy a wireless pair of headphones. We’re not engaging in optimal activity by doing all this research about it.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S8: Yes, exactly. I think you’re referring to the part of the book where I talk about maximizers versus satisfy users. And the concept there is that maximizers are people who say I need to turn over every stone and do all of my research. And then only when I’ve seen the entire set can I make the right decision and satisfy others are people who say I’m going to set a bar. It could be a high bar, but as soon as I find something that meets my bar, I’m going to accept it and be happy about it. And so a lot of people are maximizers, and especially now they pride themselves on, oh, I went to wire cutter and I researched the best vacuum and I, I looked at all the different Amazon reviews and after six days of research, I bought the vacuum. Whereas the satisfied sir would have said, oh, this seems like a great vacuum, I’m going to get it. And then they’re happy with it. And why I really want people to shift toward being satisfied. Sources that satisfies theirs are happier. It’s not about the objective best decision. It’s about how you feel about your decision and satisfies others, feel good about their decisions and maximizers, are constantly wondering, could I have made a better one?

S7: Yeah. Here’s another word that’s fascinating to me, Sparke. I didn’t know why that the word spark and not having the spark was so prevalent in why relationships were not pursued.

S9: What do you think about this concept of the spark and how it’s how it affects our perception of relationships?

S8: Okay, so one of the chapters is called Fuck the Spark. And this came from a talk I gave a few years ago where I was talking about all the myths of the spark and how the spark is my nemesis, because I set up my matchmaking clients and they go on these dates with these really great people. And then they say, oh, I just want to see them again. I didn’t feel a spark. And by the end we were all chatting. Saying, fuck the spark, and I think that that’s something that all of us should be doing, we should all be chanting for the spark because the spark is this myth. The spark is this idea that when we meet someone, we’re going to have this instant chemistry and there’s all these scientific reasons why that’s wrong. And so some of the myths that I debunk in the book are that if you feel the spark, then it’s necessarily a good relationship and a good match. And that’s wrong because some people are just sparkie. Some people are really hot, really charismatic, and they spark with everyone. And so you think that your feelings are narcissists?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S9: Narcissists are good at conveying that.

S8: Oh, gosh, narcissists are so good at that. And I don’t know if you’re familiar with this concept called love bombing, but there are people who basically go through the world convincing people to fall in love with them, basically promising the future, promising all this commitment. And it’s basically just a game for them to get people to fall in love with them. So these love bombers, they give off the spark. So, yes, if you feel the spark, it might be because that person sparkie. Another myth is that if you don’t feel the spark, then the relationship has no chance. And we know that that’s wrong. There’s something called the mere exposure effect. The more that you’re exposed to somebody, whether it’s through seeing them at work all day or living near them in your neighborhood, people actually just become more attractive to you. And so that’s why so many people who work together and who, you know, lived in the freshman dorm together end up getting married because it grows over time. And then the last one.

S3: And that’s why and that’s why when we lived in villages, it wasn’t maybe perfect, but it wasn’t a horror show. Wait a minute. How can all these people who only had 70 people to choose from actually find love?

S8: Well, that’s an absolutely. And the other reason why the research shows that arranged marriages are often happier than love marriages at around the three to four year mark is because if you go into a marriage with the idea of commitment and that you’re going to make it work, the brain process of rationalization takes over. And you actually are just looking for ways to confirm that it was a good decision and you convince yourself that you’re happier and that’s the experience of being happy. And then, yeah, the third one is that people get obsessed with these how we met stories. Oh, if we met in this romantic way, then of course we’re meant to be. And it doesn’t matter how you met, that’s just, you know, 0.01 percent of all the time that you’ll be together. And so all these really kind of outdated models of love at first sight, what I call the happily ever after fallacy that these people are taking in from Disney movies, of course, they’re going to look to show up on a date and feel this instant pang of chemistry. And if not, they say, well, that’s what love is and I’m not feeling it. Therefore, on to the next one. I truly think that the messages that we get from movies about love lead a lot of people to be dissatisfied with what love actually is, which is a day to day investment of hard work. And what you get is partnership and support and intimacy and friendship.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S3: Back to spark. Do you think that it’s negatively correlated with good relationships are just not correlated at all?

S8: Yeah, it’s an interesting question. So, you know, I’ve really been putting forth the spark out there and I’ve definitely been getting DM’s on Instagram and things saying, but I had a spark when I met my partner. Do you think that’s a bad thing? I think the bigger lesson is the presence of it doesn’t guarantee success and the absence of it doesn’t guarantee failure.

S3: It’s hard to live. It’s hard to live. The second part of that, though, I know the first part, the first I understand the first part will be wary of that. Yeah. The second part is because, you know, especially if a person has had it and then what the most successful relationship you’re going to have is someone with whom you didn’t have it. That seems like a baby.

S8: How many people do you and I know that married someone that they worked with, that married somebody where they lived in a multi room house and somebody moved in and they were just exposed to that person over time. It’s not like those people were tricked. It’s not like they settled and they gave up. No, like, I guess the guy renting the room next door is good enough. They literally saw that person interact in their daily life and they fell for that person’s quality.

S10: So maybe we could make an argument that that’s actually more important and more likely to guarantee long term success because you’re observing the person based on who they are, not observing them based on the projection of chemistry that’s in your mind.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: Dating has never been harder.

S1: I say that’s an excellent thing strategically to write in the preface of a book that for meant for people who are experiencing the hardships of dating. I don’t know if it’s true. I wouldn’t argue against it. There are definitely some hard things about dating, which is mostly about the abundance of choices. But then again, there was many years ago. The thing that one would always hear is I don’t know where to meet people. I don’t know how to meet people. You know, I remember a kid reading Dear Abby column. This is like the number one question. So we went from that not knowing how to meet people to where we are now, which is not knowing, not knowing how not to meet people, not knowing how to meet fewer people. Strategies for, you know, looking back after thirty seven percent of the meets and making an assessment. Usually these things are a pendulum. And I’m wondering, do you think any time in your lifetime that the pendulum was at a pretty good equilibrium? When was that and what were the conditions?

S8: Yeah, I think that’s a great question and I absolutely understand that somebody could see the title of the chapter, you know, why dating is harder than ever before and. They say, like, what are you talking about, like here, you know, it’s easier for LGBTQ plus people to meet because of the apps, it’s easier for older people to meet because of the apps. And that’s absolutely true.

S10: These so-called thin markets have been well served by the apps. It’s not just the paradox of choice that’s problematic. It’s not just that when you have a thousand potential dates in your pocket, you don’t value each one. And you have this decision paralysis. It’s also what that two dimensional relation shopping has done to how we treat each other. So I think that if you go on a date and you say, I’m just going to phone it in, there’s always somebody else that I could date. Or I think if you show up and you say, oh, I had a fantasy of this person in my mind because we’ve been texting and I thought they would be this way, then you just throw them away. So I think it’s just it’s not just that there’s so many people and it makes it hard to choose. It’s that I actually think that we feel like it’s become a game that you can win. And when you have the attitude of winning the game and finding the right person, that’s not useful. And the correct attitude is to say, how can I make myself the best person possible? How can I show up on the date with a healthy mindset? How can I stay curious about this person? How can I tune in to how this person makes me feel? And how can I inject effort into this relationship to actually give it a chance?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S8: Our expectations of what we get from our partnerships have changed. And so if you think about that equation of happiness equals expectations minus reality. Expectations have gotten so sky high that it’s going to be pretty hard to wind up happy. And so there’s a lot of research about the history of marriage. Right. And people used to get married for convenience and get married for economic purposes. So if you know the philosopher Alain de Botton, he talks about how love was seen as something that happens to you maybe once or twice in your life. And it’s this feeling of sickness and it’s this it’s this overwhelming magical feeling. It’s not what you expect to be a long term emotion in a marriage noaimi.

S7: He blurbed your book.

S8: Yeah, yeah. No, he’s wonderful. And part of the history of marriage is that over the last 50 years or so, we have gone from the Maslow hierarchy of expecting to get our basic needs met from our relationships to expecting to get love and satisfaction to. Now we are at the peak of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, and we expect to get self actualization. And people are getting divorced for things like you don’t bring out the best in me reasons that our grandparents would never have gotten divorced. So what I would say is that because expectations are so high and there’s so much pressure put on relationships, even marriages, that a while ago would have been seen as good enough people are now not happy with. And so this is what Eli Finkel calls the all or nothing marriage.

S3: Yeah, I love that. You’re not you’re not helping me achieve my best self was said by pioneers, but by like a couple in the wilderness and everything was just building a log cabin and fighting off a bit.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S8: There we go. Not part of Oregon Trail. Yeah.

S1: Loganberry is the author of How to Not Die Alone The Surprising Science That Will Help You Find Love.

S8: Thanks so much, Logan. Thank you.

S5: And now the spiel, let’s play a game spot, the Marjorie Taylor Green belief that actually is not a Marjorie Taylor Green belief. I made one up of the four to choose from. You ready?

S7: A, that Hillary Clinton cut off and wore the face of her murder victim before drinking her blood. Be that a laser beam controlled by the Jews started the California wildfire to clear the way for a high speed rail line, see that both the Parkland shooting and the Sandy Hook shooting were false flags or staged to make guns look bad. D that Nancy Pelosi should be shot in the head. The answer is C, but on a technicality. Greene has repeatedly agreed with social media posts calling Parkland a false flag. But in the case of the Sandy Hook shooting, that post called it a stag shooting stabbed. She did agree it was stabbed, not staged, but stabbed the Jews. And the laser beam theory, which is, of course, popularized by this gentleman, sophisticated cheeping, which we called a laser.

S5: No, no, not Dr. Evil. After almost Kuhnen adherents only have an associate’s degree in psychology. But the laser beam text was unearthed by Media Matters for America. She wrote it on her Facebook page a couple years ago. Marjorie Green, in her own words, Marjorie Taylor Green, and not just the nutter butters that she associates with and occasionally agrees with, as when one said we should put a bullet in Nancy Pelosi’s head. And she gave that the old thumbs up about laser beam. She writes, This was one of those just asking questions. Isn’t it kind of a coincidence kind of thing about the campfires, space, solar generators, collect the sun’s energy and then beam it back to Earth to a transmitter to convert to electricity?

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S7: The idea is clean energy to replace coal and oil if they are beaming the sun’s energy back to Earth. I’m sure they would never miss a transmitter receiving station. Right? I mean, mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? Could that cause a fire? Hmm. I don’t know. I hope not. That wouldn’t look so good for Pacific Gas and Electric Rothschild Inc. So Lauran or then California Governor Jerry Brown, who sure does seem fond of PG&E.

S5: Also, I will say whoever was able to buy that PG&E stock at the bottom before the announcement was made. Anyway, I’ll stop reading. Yeah, just asking questions. Isn’t it such a coincidence that there was this fire and there are these lasers and powerful people stand to benefit and one of the laser companies is controlled by the Rothschilds, the Jews. She just asking questions and she was just asking questions in a video that was unearthed of her following gun control activist and Parkland shooting survivor David Hogge. Why are you supporting red flag gun laws that attack our Second Amendment rights? And why are you using to get as a barrier? Do you not know how to defend yourself? He didn’t he didn’t engage at all. He ignored her. And whoever was taping the exchange, the then not yet Congresswoman Taylor Green appended her interaction by turning to the camera and making this complaint.

S11: And I have nothing but this guy with his George Soros funding and his major liberal funding has got everything.

S7: Well, he doesn’t have 17 of his friends and classmates alive today to be appalled at Taylor Green’s behavior. That’s one thing he doesn’t have grievance, such grievance. How envious we should be of this traumatized teen. Unfair that I don’t have all that he has, which I, of course, deserve, because something to do with guns or something. Now, a lot of people look at this and say, oh, my God, for an adult to harass a child like that and I do think it was improper doesn’t reflect well on her. On the other hand, I guess if I want to be very fair, I could argue that Hogge was 18 at the time, an adult. He was a leading figure of a movement. And as such, a citizen who disagrees with him or even agrees with him could interact with him in a public place.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: That’s all legal. It’s not child abuse. You could consider it through that lens and it’s not beyond the pale. However, there are a couple of subtleties here that I would like to point out. One, I don’t think that if the tables were turned like let’s imagine a liberal adult peppering an 18 year old conservative with a series of unfair questions, I would like to think that that adult standing would be harmed in the Democratic Party. All right. I did this thought experiment. So there are activists who are pro-gun who have a connection to the Parkland shooting. Andrew Pollock, his daughter Meadow, died in the Parkland shooting. He’s pro Trump. He’s pro-gun. In fact, he spoke at the RNC.

S12: Far left Democrats in our school district made this shooting possible because they implemented something they called restorative justice. This policy, which really just blames teachers for students failures, puts kids and teachers at risk and makes shootings more likely.

S7: Democratic policies didn’t kill the kids in parkland. Restorative justice policies aren’t dangerous to safety. However, if someone saw Andrew Pollock on the street, if an adult saw him and he’s an adult also and started chasing after him and peppering him with counterarguments or questions, I would think most reasonable people would say, all right, maybe you’re right, Guy peppering Pollock with questions, but there’s probably a better way to go about it. But even if such a person did harass Andrew Pollock with these questions, if that person were elected to Congress, I would expect him or her to face some discipline or consequences for acting like that and not just once, for pretty much living that brand, but beyond even that. And that’s a hypothetical. Here’s what’s not a hypothetical. The reason the Marjorie Taylor Greene should be rebuked by the Republican caucus and not given committee assignments is that they should see the presence of her and people like her. And there are a couple others as a threat to their power, not as a source of it. I can’t prove this to them. And their instincts say, hey, these are people. We have to kowtow to them. We have to cotton to them, we have to court them. But I do think once again, if the tables were turned, let’s say there was an actual Democrat who was just elected who loudly espoused the cartoon version that Republicans try to paint Democrats as OK. So let’s imagine a Democrat who goes around wearing a Hugo Chavez shirt, really likes Hugo Chavez and has the words defund the police on her face mask and who constantly give speeches about how she hates the founding fathers and I don’t know, endorses over and over again some Louis Farrakhan backed conspiracy theories. Right. The living embodiment of the liberal boogeyman. Would Democrats try to cut off that gangrenous limb and cauterize the wound? You know, maybe if you’re a very conservative person listening to this, you would say they wouldn’t. But I do think they would. And, you know, the Republicans did it before. They did it with Steve King of Iowa. Sure. Sure, sure. After many, many years of not doing it. But and also after they were sure there was a Republican nearby who could oppose him in a primary and win. And that did happen.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S5: But it was done. But it’s not being done with Marjorie Taylor Green because the Republicans are too scared and they think their political interests lie with her, not against her. Now, here’s why. The interaction with Hogge should be appalling for the party, more than just appalling for the person of Marjorie Taylor Green. She wasn’t engaged in a debate. And I don’t mean yelling questions on a street. That’s not a debate. I mean that even if you could take the content of what she was saying and put it in a different forum, you’d have one side asking questions and maybe the other side would be able to answer the questions and there would be a chance that. Good questions or good points or counterpoints could penetrate could change the mind of one of the participants, maybe just one percent, but good, because that is two disagreeing forces engaged in something close to a debate, which is something like the ideal of government and public discourse as engaged by the Congress. It seems maybe that’s what’s going on with Marjorie Taylor Green. It’s not because it’s not just the case that Marjorie Taylor Green is like most of us. She’ll never have her mind changed. But she’s not just dug in. She’s not just stubborn. She is literally deluded. She wasn’t being sincere. All right. When she talked about the officer being a good guy with the gun, she wasn’t being sincere, that if only he had been armed. And we know this because she agreed on Facebook calling this a false flag operation.

S7: She believed, along with fellow conspiracists, that the resource officer was paid hush money because the entire operation was a hoax. Shouldn’t ask those questions impertinent as they were, because she is impassioned, righteous, even in 180 degree opposition to David Hogg. She is off the axis. She rejects facts and therefore she can’t be trusted to get into a comparison of facts or an argument that rests on or cites facts. She was asking those questions purely as an act of propaganda. And if she is put on a committee and given the power to ask questions to citizens under oaths, the U.S. Congress will only be engaging in an act of propaganda. They will be empowering an act of reality denial. So Marjorie Taylor Green represents a new kind of politician, a very dangerous one, who breaks with all the others in a fundamental way. And if the Republicans don’t recognize this, it will be their loss sooner or later.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

S13: And that’s it for Today Show, Margaret Kelly, just producer notes Logan Uri’s book is doing well among women, singles, couples and men, but terribly among conjoined twins. Shayna Roth produces the gist she wears. Oddly colored sweater is made from the wool of Dolly, the genetically engineered sheep. She did not read the book, How Not to Die a Clone. Alicia Montgomery is the executive producer of Slate podcasts. She’s a go to the Apple store and just immediately begin loading all her contacts into the new models on the display floor. She was stopped when store personnel handed her a pamphlet called How Not to Try a Phone. The gist, it literally is true. I tried to give the book to a couple of my single friends and they were all greatly offended until I gave it to my friend Jackie. And I can report that it worked. She and Asher are now inseparable, though for the first few weeks the new Golden Doodle did cry for its mommy in Peru, Perugia, Peru. And thanks for listening.