Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to the Call Like I See it podcast.
I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call Like I See it, we're going to take a look at two separate stories that have been in the news lately. The first involving Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and the second involving California Senator Dianne Feinstein. We're going to discuss how these stories, even though they're clearly distinct from like a potential wrongdoing standpoint and just in general, they're, they're different stories, but they both evidence a sentiment we're seeing a lot these days where our public servants seem to be serving themselves or putting their own interests ahead of the people and the country.
And later on, we're going to discuss some recent research that's been going on into the development of a commercially viable enzyme that can pull CO2 out of the air and turn it into useful products, which would be amazingly helpful from the standpoint of global warming and climate change.
Joining me today is a man who is always in the state of mind of podcast Tunde Ogonlana Tunde. Are you ready to show everybody why the world is yours?
[00:01:25] Speaker B: Yeah, actually, I don't want the whole world.
I just want a nice place with a dock. I can put a boat and relax and have a nice life. The whole world. If I had the whole world, it would be like too stressful. It's just too much going on I'd have to deal with.
[00:01:39] Speaker A: I wish we had some more of that humility and modesty. And I guess what we'll talk about.
[00:01:45] Speaker B: Today, yeah, I'd have to deal with just too much. So I don't want all.
[00:01:49] Speaker A: Now we're recording this on April 24, 2023, and earlier this month, beginning with an extensively sourced report from ProPublica, we've seen that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has apparently been receiving and not disclosing gifts for decades. Like gifts like free vacations, property that's been bought, you know, that he'd want purchased and bought, or monetary donations, you know, to, in his name or to his wife's groups or, you know, whatever. And even from real estate developer and mega Republican mega donor Harlan Crow. Now, it should be noted that as the Supreme Court rules stated at the time, at least this wasn't necessarily against those rules. Many legal experts do say that it may run afoul, or it does run afoul of some Watergate era laws designed to prevent corruption. But we're not really here today to discuss the legality of Thomas's conduct. We want to discuss how what he's doing is really just undermining the credibility of, like, forget himself. This is undermining the credibility of the Supreme Court and the US Government. You know, when you. When people see it looks like the appearance of something, looks like somebody's on the take, that undermines confidence in the whole system. And this is a system that's of the people, by the people, for the people, and confidence is very important in that. So it ultimately seems to just be a really selfish thing to do. So, to get us started, Tunde, what stood out to you and these recent revelations about what Clarence Thomas has been doing. Clarence Thomas has been doing from the standpoint of how it affects people's perception of our government and just kind of the mindset that, you know, kind of the disregard of that. That it, that it demonstrates.
[00:03:28] Speaker B: Yeah, I think, I mean, you set it up well already. You pretty much said that it.
It hurts the trust that I think a lot of people have in the system. And, you know, and this is why this one is one of those interesting ones, because you made a point that. Which is true, that in a sense, like, he hasn't done anything necessarily illegal because the Senate. Sorry, not the Senate, the Supreme Court, who we're talking about here, apparently doesn't have any ethics rules or is above having to disclose certain things and all that. So.
And I recognize that there is a line that we all consider with general stuff about what is legal and what might be right or wrong. Right. So I'm not saying, you know, and.
[00:04:15] Speaker A: I mean, we shouldn't go down that path too much so. Because more will come out and then we'll see, more will be analyzed. And we're not in a position right now to really say. But as of right now, it's not clear that there's been some kind of.
[00:04:27] Speaker B: Yeah, there doesn't appear to be any crimes committed. And what I'm getting at here is, again, I feel like this is sad for the system not to pile on to Clarence Thomas individually like that, but because of the way, again, the way I see the reactions unfolding kind of in the public square and the discourse. Right. So for people that don't agree with Thomas, this is another proof of, you know, cronyism and all that, and again, unethical behavior from someone that we all think should know better than to be sitting, you know, as a judge, hearing cases that might have been brought to him through friends or directly by someone who he's been in bed with financially. So that seems bad on its surface, whether it's legal or Illegal. Right. And then the people that are out there, you know, that want to defend Clarence Thomas are pointing to things like that, like, yeah, well, this isn't illegal and all this. And so my point is, that's why I say it's kind of sad because I see that it's going to create more apathy in the system from the public, because I think most of the public, whether this is illegal or not, we've all been taught to think of the law as something kind of important and that people that operate within the law, like lawyers and judges, should basically be moral character, you know, good moral character, and should disclose things, especially if they're going to be ruling on certain areas that maybe people that they've had financial ties with.
[00:05:55] Speaker A: Well, yeah, those are the norms of our system.
[00:05:57] Speaker B: So that's what you say.
[00:05:58] Speaker A: Whether it's laws are not at the Supreme Court, the norms of our system is to try to avoid conflict of interest, things like that.
[00:06:04] Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I'm saying. That's why to me, it's more of a sad situation for all of us because no matter what all this ends up being. And clearly we've seen enough. Right. But it's just like.
Because you can't help but think, like everything else, what else is going on? How long has this been going on? Did this influence anything? It's just not a good look.
[00:06:25] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, no, that sums it up.
A couple of things that stood out to me about this. One would be that used the term political and talked about this from a political partisanship kind of standpoint, one side and the other side. And I think that's part of the problem, honestly, is that this is not like these disclosures here are not. This is not a political issue. This isn't about. He didn't do this stuff because he was. Or he leans Republican. Like his political leanings or his political. Like that has nothing to do with this. This guy was doing things that. Whether it's against any ethical rules, if it's not against ethical rules, it's because there are no rules. As far as the ethics, it is unethical. It is a conflict of interest for him to do this, to take this money like this and not disclose it. If he's disclosing it, that's a whole nother thing. So again, whether or not there is a rule in place to say that it is against the ethical rules, what's ethical and what's not is governed by a higher standard than that, what's a conflict of interest or not. Is governed by higher standards than that. And he knows that, you know, like, this is something that lawyers go through from day one in terms of conflicts of interest, ethics, professional responsibility and so forth. So that he went down this road. Basically, to me, it's really a just a disregard of our norms, of our system, because you make it about yourself and not about putting up our system that we're all supposed constitution and this government of the people, by the people, for the people that we're all supposed to put put first in this country, so to speak. So. But the issue of making it about politics. It's not about politics. If someone calls out Clarence Thomas for having say, hey, you have conflicts of interest here. Why weren't you disclosing this stuff? Or why were you putting yourselves in these situations? That's not a political attack. He did something that wasn't political and. But it was something that is not necessarily consistent with the norms of the country. And you call him out on it now and if you defend him necessarily, you're gonna the best defense for him in this case, because there is no factual defense, apparently, or else that we would've heard it so far. There is no. Oh, well, it's actually, it's not wrong for him to do this. There's no defense like that. It's like, oh, no, no, it's just not against the rules.
[00:08:39] Speaker B: I didn't mean for the guy to buy my mom's house.
I didn't mean.
[00:08:43] Speaker A: But then you say, okay, well, I can defend this person by making it political. Oh, you're only attacking him because you disagree with him politically and so forth. And I think that' toxicity basically is that, oh, well, our actors in our system know that they can get away with anything if. And doing things that aren't political things, but doing wrong. If they just say, oh, people are just attacking me because of my politics. And it's like, well, hold on. Is there any objective criteria anymore as far as right and wrong? Is everything just politics? If you do something wrong, then if I like somebody, then I got to defend it. And if I don't like them, then I can't defend, or I have to, you know, go after them for it. I can only go after them for it if I. If I don't like them. And so to me, that's a deterioration across the board. But it's the selfish behavior like this that leads to that. Like, where are the people that say, look, this stuff isn't acceptable? You know, I was hoping to see John Roberts do that. You know, Honestly, like this, defend the Supreme Court. This is not acceptable. Well, at minimum, it won't happen again.
[00:09:38] Speaker B: Yeah. No. So here's the thing, and you're right. I mean, I mean, we would expect the leader of the Supreme Court, the chief justice, to get ahead of this somehow, which hasn't happened, clearly. And look, this is why, like you're saying this is. And. And again, we can use many examples from powerful people in our government over the history of the country. So it's not to single out. Thomas is the only one that's ever kind of been caught with a hand in a cookie jar, so to speak.
[00:10:06] Speaker A: But there is, like, that point is fine and good. But he's the one that did something that we're talking about right now. Like, I don't think you preface the fact that I'm saying is, clearly, he's not the first person to ever do something wrong.
[00:10:16] Speaker B: Well, no, I think clearly it's. Look, there's something about being in a position of power, but I think the fact that this is the Supreme Court and he's a judge makes this worse.
[00:10:28] Speaker A: I would agree on that.
[00:10:29] Speaker B: Than a normal. Like if it was a senator or congressman.
[00:10:31] Speaker A: He's not up for election. He doesn't. He can't.
[00:10:34] Speaker B: Well, it's also just like, I know we're supposed to. All politicians are supposed to be highly respectable and all that, but we've gotten used to this idea that, you know, politicians can't do some underhanded things.
[00:10:43] Speaker A: And I just think we already don't trust them already.
[00:10:46] Speaker B: Yeah, I know, exactly.
Mayor Daly in Chicago, you know, all that, all that kind of stuff, the Iran Contra affair. That's my point. Like, we get it, right, that politicians will do certain things, but I think judges, to me, you know what I think of as we're talking, two examples. One is, remember the referee scandal in the NBA?
[00:11:05] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:11:05] Speaker B: A couple years ago. Like probably five, 10 years ago. Yeah. And then. And then, you know, someone like Pete Rose, right. Who was never unfortunately going to be in the hall of Fame because he gambled while he was playing baseball. And I think that's the kind of.
[00:11:17] Speaker A: Stuff, to be clear, he gambled and then he agreed to be banned. Like, he. That was part of his agreement to be banned.
[00:11:23] Speaker B: But not to digress, but I think the referee one's actually better because it's like we figured, like I'm thinking about, as I said, that I'm like, yeah, I know professional athletes have done some bs, you know, but we always expect the actual referees. Umpires, you Know, the guys are actually calling the balls and strikes and blowing their whistles to actually be nonpartisan about it. Right? That they don't have a dog in the fight that they're calling a fair game. And when we learned that there was.
[00:11:48] Speaker A: What it is, actually, let me say that a little differently because what it is, and this is what I think this is a fair expectation. Everybody knows people have biases. People have, like there's books about it all the time as far as how we see things. It's unconscious bias, all that stuff. But what we expect from them, and you're probably right, we don't really expect this from politicians that much anymore. It's like a surprise if we see it in a politician, but in a judge, it's like, at least try to be fair. Try like you're supposed to put the effort in. Like, okay, let me try to set aside my biases or what I would like to see happen and make a ruling or do an analysis based on a intellectual exercise based on the law. Like, let's try. I think that's really what it is, is we expect them to be the ones that actually are trying. The refs, hey, try. I know the crowd is loud and everybody, but try to do things, you know, on an above board basis. Judges try. I think the effort is the key piece there because people will always have some bias in them.
[00:12:47] Speaker B: Well, no, and I think that's why I think the referee in sports example is more appropriate than the other one, than just the athlete themselves. Because again, and that's why to me the NBA scandal was similar. Because we expect the referee, let's say NBA now, because we're talking about that one, to walk onto the court and not be influenced by money, right? Not be influenced by their feelings. And I was watching a documentary recently, that's why it came into my mind. And this group of referees, one of the guys they hated was Allen Iverson, they never gave reason, but they just hated him. And they specifically showed the game because I guess now that they all been busted and went to jail and all that the guy they were interviewing, the actual referee and he said, yeah, we agreed. I told him Iverson's mind, we're going to call him on palming the ball. And they showed exactly in the playoffs where they're making these calls and it cost the Denver Nuggets the game and made it cost them a playoff spot, so.
Or that series in the playoffs. So I feel like from what we learned about Clarence Thomas that, you know, the gentleman's paying for his mother and other family members homes and then they're living there for free. Then we find out that the gentleman sitting on boards of think tanks that have brought certain cases in front of the Supreme Court, all of which Thomas has ruled in favor of. And then recently, today, I mean, the news is coming out today that, you know, there is some direct financial or sorry, that Mr. Crow did have business himself in front of the court, which when Thomas was ruling and didn't, never said I should recuse myself because this is my friend and we have a personal relationship. And I think that's the other thing too, right? Like no one's trying to beat up at least me. He's not trying to beat up Clarence Thomas for going on $500,000 vacations and to be on super yachts that are owned by his friends. That's fine.
[00:14:38] Speaker A: But see, that's not really fine though. If he wants to be a judge, then he probably shouldn't do that stuff. He should make a choice like, hey, I want to live a lavish life or I want to be a public servant.
[00:14:46] Speaker B: No. Well, here's the way. I'm not going to disagree with you, but I just think different, right? I think as long as he discloses it and he recuses himself from the cases that involve the friends he's hanging around, I can't have a problem with that. Me personally. But the fact he didn't disclose it and now we learn that there were cases from this gentleman and then groups he was leading and that Clarence Thomas seems to have constantly voted that way. Again, it's a disrespect to the court and to the system because now maybe he would have voted that way anyway. I don't know. He probably didn't know that.
[00:15:17] Speaker A: Like that's the thing about it. Like nobody is questioning his bona fides as far as voting in a certain direction every single time he's got a swing vote in the court. This is, this is, it's still. No, but your point, Let me just, I want to say that again. Your point is so good, it's damaging to the system. It's very selfish for him to do that and to put everyone else in that position now. You know, like, it's like, what are you doing, man? You're sinking everybody. Like everybody thinks the court's on the tape now. And my biggest issue actually with Thomas though, I want to say is that I'm not out here saying resign or this or that. Like I want a clear directive and signal from the Supreme Court and Thomas did come out and say I'm not, I'm going to report everything now. I understand this is now. So I appreciate that. I want it from Roberts. So I want everything like look, this is unacceptable. We won't do like the fact that we're kind of just trying to push this to the side. And that to me furthers the, it's never the crime, it's the COVID up. Right. It furthers the, the. My concern is the, the, the how people are looking at the system following this. The system only holds together with public confidence. That's the only way it holds together. If we can have confidence in the court, have conf. Enough confidence in the political actors. If it doesn't have that stuff, then we're on our way to, to one person just taking over and saying I can solve all the problems and that's not the direction I want to go with this. So to me, where's just the clear direction that look, this is wrong, this won't happen again and we'll, we'll move forward from that. That to me is the biggest thing we can, we can pull from something like this. You can't really go back in the past. It was bad, it was a conflict of interest. And you know, where do we go from here is more what I'm looking at and putting yourself above the system to try to. It has happened. Don't, don't then follow that by putting yourself above the system to try to save your skin and say, oh well this is all good, all good anyway. I should have been able to do it anyway.
[00:17:04] Speaker B: Well, I think, you know, that old term was it absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Again, that's why these things should be remembered for all of us. And like you said about. It's not a partisan statement and clearly Clarence Thomas through his actions is corrupted in some way. Just the fact he didn't disclose this stuff.
And so my point is that you know, and this like you said it well like this just it's a bad look for the system. And I think that and to compare.
[00:17:40] Speaker A: Let me, let me say this because to compare to your NBA example, that's what the NBA did after the referee scandal. They came out, people were out like look, now and again, I'm not saying that Clarence Thomas has to be out here, but they can say look, this is unacceptable moving forward, this isn't going to happen. You know, we're going to put in this and that and so that it doesn't happen anymore. But they made it, drew a clear line and just said look, no, we're not defending this. We're not out here saying no, no, no, it's all good because of this or that or the people that are attacking us. They're just mad because their team lost or like they didn't come out and do all that. Like, let's come out, let's, let's, let's defend the system before we start looking, hey, how can we defend our people? And honestly, I mean that's why we're. The two topics we're tying together today. And the, the absolute power thing, or at least power, it's remembered power corrupts itself. It's absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just power on its own corrupts. But the second topic we want to talk about today is a similar kind of manifestation again of putting yourself above your role as a public servant and the system that you operate in. And that's what Dianne Feinstein, which, who's the senator out of California who, you know, hope, hope she gets well. You know, I hope that. I mean she's been sick, she's been out for a few months now, not at her job, but she's 89 and you know that she is essentially not able to show up to work consistently anymore. And there have been questions about her fitness for some years. But at this point, I mean that's, that's another issue. There's a different issue of just not being able to show, not being able to be available. You know, like that's something that's a part of, of going to work or being, having a job and whatever the job is. So what was your like again? It's not, this isn't something, this isn't conflict of interest. This isn't unethical. This is just like, okay, you're unable to show up but you still want to hold on to the job. You know, like what, but what I'm going to throw it to you. Let me just let you get in here. Like, it's not as damning obviously, but with her hanging on, even though it appears she may not be capable of performing the job anymore, you know, like, what's your reaction to that? Do you see that as another example of this kind of like people putting themselves over the system?
[00:19:41] Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I do. I think that's why it's a. Two interesting stories of two high profile people within our government system who are being selfish and in different ways. So that's why.
[00:19:55] Speaker A: Yeah, that's a really key point. Different ways of kind of the same thing or same sentiment, I should say.
[00:20:00] Speaker B: Good Contrast, because, you know, we just got done with beating up Thomas a bit about his, you know, and I would say I think we deserved that. We believe he deserves to get beat up for this one. You know, what we've all found out. And then the same thing. I beat up Dianne Feinstein for the same thing. Because it reminds me a lot of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which again, was someone who at one point in her career was considered a trailblazing female lawyer who then ascended to Supreme Court and was well liked by people that supported her and her views and all that. And then near the end of her life, it became, you know, that no one like that. She's some kind of queen that no one can touch. And what I find interesting is her whole mission was about pro choice and women's rights and all this stuff. And because she held on too long and couldn't resign from the Supreme Court, she unfortunately passes away and her seat is filled with someone by another woman, but someone who was pro life. And you know, what is it? Two years later or so, the Roe versus Wade is reversed, which would have been exactly what Ruth Bader Ginsburg would not want to see happen. And I find what a contrast with Dianne Feinstein, who is now doing the same thing, which is hanging on too long. And like you said, I don't care if she's old, is the fact that she can't show up to work. Why is she doing this to her own party and to the American people? Because like any other job, if you don't show up for work for a while, they probably fire you, right? Or you gotta have a serious excuse as to why you can't show up.
And especially if you're a big part of the functioning. And my point is, Dianne Feinstein's another, quote, unquote, trailblazing woman who, you know, had a great political career from being a local politician in her hometown all the way to the. She's now the longest serving female senator in history and one of the longest serving senators in history. And, you know, she sits on the Judiciary Committee. And it's interesting because her inability to show up is costing the Democrats the ability to put judges on the court, which could have the same effect as Ruth Bader Ginsburg, someone who is pro choice and who wants to champion women's rights may be hurting the ability for her party to put judges on that will continue to do that. And it's just. It's just a fascinating.
[00:22:38] Speaker A: There's an irony to that. I mean, and I look at it honestly, from a different context, though, because that is like the RBG kind of comparison. And then looking at it from that lens, it's a legitimate lens, but that's still looking at it from the lens of a. Like, oh, well, this is messed up for the Democratic Party. Like, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of just from the nation, like, the people of California deserve to have two senators there. You know, like, and it's like, well, if. Doesn't this undermine the Senate? If we're saying, okay, this person is 89 years old, like, that's. If she was a pilot, she wouldn't be there anymore. Because we need to have. There's certain ages or so that you have to be. And I don't think ageism when you're talking about at a certain age is a legitimate complaint, so to speak. Like, no, no, at a certain age, before a certain age, we all seem to agree that you shouldn't be able to do certain things. And I mean, after a certain age, we seem to, we should be able to agree, like, well, hey, after a certain age, maybe, you know, maybe we shouldn't have certain positions. Like. I'll go ahead. What'd you say?
[00:23:42] Speaker B: I got, I got a joke when you're done. Go ahead. Okay, but don't jump too far.
[00:23:48] Speaker A: Okay, well, but the thing is, I mean, looking at it just from a. Again, this is like, this to me reeks of, hey, I've been here. You said the longest serving female senator. One of the longest serving. I can't leave because what would be the reason why I say, you know what? Yeah, I'd rather ride off into the sunset here. I don't want to be the person that's not there for six months. Other than hubris, why else would you still be there if you can't show up every day? That's the part I don't get. What interest is she serving? She's not in a state, she's in a state with. If she is worried about the political aspect of it, like the partisan aspect of it, she's in a state with a Democratic governor who will appoint a Democrat as a replacement. Like, I can't think of any other reason other than hubris why she would say I have to stay here even though I can't be there. And so to me, that's where it's the example of I'm putting myself above the system. The system says there should be two senators here and that they should be showing up and doing stuff and everything like that. And she's like, no, that's, that's not going to be it. You know, now took. She was elected, you know, like, she was elected five years ago. So, no, nobody can make her and nobody should make her step down. But this is where, again, look at, let's hold ourselves to a higher standard. Let's say, hey, you know what? I've had a great run, you know, and again, there's no, if somebody can articulate a reason to me, then I'm open to changing my mind on this. But I just can't see any reason other than just personal. Hey, I'm that important, so I'm going to stay here. I don't care if, you know, I don't care if it does this, I don't care if it does that. You know, like California, you can make do with one senator while I'm gone.
[00:25:26] Speaker B: Yeah. No, so. And I agree with you, I think that it's not just the person themselves. It's also, and I get it, this is kind of the human element of it, because I was reading one of the articles that I know that'll be posted on the show Notes, where Nancy Pelosi has suggested sexism is at play in the calls to resign. That's the quote from the article. And she's quoted saying, I don't know what political agendas are at work that are going after Senator Feinstein in that way, but it's Democrats asking her to step down. I've never seen a man, I've never seen them go after a man who was sick in the Senate in that way. And I think that's kind of the sad part. I was like, all right, I get it. They're both from San Francisco. I'm sure they've been friends for 50 years. But it's like the joke I was going to say when I read that at first, you know what I thought of? This is definitely. This is a tangent. Remember Madonna? I think she did the Oscars or something a couple months ago.
[00:26:23] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:26:23] Speaker B: And she looked terrible. Like she was all puffy face. You know, she looked like she had a bad plastic surgery job. And everybody was talking about it and she kept saying it was ageism. Ageism. Yeah.
I remember telling my wife, you know, I don't think it's ageism, because when I look at Dolly Parton, who's 76, who's 10 years more than 10 years older than Madonna, she looks pretty good for her age. I think Cher, I think Jane Funn, I mean, there's a lot of older Women that are in like 70s and 80s that I think they look good for their age, you know, as a 45 year old man, I'm not sexually attracted to them, but I think that they're good looking older women. Right.
[00:26:59] Speaker A: Yeah. You did decide to take this into an interesting direction.
[00:27:03] Speaker B: No, Madonna, it ain't ageism. You just look like, you know, and so, and so that's what I mean. Like, that's what I felt when I read the Pelosi thing. Like, this ain't sexism. This lady can't show up for a frigging job. That's why, you know, it's like. And it's funny because, yeah, Mitch McConnell recently banged his head, he fell down some stairs and was out for like six weeks and came back and then John Fetterman, I guess from the Democrat side had a, you know, I had to go to a hospital for depression for two months or something. But all those guys were coming back and they're not 89. So. So she looks like it's been years of her slowly getting more decrepit and now. Yeah, that's, that's like she's 89 with the shingles. That don't sound too good.
[00:27:44] Speaker A: But also remember, I mean, like there were a couple years ago, there were, there were people talking like, hey, you know, like they were saying cognitive capability that they were questioning whether she still was, was as everything. So.
[00:27:56] Speaker B: Because I remember one of her people on her team, which again, this is the human part, they're going to defend and circle the wagons.
They were interviewed and it was like her chief of staff or something, somebody high up on her team is, you know, behind the scenes. And they were saying, well, how come, you know, we don't just put another. Why don't you just resign and put someone like you're saying, just do the right thing for the country to party, all that and put someone there that is going to be more with it and not have cognitive issues. And the chief of staff was like, oh, it would be a disaster if we put anyone else up there and all that. And that's what I'm saying.
[00:28:28] Speaker A: Yeah, and that's hubris.
[00:28:29] Speaker B: Yeah, it's gonna be a disaster. It's a disaster. Now the lady can't even think straight. And it goes back to all the fears people had about Biden. Like she's the one really, like who's really actually typing stuff and whispering in her ear how to vote and all that. Because somebody must be. Because she can't seem to be doing all that herself. At this age.
[00:28:45] Speaker A: And it's just really unfortunate. I mean, it's something that, like, again, I would not advocate for anybody forcing her to do anything. It's just why I wish she would do, like you said, do the right thing here. You know, like, it's not something that, like we, we ask our public servants to be held to a higher standard. Most of them, you know, don't necessarily try or always try to live up to that. But it's still not wrong for us as citizens to ask that.
[00:29:09] Speaker B: Well, you know what?
[00:29:10] Speaker A: Me, she should be looking to do the. Like, it, it's something that like you can't hold on forever. And this is, I was actually going to bring up the power corrupting thing with this topic to be able to connect both of them in this because this to me looks like both, like Clarence Thomas behaving as if the, all of the normal trappings and temptations that we try to avoid, those won't apply to him. He doesn't have to worry about that. He can take all the gifts and all that and it won't change, you know, he won't change the way he rules or anything like that. And that's hubris. That's like, look, yes. You're saying you are above the normal human or every other human that, you know. Yeah. If this is why bribes are illegal, because they don't want people to, you know, like, they know how people are, are susceptible to be influenced. Same thing here. It's like, look, if you can't do it anymore, don't hold on because of this mindset of, oh, I'm the only one that can do it. If I, if I leave, it'll be a disaster. And it's like, well, what, you know, like, so this is not what George Washington thought, so to speak. You know, George Washington, like, you know, I gotta leave so that people can then pick up and keep moving. I mean this, the country doesn't rely on and has never relied on one person being able to stay there forever. And so to me it's, it's just something to take a look at and say, you know what?
I'm not pushing for you. You have to do anything. But I wish you would do the right thing here. If you can't do the job anymore, if you're, if, whether it's cognitive decline or just from an age standpoint, you're having a difficult time staying, you know, like staying healthy, then I mean, it's time to go. I mean, there's a, there's a time for Everything.
[00:30:40] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:30:40] Speaker A: I want to ask you just, okay, before we close this up real quick, just what are we doing wrong from a systemic standpoint or just in the system that we aren't able. Like, that we still have all these holes that we're. Again, it's not like I don't look at these things as people coming at it in bad faith like, oh, we're like, neither one of these examples. I would look and say, hey, these guys are in their back of their mind, like, yeah, I'm gonna screw over everybody. It's not that. It's just. It's the natural kind of evolution of someone in power, the trappings of power and so forth. And then it kind of changes you or it does whatever to you, or it brings certain things out of you, and we end up in these very foreseeable situations, and the public is just like, oh, there's nothing we can do.
[00:31:21] Speaker B: Yeah, well, and I also think specifically with someone like Feinstein, because of her advanced age, it's also just, you know, at some point, people. I think your. Your allusion to airline pilots was very good, you know, for the audience. Airline pilots generally are for. Forced to retire at 65 because it's seen as a very important job. And you're flying a bus in the sky with 300 people in it. And, you know, if someone has onsets of dementia or Alzheimer's, they may not even know it. And so instead of taking a risk of maybe a pilot being 68 or 72 and excellent pilot their whole career, but now they're starting to forget. Because, remember, a lot of times when people start having those things, they don't announce it to the world. They're usually scared themselves. They're in denial. And, you know, this is. It starts with people not finding certain things around the house or leaving the oven on, but you don't want that happening when you're 30,000ft in the air that the pilot forgot which button to push. Right.
[00:32:16] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:32:16] Speaker B: And I think the same thing in government. Like, I don't want someone who literally is having those kind of issues that's voting on legislation or deciding important court cases. That's not fair to the rest of us. So I think just like what was done after FDR got four terms and we put a constitutional limit on presidential terms. I think, you know, and this has been talked that I'm not the only guy that thinks this. Right, but you didn't come with this idea. No, unfortunately, it wasn't me. But term. Term limits, I think, for all politicians and Federal level. I mean, you know, maybe The Senate gets three terms max, you know, 18 years and then you're out. And then we could say nine terms for Congress to give it the equal 18 years. And but the idea is that, remember the whole idea of the US Government was supposed to be you go from being a butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker to the, to, to the politician and you go home and you go back to being the butcher to baker, the candlestick maker. This wasn't intended to be a career for people. And so I think that's one thing. And I think with the judges maybe making it like they do. We've talked about this on other discussions about other topics like the Fed chair or the FBI director, you just make it a long enough term that it straddles X amount of like maybe 21 years or something like that, where it straddles enough administrations that you can't really fix it partisan wise. But it's also something where if someone shows up at 50, then at least by 71, they're out. And you don't have to worry about the same potential because Clarence Thomas isn't this. But we could have the same issues of cognitive decline like we talked about with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So to avoid some of this stuff. I think that's the key. And then I think the other thing is, man, you said it best several times. The idea of public service, you know, what does that mean?
Does it mean that because you're a big judge now and your buddies are flying private jets, that they can just give you financial gifts, quote, unquote, without disclosing it? Or does it mean that if you're only making 240,000 a year as a judge, even the top judge, that you should accept that because you chose to do that as a public servant and because you sit on the Supreme Court, guess what? If you decide to resign, I guarantee you the top law firms in the country are going to be hiring you. $5 million salary.
[00:34:32] Speaker A: Yes.
[00:34:33] Speaker B: With all this, you know, equity in the firm and all that. And they'll get to riding a private jet, they'll be able to make a lot of money.
[00:34:39] Speaker A: So again, what is this assumption? That we should be able to have it all? All the time?
[00:34:43] Speaker B: Exactly. That's what I mean.
[00:34:44] Speaker A: Like there are trade offs in life. And the thing is the same with.
[00:34:47] Speaker B: Feinstein is a public servant. Step down at some point and do the right thing.
[00:34:51] Speaker A: Well, for me, I would say the. I less on term limits. I think the term limits are legit and you know, I'm happy that they're there as far as presidential, but I would want more, I look at more of the age. Maybe call me an ageist, but I'm like, look man, you should, you hit 80 or something like that or whatever it is, it should be like, okay, well that's just once, once you've hit that, then you know, like there's no more running, you know, so to speak. And again, I don't think that that's some crazy thing to suggest. We all seem to agree that you got to be 35 to win for president. Like we don't just let people run. Just, you know, like there are qualifications and so to say that okay, we, you can start running for president and once you're 35 and then once you hit, you know, 75 or 80 or 82 or whatever, then that's it, you can't run for president anymore. That's not like that doesn't fundamentally change anything. And so to me, because I think it's an age thing that the term aspect of it, if something like if you, if someone starts early, then you could get termed out and still be a productive person. My issue is more of can you still handle the job more than anything. Now granted, I'm not one saying that career politicians is the only way to go, but I think we, it's fine having a mix of people. Some people in there that have been there a long time and some people in there that come the fresh blood and so to speak. I think we're fine having a mix. It's not like we have all people that have only been.
[00:36:11] Speaker B: I agree. But think about with my idea of the term limit, let's say nine terms for Congress or you know, 18 years, you know, or three terms for the Senate and for the audience that the senators serve, six year terms and Congress's two year terms, meaning I'm not saying what age you can run. Somebody could run at 60 and maybe that keeps them there.
[00:36:30] Speaker A: What I'm saying is that if someone starts at 40, then they're going to be, if someone stops at 30, they're going to be out under that the term limit thing before someone starts at 40. And so I don't, yeah, but so to me it's more like I said, if a pilot, the pilot doesn't say you can only, you know, like you can only fly for 20 years, you know, if you start late, then hey, you're out. Like if you're a good pilot, like to me, like the House of Representatives, you have to be 25 years to run, you know, like, order, you know, to be in the house. So, like, it's not crazy to then say, okay, well, once you're 75, you can't do it anymore, or whatever it is. Like, to me, there's. There's an. There's a. There's a start and then there's an end. And I think that would solve a lot of these problems, because in that sense, you just don't. The problem of someone staying in too long and just. And then. Same thing with the federal judge, by the way. Staying in too long and just saying, I'm not leaving because nobody can make me. And it's like, you know, you know, we're trying to build a government here. Not. Do not, not build something for your own glory.
[00:37:23] Speaker B: Yeah. And the last thing, because I know you want to jump to the next topic, is. No, one thing I thought of was, as we're, you know, just preparing for this is. It's interesting because it also kind of is evidence that, you know, at the top, like, the government itself doesn't really have a plan for this.
[00:37:41] Speaker A: That's what I'm saying.
[00:37:42] Speaker B: Part of. Part of the issue, I think, is we're asking people that are in these positions of power who make rules to make rules that kind of go against their own interest, in a sense.
[00:37:50] Speaker A: Correct. And we've talked about this in other contexts out. The nature of our government requires people to voluntarily comply, in most part, with the. With the kind of. The ethos of the system. You can really break things if you don't. If you're like, you know what? I'm not going to play by the rules, you know, and so, yes, there's little we can do a lot of times in these situations, like with the Thomas issue, if he's going to just lean into conflicts of interest and say, you know, thumb his nose at the system, there's little we can do after the fact. That's why when I was talking about that, it was like, more about, okay, well, let's. Then we see this is happening. Oh, it wasn't officially against the rules. All right, well, let's correct that, you know, because this clearly is something that undermines the body, and we don't want the body undermined if we're. If Americans care, you know, like, this is. I. That to me, is. Is not. There's nothing partisan about that. Shouldn't all parties want the government to be legitimate and seen as legitimate? You know, so. I don't know. I mean.
[00:38:41] Speaker B: And then with the, we do have some Americans that hate their own government. So, you know, maybe they don't.
[00:38:46] Speaker A: Well, at least the government, if it doesn't agree with them. Yeah. But yes, I think we can move from there. The next topic we wanted to discuss, second topic we want to discuss today was just one of these interesting things you see pop up from time to time as far as innovation and the capabilities.
Because right now, and rightfully so, everybody's doom and gloom, hey, climate change is coming. We're putting too much, too much greenhouse gas into the air. It's going to turn our planet into Venus part two, with all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect and so to speak. And lo and behold, we got scientists, you know, we got reports of scientists working on an enzyme that can turn CO, pull CO2 out of the air and turn it into useful products. So what was your take? I mean, this isn't something obviously that's commercial yet, but that's kind of the point is they're trying to take something like that and turn it into a commercially viable thing. So what was your thought on seeing that or your reaction to see that was interesting?
[00:39:42] Speaker B: I mean, I think, like you said, right, it's hopeful that this could help clean up some of the impact that we've had on the planet in these last, you know, 100, 200 years of industrial, you know, the industrial age living type of thing. But because I was reading the article, I guess the last numbers reported were from 2021. We as the US released 6 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air that year. And I know that we are the largest producer of these kind of pollutants, but there's, you know, several countries that are not far behind. So I'll assume that, you know, the globe probably put out over 10 trillion. And that just seems like, sorry, 10 million, 10 million tons seems pretty heavy. And so if, and I think that's why to go to actually stop on that, I think this is all very hard, it's very abstract for us to get because like we're talking CO2 is in the air. And when you're talking about the weight of something that's in the air because we can't see it, because it's light enough to float within the air, it makes it very difficult for us to fathom, like what does 6 or 10 million tons look like of this stuff? And so I don't know because I've never seen 10 million tons of air. But the idea is that if we could take the actual CO2 molecules out of the air and create actual tons of physical material. That could be one way to keep the air clean. Now that might not help us with the pollution because we still going to have more physical stuff on the planet.
[00:41:15] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Well just what they're able to turn it into is they turn it into glycerate and then they use that to turn it into acrylate which is the basis of a lot of polymer based products. But yeah, that was my thought is like, well then we're going to have too much of that stuff.
[00:41:28] Speaker B: Yeah. So it's interesting. Right, and that goes back to. That's what I said like when we read the book Sapiens and the author did such a great job saying that. You know we keep saying like we keep being worried about scarcity, like peak oil, like we're going to run out of oil or we're going to run out of food or we're going to run out of this or that. And I think, you know, and he said, you know, that's not really our problem because human beings have shown that they can innovate their way out of a lot of things. And this is a good example of it. Right, yeah, that we got one problem we want to solve which is CO2 and greenhouse gases and the warming of the earth. So we might end up creating something really that can produce products from the air. Right, pulling CO2 out of the air and creating carbon based products. Yeah, but like you said, but we're still gonna have a problem where we just still got a lot of trash and pollution because we're just gonna keep creating more stuff to try and get it out of the air.
[00:42:22] Speaker A: Yeah. With an enzyme that takes all that stuff and turns it into something else.
[00:42:26] Speaker B: Yeah. So, and so kind of what his point in the book was, well, let me just finish this point was that what we're gonna do most likely is still mess up the ecology. And that to me was interesting. Which is, yeah, this could be great for the greenhouse gas side of things. But we're just going to create more CO2 based like plastic and like you said, polymer based stuff that's going to go in the ocean and go in the ground and still create some sort of pollution.
[00:42:49] Speaker A: So we're. Yeah, I mean, so there is no like it's all about trade offs basically. You know, so the, I like that you brought up the sapiens thing in terms of us innovating our way out because I thought, yeah, this is great, you know, like this is great that we're turning the Eye of innovation towards. Because even if we switch from carbon or fossil fuel stuff tomorrow, our planet already warmed, I think, was it 2 degrees and we still got so much out there already anyway that it's not like everything's just going to go back to where it was. And so that's not going to happen. But it would be helpful to have a way to kind of mitigate the output of CO2, and this would be something like that. So, yeah, that could be a tool in our arsenal, you know, so to speak, you know, one of the arrows in our quiver. And because the thing is. Well, let me, let me, let me. There's a couple of things I want to mention on this because the thing is, like what we have here, like the whole idea of the greenhouse effect, you know, Venus is the example of that. Venus is hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun, because Venus has the thick atmosphere with the greenhouse gases in it and, you know, creates a greenhouse effect in the planet, which it can melt lead on the surface, it's that hot. And that's what we're doing to our planet right now. We're filling the atmosphere with a bunch of greenhouse gases. So if we can pull those out, excellent. And innovation is the way to go.
But for all of these, I think the biggest piece to understand here is it's not just going to be one solution. We're not going to just do one thing and then problem solve. The way innovation is going to work is there's going to be several things that we're going to do and it's going to take us, as you pointed out, to a new normal where there's going to be problems with that normal too. And then we'll have to innovate out of those problems and we'll figure out a way to do that. And so. But under no circumstances things are going to go back to the way they were. The biggest concern and this is what just what again, this is not something that should be political, is let's just maintain the ability for this place to be habitable for us. And this seems to be something that would be, that would do that. So I'm all in favor.
[00:44:49] Speaker B: Yeah, it's interesting because in reading it, it says the latest research, a collaboration with Ahmed Badran at Scripps Research Institute and Jimmy Jiang at the University of Cincinnati, has been awarded a $50,000 silog negative emissions science grant from some big research funders. I thought there 50 grand, that ain't going too far.
Like, what's that doing that's like, that's paying for these guys housing, man.
[00:45:16] Speaker A: Come on.
[00:45:17] Speaker B: You know what I mean? Like, really, that's all.
[00:45:19] Speaker A: We're putting it behind us. That's all we got.
[00:45:21] Speaker B: Jesus.
I guess the fossil fuel industry really is holding back on this.
[00:45:27] Speaker A: But, but I'll tell you this though. The other, the thing about it is, is that obviously we already know ways to turn CO2 into useful stuff. You know, the problem is the scale. Plants photosynthesis do this all day, all night. Well, all day when the sun's out and everything, they're turning, they're, they're capturing carbon dioxide and they're turning it into stuff that we can use or, you know, whatever. So the, the, the concept is already there. It's just whether this can be done at a scale to make a difference in, you know, in terms of, you know, making so the planet doesn't become uninhabitable for us. And so, yeah, I mean, you would hope that the investment, like with something like this, you hope that this is the beginning. Like, we're hearing about it, we hear about stuff all the time. A couple months ago, it's like, oh, we're figuring out fusion, you know, and it's like, it's not like the world changes in the next day. Like, we probably won't hear about this again for another year or two, but hopefully these are the kinds of things again to become, to start building up some arrows in our quiver to be able to address some of these issues so that moving forward, you know, again, we can maintain habitability. Yeah, yeah, man.
[00:46:30] Speaker B: No, it's fascinating because. Well, the last thing I'll say is, you know, you said about the politics of it, and that's kind of the sad part. To me, I understand people don't like change, but when you read this kind of stuff, it's.
This is to me what has made the United States awesome in terms of our capitalist, innovative system. This is innovation. And this would lead to more creation of the ability to imagine if you can make stuff out of the air, you could open a small business printing. We got 3D printers now. You could have the printing stuff eventually from the air outside. So, you know, why not continue to go down this road? And it's, and it's again, not about being liberal or conservative or being a tree hugger or not. It just seems like this stuff makes sense. And that's the.
[00:47:20] Speaker A: I'm glad you brought this up because that's the danger of either doing it yourself or allowing other people to do it for you. Making issues that aren't political issues, making them political. Because we could easily see in our quote, unquote culture wars that somebody invents some kind of enzyme that does this. And some people come out and say, no, we don't want to do this. This is against our whatever. And logically, it won't make sense, but they'll make it about a political identity that, hey, no, we want to pollute because we see that. We see. It's like, hey, a part of our political identity is to put as much CO2 in the air as possible. Why? Because we can. And so that's the danger. When you see it happen, it's like, look, this is not a political. This is not an inherently political issue. But you will see people make it political in order to prevent something from happening that they individually don't want to happen, but that most people would be ambivalent about at worst.
[00:48:17] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:48:18] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:48:19] Speaker B: So.
[00:48:19] Speaker A: So. But yeah, man. We appreciate joining us on this episode of Call. Like I see it. Subscribe to the podcast, Rate it, review us, tell us what you think. Send it to a friend. Till next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:48:29] Speaker B: I'm Tunde one. Lana.
[00:48:31] Speaker A: All right, we'll talk to you next time.
[00:48:33] Speaker B: I'm.
