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 discuss what it means and what it doesn't mean to weaponize the government, the federal government or state government. And we'll take a look at some current and historic examples, particularly in light of Disney's new lawsuit that it filed against Ron DeSantis and other Florida officials, alleging that the Florida government has. Was. Has been weaponized against it for its stance on the. Or is it speaking out against the quote, unquote, don't say gay law last year?
And later on, we're going to discuss attachment styles in a personal relationship context and take a look at some recent findings that suggest that Americans are becoming less and less attached and intimate with each other, trusting with each other with. And that's with the people close to them, not just in general.
Joining me today is a man who could never be called a shipwreck, Tunde, Lana Tunde. Are you ready to show off your survival of the fittest skills?
[00:01:20] Speaker B: Every day, sir.
[00:01:22] Speaker A: All right. All right. Now we're recording this on May 1, 2023. And this year we have heard, in 2023, we've heard a lot about the concept of weaponization of the government. Weaponizing the government. Back in January, the Republican House set up a select subcommittee on the weapons weaponization of the federal government. And they have been seemingly obsessed with trying to find evidence that the federal government has been weaponized against Republicans.
And we've seen other stories come out with less fanfare that suggests that the government actually has been weaponized in recent years, but just not necessarily maybe where sub select subcommittee is looking, but there's a long history of allegations or in fact the government being weaponized against people. So. And the thing is, is that it's actually in some cases hard to tell where something is actually the government being weaponized against someone or against a group versus just policy or law enforcement doing what it's supposed to do. So to get us started, Tunde, how do you know weaponization when you see it, so to speak, or, you know, how do you distinguish it, you know, from legitimate government actions, you know, like politics or policy or law enforcement, which sometimes may involve people who are political actors or have. Have made political speech, so to speak?
[00:02:43] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a great question, the way you put it about the use of law enforcement and certain other things, because it's actually, it's interesting because I think some of this gets a little more esoteric because Sometimes it's, it's like the messenger, right? Who.
And, and I think in our hyper polarized environment today of partisan, you know, hyper partisanship, it. A lot of people are being told that, you know, just looking into somebody's affairs is weaponization.
[00:03:15] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:03:15] Speaker B: And, you know, I think that's what.
[00:03:18] Speaker A: Person is a political actor. If someone, once someone becomes a politician, then if you look at them, then it's weaponization. But, you know, I, I would say though, the only thing about that is that standard doesn't seem to be applied both ways.
[00:03:31] Speaker B: You know, obviously, I mean, and that's where I think. I mean, that's one thing that I'll get into a little bit later in discussion is the real idea of projection that we see with a lot of this stuff. But I think that we've talked about this too, right? Like, you know, and just in private conversations that. For example, there's a lot of people in the south that felt like the federal government was being used as a weapon in the 1960s when the federal government and the Supreme Court and those at the federal level were creating more equality in certain states that had legal segregation and didn't treat all citizens in said states legally.
You know, that could be their opinion. In our opinion, the, the government was doing what it was supposed to do was creating a level playing field for everyone that's a citizen in this country. So I think that you can get into this can become like quantum physics where things can start to break down if you look at it too close. But.
[00:04:25] Speaker A: Well, let me, let me jump in what you just said if I can, because I think that's a good, A good way to illustrate the difference or good way to illustrate what I got.
[00:04:33] Speaker B: I have something that I actually pulled out of my backside, which I'll say after you're done, so come back to me. But go ahead.
[00:04:40] Speaker A: I won't go into my, my first, you know, take, so to speak here, but I think like with, with that, for example, you know, the federal government comes into Southern states and says, okay, you guys have to do business a certain way. You, you can't do business like this anymore. Is that, is the federal government in that case being weaponized against those, those states? Well, the question in, in terms of context of weaponization and how that's discussed, that usually involves some level of abuse of power or using power from reasons that are inconsistent with that power is there for. And so in that case, that's the federal. The 14th Amendment is supposed to be enforced. And they're saying you're not enforcing the 14th amendment, then them having federal troops show up outside of a school to try to ensure that the 14th Amendment is followed is not weaponizing the federal government. If the federal government's saying, hey, we don't like the way you voted on this, or we don't like what you've been saying publicly, so we're going to show up and put troops outside of your business and just, just to intimidate you, then that is weaponization of the government. The reason why it's difficult a lot of times is because it turns on intent. Sometimes. Sometimes it turns on the intent and it turns on what if it's being done in response to something or not, and then what. What is it being done in response to? If it's being done in response to you breaking the law, then it's really difficult to say the government's being weaponized against you. The government is supposed to show up when you break the law versus if it's being done in response to you doing something that's lawful. But just that the people in power don't like, that's generally when you get into the weaponization. But because that involves a decision or a discussion on somebody's intent, it's difficult sometimes.
[00:06:18] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think as you're talking, one thing that I realize and appreciate is that those who would make that argument that the federal government was, you know, weaponized in its treatment of certain states failed to recognize what you just said. Right. That U.S. citizens, constitutional rights were being infringed upon. And so perhaps maybe the state government apparatus was being weaponized against the citizens of said state who are also. Who are also citizens.
[00:06:46] Speaker A: We're already to projection.
[00:06:47] Speaker B: Correct. And so my point is who are also citizens of the country. Right. And so that's where the government, like you said, they're enforcing the Constitution.
[00:06:56] Speaker A: Well, before we get into specific examples, though, I kind of wanted to just discuss the idea of weaponization because what a lot of times actions of the government are going against someone, you know, whether it is a politician or somebody. If you steal something from somebody, then the government is supposed to go after you for that. If it's the federal government, it's the FBI or whatever. Well, if it's a state government, it could be a police force or state troopers or whatever. If you're speeding, you know, for example, then there is action by the government that could attack you. You know, and so if you, you may personally feel like that this is the government being weaponized against me, you know, the government is being weaponized against me because it's coming after me for something I did. But you can't say that just based on I was driving, you know, driving fast or driving, you know, closer to speed limit and somebody pulled me over. You can't evaluate whether it's weaponization of the government or not then. Because the question of whether it's weaponization of the government really would turn on whether or not you got pulled over for some other, they were targeting you and saying, look, we got to pull this dude over, so let's follow him and the second he goes one mile over the speed limit, we're going to pull him over. If you start bringing in more information like that, then you can say, okay, I was being weaponized. If there's a cop on the side of the road, it's just, you know, is checking everybody's speed and just pulls you over because like that it's very unlikely that you were, you were, the government is being weaponized against you because it wasn't something that was targeted for you. And then the other piece I should add to this is have you done something then or, or you know, again, done something lawfully in many respects that would make someone want to come after you? That's the second piece about it and I guess I should have put those two together is how targeted is and have you done something to make somebody mad to want to come after you? That's the only way to evaluate the weaponization. This was really a totality of the circumstances thing. And so I, I like what you talked about at the very beginning because you're talking about how people say, oh well, the allegations thrown out a lot. And really what it does is they try to make the issue very two dimensional and saying, okay, well if Trump gets investigated or if Hillary Clinton gets investigated or if Bill Clinton gets like, I guess Bill Clinton's a better example. If Bill Clinton gets investigated, then that's that ipso fact. So that's weaponization of the government. It's like, well, hold on, what did, what are they accused of doing? Is it some trumped up thing that wouldn't even, or some made up thing that wouldn't even be a crime anyway? Or is it something that is that law enforcement should be looking at? And so that's where you get into these examples. So but because I think, and here's the key piece because it requires context and it requires more understanding of the circumstances in the political game. A lot of times it can be thrown around very willy nilly. And so we have to Be very careful and really have to understand. Okay, well, what are we looking at when we see weaponization? I think we'll be able to illustrate this better as we discuss, you know, things going on, you know, presently and in the past. So, but looking at the committee, looking at this subcommittee that was just, that was started, what do you make of kind of just this like balls to the wall approach of we're going to find weaponization only against Republicans, you know, like we're going to find it against people who, you know, are our people, so to speak. And you know, that it's just, it's going around, it's, it's going to just keep digging until, you know, it finds what it's looking for, you know, presumably that there's something there for it to find. But what's your, what's your take on how aggressively I should say that it's looking for something without starting for something. And then we're going to look for, we're going to look for evidence behind what the crime versus we're going to go find the crime.
[00:10:25] Speaker B: Yeah, I think this is just an extension of the long arc of kind of the Tea Party's footprint and stamp on the Republican Party kind of nationally since let's say 2010, right around that time when they really got powerful and they realized that, you know, they can get somewhere politically and might be a little bit short sighted with this type of behavior. And I think a lot of it is projection at this point and it's unfortunate. And I think we have some real people and we've done a lot of these discussions for the audience, look at the library about shows we've done on the insurrection January 6th and about some of the members of the committee who actually were participating in the lead up to January 6th. And so I think a lot of this is actually people that are covering their own backside in a certain sense. And if you think about it, that's why it's sad. Like I, and I don't want to seem partisan with that statement. It's not about, because, and well, let.
[00:11:23] Speaker A: Me, let me, let me say something because I can help you with that because look what you're talking about there is if you are being investigated by law enforcement for your role in the insurrection, well, what better way to try to push, to try to get the investigators off your back than to say, okay, well I'm going to investigate the investigators and I'm going to start subpoenaing people to talk about these investigators. Public like that is, that's an Example of saying, okay, well, I don't have any. Any reason right now. I don't have any reasonable basis right now to say that this person committed a crime. But I'm gonna start investigating you.
[00:11:55] Speaker B: Why?
[00:11:56] Speaker A: Because you're investigating me. So that's.
[00:11:59] Speaker B: Well, let me. Let me keep going, because it's just deeper than that even on. Because this is now symbiotic. This who. Whole ecosystem of these hearings in a Congress. Then the sound bites get on the cable and news and the social media thing. And then, you know, they understand there's an audience and a base for this that's very energetic. And so what happens?
[00:12:21] Speaker A: Fundraising. You forgot about that.
[00:12:22] Speaker B: Yeah, and the fundraising, of course, the.
[00:12:24] Speaker A: And that's where I would get to. It is. I think it's unfortunate in a sense, I don't think that for the weaponization committee, from what I've seen, that it in itself is about weaponizing the government. Now, I think there's. There's that to it. It is being used in that way. But it really does seem to me to be content, driven that. Because this. This is some. One of these things that was being brought out by the more fringy elements of the. Right. And it seems like it's just about creating content and it's just stuff to talk about. Whether anything ultimately gets brought up, you know, is almost irrelevant because that's the thing if you're really keeping score on. Okay, well, how many crimes have. That have they uncovered? How many instances where have they. Where it was like what they. They said this was gonna. They were gonna find all this collusion between the federal government, this and that. How many times did they actually find it? If you ever keep score, you'll see that they're batting, you know, very well below the Mendoza line. But, I mean. And they're. They're very low. Like, they're. The hits are not coming. And so.
But what happens is. And this is what, you know, this is again, a sophisticated understanding of how people's minds work is you get out with the allegation. You just throw the allegation out there and say, hey, we're investigating blank in people's minds. A lot of times they just assume that that's what it is. That's what happened. And then they don't look back and say, okay, well, I was led to believe that this may be the case. Were they ever able to prove it? That second part never comes. And so you end up just constantly having material. You could say, oh, we're investigating Alvin Bragg because of this and this. And in people's mind, Alvin Bragg is tainted at that point, period. He's just tainted.
[00:14:00] Speaker B: Regardless.
[00:14:01] Speaker A: If your, your investigation could turn up nothing. All this guy does is, you know, he, he brings his wife a, a Valentine's Day card the day after Valentine's Day. Oh, and. But if that's all they turn up, it, it never makes the news and it's just like, oh, but he's already tainted in terms of. So the content wise, that's where I get with you on the, on the, the, the, the kind of feedback loop that's in. And then you see this with the fundraising, you know, like in this, the direct fundraising that happens all the time. And many people aren't aware of this, but all the emails that go, you're the one that put me onto this. All the emails that go constantly. When you get a headline or you get an investigation launched into Alvin Bragg, then there'll be, you know, thousands and thousands of emails sent saying, oh, we gotta, we're going after Alvin Bragg. Donate money here. Because this and that. And it's like, oh, wow. So all they had to do was announce this investigation to subcommittee and then they start fundraising on it that night. And they're getting millions of dollars.
[00:14:52] Speaker B: No, they weaponize, it's a weaponized marketing in a sense. And then these people have to deal with, you know, you know, their family being harassed and all that kind of stuff.
[00:15:01] Speaker A: And let me say. I know, I'll get you in, but there's one thing I want to say because the reason I said at the beginning, it doesn't look like that be actually weaponizing the government was the starting point is because if that's what they were doing, they're not doing that good of a job of that. Yeah, but they're doing an excellent job of the content creation. So I'm just assuming competence. Like. Okay, well, they're doing an excellent job at one part and the other part they're kind of messing around with. But they're not doing it great.
[00:15:21] Speaker B: They're, they're literally incompetent at doing anything in terms of their position, like governing their kangaroo court. But you're right, they're excellent at producing entertainment content and for the media. Yeah. And fundraising. They're, they're, they're better than the liberals they hate in Hollywood. Actually. They are. I mean, I'm being serious.
[00:15:41] Speaker A: Like creation.
[00:15:43] Speaker B: Yeah, the content creation. And then they go, they'll make $100 million in a day off this stuff. Like you said, sending emails asking for 20 buc. And it's sad because, you know, who suffers is the American people, our fellow Americans. So I want to give you an example, because people could be listening to, oh, you know, do you guys just hate Republicans? And number one, I want to say I am continue to try and find a way to want to vote for a Republican today like I used to, and I can't. So I'm waiting for the party to actually give us something like their own alternatives to health care, you know, fossil fuels, all that. And not because of climate change or anything like that, because Saudi Arabia just tightened their. Their output a month ago and it raised the price of oil. So I'm more of like, I want clean energy, because why are we relying on other countries constantly for energy?
[00:16:28] Speaker A: And I think it used to be. And this was a conservative thing, energy independence.
[00:16:32] Speaker B: Yeah. Why are we having these wars and you got troops.
[00:16:34] Speaker A: Energy independence was a concern.
[00:16:36] Speaker B: But anyway. But my point is. So here's a real example, and it's decided about this committee this year. So one of the accusations of this weaponization committee that was formed this year that's chaired by Jim Jordan of your home state of Ohio was, is that the Justice Department used a weapon, was weaponized, because it was going after parents and calling them domestic terrorists. Parents who were voicing their concern about what was being taught to their kids at school boards. And this is, to me, where the. It's actually a full weaponization from the people in Congress because.
And I don't blame the American people for this, because it's sad to me that people who come from positions of authority that should be trusted, like an elected official at the national level in the Congress or the Senate, they go on all these cable shows and they go online and they say how the. How parents are being attacked. But before that, what are they doing? They're lying about what's going on in the schools, saying kids are being taught CRT and all this stuff being rammed down their throat. So now these parents are genuinely showing up upset, and what's happening is they're now threatening and harassing locally elected officials who are trying to just do their job running the same school boards they've been running the last decade or two. And no one complained before 2020 about any of this stuff. But all of a sudden, it's a big deal. So what happens is the Justice Department was getting requests from local law enforcement in these municipalities saying people are showing up to these people's houses and threatening them. We're getting calls from the school board members they're scared their kids are being threatened at school. And so.
[00:18:19] Speaker A: And these all weren't local matters there. This was coming from locally. But then also the threats and stuff were coming from outside of the local jurisdiction. And so, yeah, of course, the local law enforcement is going to say, hey, yeah, we need somebody where we. Local law enforcement isn't going across the country to investigate a threat.
[00:18:37] Speaker B: And they may not have the resources like the FBI and some of us to really find out who's calling who and who's, you know, because people, people obviously are doing this anonymously, a lot of them, I'm sure. And so. But here's the weaponization part and where this committee is a weaponization in a sense. So it says right here that. And I'll quote now the article it's from. So the DOJ responded to the, to the committee's request by saying they're citing a 1982 directive by Ronald Reagan that the just Justice Department is always gets to invoke executive privilege because it's under the executive branch. But what the Justice Department wrote back in a letter said, quote, it was prepared to meet with the committee to discuss the matter. So I'll quote here the rest of the article. Issuing a meeting, issuing means he avoided. Just for. You don't know that.
[00:19:23] Speaker A: Not accepting.
[00:19:24] Speaker B: Yep. So by not not accepting the meeting, Jordan issued the subcommittee's first subpoenas on February 3rd to the Justice Department, FBI, and Department of Education. The subpoenas demanded documents related to a 2021 directive issued by the Justice Department to step up coordination with local officials regarding a spate of aggressive and threatening behavior by parents at some school board meetings. So what I'm saying is if he was a serious person that was trying to solve a problem, he would have went and had the meeting, but because he wasn't serious.
[00:19:55] Speaker A: It doesn't create content, though.
[00:19:57] Speaker B: Correct. And that's what I'm saying. He's more serious about being a Hollywood producer than he is about being an actual congressperson trying to solve the problem of the country.
[00:20:05] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:20:06] Speaker B: And so. And so that's why I wanted to give that example. Because.
[00:20:09] Speaker A: And honestly, the problem with this is that it's. Again, it's one of these things. We've talked about it in recent weeks or months, and just that our system, our system of government requires confidence in the system. You know, the system builds into itself. So you have to believe in the system for the system to continue to exist. And so the unfortunate part of this is this is harmful for all Americans because this undermines our. All of our ability or, excuse me, all of our faith in our own government. If, on one hand, if your objective is to undermine the legitimacy and operation of anything in the government, if you're not the one at the controls, if you're not doing it, then anything the government does is wrong or bad. That's directly undermining the people's faith in the government. And then on, you know, on the inverse, if you then are then using the power of the government for political means, purely political means, whether it be political fundraising or just trying to stick it to your enemy, then everybody else is looking at that like, well, hold on, man. That's not what the government is. That's not what we. We have. That's not. We have a government other people for the people and by the people for. And so I look at it more as not something where we're like, oh, these are the worst people in the world, but some. Oh, but these people are harming our system. They're actively harming the system for their own grab of power or their own grab of money. And going after money. Going after power does that to a lot of people. It's unfortunately unfortunate that it's the kind of thing that brings down. It brings down the whole country with it. And as long as American voters accept it, which I get it, with the House of Representatives, you only get to vote on one. And there's 435. So there's going to be a lot of. Say that most of us. Most of us aren't gonna have or we don't have say in a lot of, you know, so. But it's just one of those things. As long as this bears fruit, then we're going to have this continue. It bears fruit right now to undermine the government, which is concerning.
[00:22:06] Speaker B: Yeah, no, I want to.
[00:22:07] Speaker A: I do want to move, though, because I want to discuss, actually, which is. This one is. Is not the federal government, but Disney filed a lawsuit in recent times. It was last week against Ron DeSantis and other Florida officials in their capacity as government officials, alleging that the Florida government has been weaponized against them since last summer when they came out against the quote, unquote, don't say gay bill that was passed in Florida last year. And there have been all these steps that were taken. Essentially, there was a Reedy Creek district that gave Disney special privileges in their area to operate. It's been. Been there a long time. And the. The governor was like, okay, well, I'm going to take that apart. Do these special privileges. I Want to take those apart. And so there's been a fight over that basically since then. And so Ulta right now, you know, Disney now is escalating that fight and saying, look, we're going to the federal government. You're, you're going after our First Amendment rights. We say something that you don't like and then you attack us. So what is kind of your reaction to seeing this escalation by Disney following? You know, it's been a pretty sustained attack from DeSantis and, you know, the Florida officials. But, you know, what's your thought on, on this kind of illustration of a fight about alleged weaponization?
[00:23:21] Speaker B: This is why I'm still looking for a Republican I can vote for in today's era, because I didn't think that the business friendly GOP was about attacking public corporations because they're quote, unquote, woke.
I think that this is, look, I think this is exactly what it looks like. He's using his power as a weapon. I mean, let's not pretend. And I know we'll talk about it, but it, but it also reminds me talked about it. That's the craziest thing about this, because I want to go off to something he's done before, because this is just one of many things that Governor DeSantis has done in the last, let's call it two and a half years or so after being much more of a seemingly kind of moderate person and politician in the first year and a half of his governorship. And, you know, and what I thought.
[00:24:15] Speaker A: Of moderate there, by the way, just, I'm not talking about policy. It's talking about like temperament, like a not too hot, not too cold kind of person. Like, you're just kind of like, you know, he was kind of ride the wave a little bit.
[00:24:27] Speaker B: Yeah. Now he looks like he just constantly has a chip on his shoulder. And it's all about grieving. So, but, but, but what I want to get to is because what my point is is that I look at this stuff and it's like we talk about. He's another one. He's got hit with the Hollywood bug now. Right. And he wants to be a showman and he wants to be the greatest, you know, the greatest show on earth. And what I find is under again, I started thinking like this. You know, it's funny. People like that. These guys hate their country. Like, seriously, like they, they go against everything that we're supposed to be about. First of all, this thing with Disney. Disney was exercising its First Amendment right as a corporation. I remember the Citizens United legislation specifically said corporations have freedom of speech.
[00:25:09] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:25:10] Speaker B: So let's go there. Right. That was supposed to be a very conservative piece of legislation that came out by the Supreme Court like 10 years ago. So, so Disney has a right, I guess, like a person now to say what they want to say. So, and, and, and so that's number one. Number two is I started thinking about actually what he did. I think it was last year with the migrants from South America. I think they were mostly Venezuelan and they came to Florida and then he used the power of his position. Oh, no, sorry, they came to Texas.
[00:25:40] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:25:40] Speaker B: And he used his power to bring them basically kidnap him and bring him to Florida so that he could again have his grandstand in his show so that he could be all over Fox News and these other, other, other other media entities for guys that hate the media. It's amazing to me.
[00:25:54] Speaker A: He brought him to Florida so he could send him to Martha's so that.
[00:25:57] Speaker B: He could send them to Martha's Vineyard so that he could stick it in all the eyes of the libs. Which was interesting because all those libs up there just came out with food and put them in churches and all that. They weren't upset.
But then you know what I learned in an article like, oh, two weeks later.
[00:26:12] Speaker A: What's that?
[00:26:12] Speaker B: Is that I didn't know this. It's a crime. Sorry. Yeah, it's a, it's a crime to do that to anyone in this country seeking asylum, to basically kidnap them. So because a crime was committed against someone who was waiting for their verdict on their asylum. So they weren't in this country yet. They were all granted permanent residency status.
[00:26:33] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:26:33] Speaker B: So my point is, is that this is what we've been dealing with, is this grandstanding just for attention and fundraising and show. And to show the base that you're pure has been backfiring for these people. But what happens, what's sad to me is that the base doesn't get the follow up of that. They don't get told that Desantis stunt meant that those couple dozen people are now in the US permanently. It backfired. They wanted those people out of here. They're not told that John Durham investigation into Hillary Clinton and the State Department and all that about the Russia thing didn't go anywhere and that. And that. And that they were all exonerated. And that's what I think keeps the frustration with a lot of that base. Because what they're seeing, they're being told constantly that all these people are doing such bad things, and that when they investigate someone on your side, they're just weaponizing. But when we investigate people on their side, somehow they're slipping away. And that's when you get into this deep state and you got to create all these boogeymen.
[00:27:28] Speaker A: No, I mean, and that's what I get to. As far as the unfortunate.
[00:27:31] Speaker B: It's like none of them makes sense.
[00:27:32] Speaker A: It requires this. This course of conduct requires you to constantly be tearing down the country. And I mean, and that's where we got to really be careful here. From the standpoint of if as more and more people become this audience of. And when want to hear these messages of tearing down the country, ultimately the country might get torn down. You know, like, that's kind of where that leads. But going back to the Disney piece.
[00:27:57] Speaker B: Let'S see if you can tear down Mickey Mouse.
[00:27:59] Speaker A: Well, I mean, that's a little different. I want to get back to the Disney piece, though, because I found it fascinating that Disney, like, this was something that. I find it fascinating, one, that it's come to this, and two, that it took to this long for it to come to this. But I guess they were waiting until, like, the harm to them was actually put in place. Like, there had been up until this point, Desantis had been taking all these steps and doing all these things from a procedural standpoint, from a process standpoint, in order to take the thing away from them. And I guess now we're at the point where he got the votes and he was able to do it at least, you know, presumably under the law. But so they file their lawsuit and they're alleging, hey, this is. This is retaliatory. And the thing to me that's very interesting about this, and you know, the initial response from the Florida officials side was that, oh, they have no right to have this. This, you know, this special tax district. And that honestly is not the issue at all. I would very much like to. If we're in the. Just in the abstract, I'd very much like to hear more information about why exactly do they still need this. Okay, I get it. Back in 1960, when there was no plumbing there and all this other stuff and they had to do all that, like, I get it then, but do they still need it? I'm very interested to hear more about that. Yeah, but from a context of weaponization, you can't say, oh, well, you made me mad by speaking out, by speaking in first Amendment, by speaking out against something I was doing. So now, therefore, I'm going to try to take this away from you, and then we'll just make it up as we go along of why it's bad, like. And so to me, that's a really good illustration of weaponization as well. If Ron DeSantis just ran on this and said, hey, you know, I think we should take a look at the special tax district, you know, that Disney has, we need to look at that, because I don't know if that's serving Florida's interest anymore. And he did the exact same thing.
It may not be weaponization from that standpoint, but when Disney speaks out against some legislation he's pushing through and then he immediately says, okay, we're going to take this away from them to set an example so other people won't speak out. If you speak out against me, then I'm coming for you and I'm not going to stop because I need to teach every other company not to speak out against me. Despite what you pointed out, the Supreme Court just held less than 15 years ago that corporations are allowed to speak out. And for him to do that, it's a really clean example of weaponization. And so what we're going to end up with now is the federal court weighing on this. And this isn't the first time this has happened. There have been other instances where in states I know, go back to Huey Long in Louisiana, there's other instances where, and we'll have some stuff in the show, notes on this, where officials, government officials didn't like what a company did and, you know, took action to penalize them. And then, you know, the courts came through and said, no, you can't do that. So ultimately, we'll, we'll most likely get to a place where Florida is required to stand down to, at least to some degree, the way the law works. But the thing about it is, while this is still going to be something that's very dangerous, is because the threat is still going to be sustained. Not every company is as big as Disney where they can take on the governor like that and be able to take him to court, sustain through all the ups and downs and lefts and rights of the court and ultimately have a good chance to prevail. Most companies just have to shut up because they know if, if the, the Florida, they know the Florida officials are willing to take it out on them if they say something they don't like or if they stand up for people or something like that that the, the governor is trying to attack, and they'll just have to stand down. Because they don't have the resources. So the chilling effect will still be in place. And, you know, honestly, this is why us as citizens, we have to reject this kind of stuff. We can't allow the government to be weaponized if we're going to still buy into freedom of speech. Remember, freedom of speech allows people to say things you don't agree with as well.
[00:31:46] Speaker B: Yeah. And let's say this. You know, I'm going to say this as you said that. I'm going to go a few directions here. One is, you know, we had a private conversation once, and I told you that when I grew up, growing up in Washington, D.C. the Ku Klux Klan used to march in front of the Capitol every year up until 1985. I think that was the last year they marched. And I said, you know, growing up as a kid, I understood. Like, I just was told, like, I remember asking my mom, well, how come, you know, these people are racist and they hate other people, and, you know, I understand that they've killed people and committed acts of terrorism in their history domestically.
[00:32:20] Speaker A: Why are they allowed in principle?
[00:32:21] Speaker B: Yeah. Like, why are they allowed to walk in front of the U.S. capitol and have their white sheets and their hoods on and all that stuff? Right. And their little pointy hats? And my mom sat me down and said, you know, this is the way this country works. They have freedom of speech. You know, obviously, as long as they're not committing crimes while they're walking in front of the Capitol, they have a right. They got a permit. They got a right to do it. So I remember talking to you and saying, you know, it's interesting as a black American person growing up in this country, do you know that there's people there that freaking hate you and that will kill you because of how you look and who you are, but you still love this country deeply. You're born here. This is what you know, this is who you are. We're Americans. And I said, I remember telling you we have. I'm not going to say it's a better or worse lens that you see it from, but we have a visceral understanding of a shared plurality kind of a democracy, that we do share this country with people that really don't like us, and we have to be okay with that. And we don't agree with them and all that, and we have to be okay with that. And, you know, that's life.
[00:33:22] Speaker A: I mean, no, I do think there's something to what you're saying there. Just from the standpoint of, like, in terms of, you said, the experience of the black American. I find it when I look at this attitude that, hey, everything has to be my way or else I'm willing to blow this whole thing up. Like, that is so removed from my experience of learning to appreciate my country and so forth.
I can't imagine thinking like, that I would be gone a long time ago if it was like, everything has to be my way as a black male.
[00:33:57] Speaker B: Or else I'm out.
[00:33:58] Speaker A: It's like, well, hold on.
[00:34:00] Speaker B: That.
[00:34:00] Speaker A: And so that.
[00:34:01] Speaker B: So, I mean, but that's what I'm saying. For us, it's laughable.
[00:34:05] Speaker A: Like, it's laughable. That's so many people. But let me, Let me get the thought out. But so many people are like, yo, if everything isn't geared around the way I like it, then we can all burn it down. I'm just like, wow, you know, that's what.
[00:34:17] Speaker B: That, to me, that's what January 6th represented, 2021. Like, wow, okay, just. You lost an election. You're going to burn this whole country down because you were told the election was stolen with 70 frigging court cases. It goes back to me, like, this repealing of Obamacare over the six years between 2010, 2016, 70 attempts to repeal it, knowing it would go to Obama's desk and he'd veto it.
[00:34:39] Speaker A: Yeah, while he was president. Correct. 70.
[00:34:41] Speaker B: And it's been 13 years. And that's what, like, I appreciate when you said I'd be interested to hear about an alternative to Reedy Creek.
[00:34:49] Speaker A: I'd be interested because I hear about an alternative to Obamacare if you're coming.
[00:34:52] Speaker B: Like, I'm still waiting 13 years later to hear about the alternative to healthcare, because I, I'd be fine listening to that. Or the alternative to fossil fuel, which is going to run out at some point in the next hundred years. All this stuff. But it's never about that.
[00:35:04] Speaker A: That's my. I mean, and we can end on that point because that's, that's actually what's really missing here that, you know, really people should be held accountable for is that what is being, what's been replaced is substance here. Let's come up with solutions that are fitting with our philosophies. If my conservative philosophy or conservative worldview, here's my solution to this situation. We have an issue. Here's my solution that is informed by my worldview. And that's just not what we're getting. It's just, okay, well, there's. There's people that are given solutions, informed by a progressive worldview. And then there's people just saying that all the progressives are bad and everything they want to do is bad. And so if the progress, if the progressives want to do it, then we just want to do the opposite. And it's like, well, hold on, that's not constructive. That's not like. Yeah, but it is, it does play well on tv. You know, it does play well from the standpoint of if you cast somebody as a villain and then you cast yourself as the hero. There's a reason why so many movies are set up like that because that creates a compelling storyline. And so so much of it being built around that, it really just, it doesn't serve the interests of the country. And you hope that at some point the message either gets played out and, you know, or younger generations take over and kind of see like, hey, this, this is stupid. We can't just. You can't just be against a whole, a whole other group. You're just. I'm just against them. What are they for? Okay, I'm against that. Like, you have to have stuff that you're trying to accomplish other than, I guess, tax cuts for billionaires. So I do want to move.
[00:36:36] Speaker B: That's not bad, the tax cuts. You just need more stuff. You just need to add stuff.
[00:36:40] Speaker A: No, other than that.
[00:36:41] Speaker B: I just want to finish on this note before we jump that I appreciate you said that because, like, I'm not a Democrat. Just for anyone listening here that doesn't listen to our show normally. And that's why I joked at the beginning about I've been, I can't wait to find a Republican I can vote for again at the national level. I mean, obviously at local level, I can find people. But my point is, is that you said it so well. We, right now we have one political party that's progressive and you know, whatever you want to define that is. And they have ideas like clean energy or universal health care and all that.
[00:37:11] Speaker A: And they're not perfect.
[00:37:12] Speaker B: They have.
[00:37:12] Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. Kind of half baked and stuff like that. But they are coming up with thoughts.
[00:37:17] Speaker B: Yeah, they got their own ideas and that's life, right? The other side has spent the last 10 years just trying to tell everybody that they're trying to court for votes just not to agree with the other side. But what we're lacking is a great conservative solution or alternative to these progressive ideas. Usually when both come together, that's how we succeed as Americans.
[00:37:41] Speaker A: That's where the magic happens when both sides participate in good faith.
[00:37:44] Speaker B: That's where the magic happens that, you know, the optimism of someone like Ronald Reagan and that style of Republican rhetoric is totally lost.
[00:37:55] Speaker A: I mean, we went from the rhino today, man. He'd be.
[00:37:57] Speaker B: No, I know. We went from the shining city on the Hill that welcomed everybody and all that to American carnage. And that's what I'm saying. It's just. It's just. It's just no longer about ideology and politics. This has now become something else is really what it is.
[00:38:11] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. And the whole weaponization discussion is illustrative of that, basically, and that this is something else. This is not about.
[00:38:20] Speaker B: This isn't about different ideas.
[00:38:22] Speaker A: Let's figure out, you know, like, figure out a way to solve a problem. No, it's not about that. So the second piece that we wanted to discuss today, you know, is it interesting thought experiment, so to speak. And so there are people who study all types of stuff, obviously, you know, all types of academics and so forth. And in this second part, we. We saw a study that got into. Or it's suggesting basically, that as you're measuring over the past 20, 10 years or so, Americans are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with attachment and intimacy and so forth. And this is from a relationship standpoint. Like, are you a person who gives trust and is willing to trust, so to speak, you know, like you. Or is trustworthy and gives trust at the same time? Are you a person who pushes things away? Are you a person who's. Who's clingy? Are you a person who, you know, is, you know, just all types of different things? And so they discuss four different attachment styles, and I will get into those. But the overall conclusion was that the attachment styles that push people away and that are not about having close, trusting relationships are the ones that are shooting up, and the ones that are about being able to be trusted and being willing to trust are all going down. So what was your kind of take on this? And this is for Americans, by the way. This is, you know, just looking at Americans, you know, because there's a lot of. This can be social media you can look at. This can be just faith in institutions and stuff like that and just kind of our experience in the world nowadays. But what was your kind of takeaway? That Americans are becoming less. Less willing to trust and less trustworthy?
[00:39:58] Speaker B: No, I think it's. It's an unfortunate reality, and I think, you know, a little bit off. The piggyback of the first part of our show here is, you know, Americans have been told, and now this goes on. I'll pick on both sides of the political aisle in a certain way to distrust a lot of things. Right. Like think about the last 20 plus years since 9 11.
That was very scary. Right. For all of us. And then we, so we learned. We know we couldn't trust Islam. Right. For example, in certain parts of the world, like the Middle east and all that kind of stuff.
[00:40:31] Speaker A: Well, also, though, we also couldn't trust our fellow Americans if they, they didn't agree with us on how we should address things.
[00:40:37] Speaker B: Yeah. And so, and that's what I mean is, is that. I think that was, you know, I know we've. We can go back to the 60s and civil rights and all that, but, but I think that was kind of the modern inflection point for this, where you had that kind of lull in our culture from, let's say, the early 70s up until, you know, when kind of the racial stuff and the feminism and all that kind of started dying down and, and, and we started having norms about how to deal with that. I think 911 kind of shook some of those norms in certain ways. And, you know, not just that, but then you, you fast forward to, like we said, the, the hyper polarization in the culture, the, you know, probably led a little bit from the algorithms that we've talked about about social media and the way cable news operates. And what I'm saying is it is, it is something. And I'll give you an example. I had a friend come over recently and they saw that I had Tim Scott's book sitting in my kitchen counter.
And then he looks at me, goes. And he started like this whole rant at me, like, oh, man, you're gonna, you're gonna vote for Republicans. And he started like, hammering me, like, for real. And I go, bro, it's a book. And I'm interested to see what the guy's about. I can't just read a book, you know, and it's just like, I just feel like, because that's a friend of mine for a long time, and I feel like 10 years ago he wouldn't have said that. It's just he's been in his own ecosystem and down his own rabbit holes, and now anybody that's not exactly thinking like him, he's got to look with a side eye. And I was about to be one of those guys.
[00:42:05] Speaker A: But, well, I think that there's something interesting with there because it's difficult really, that this is something you can't really peel away. And you say you attack both sides in the sense. And here's Why? I don't necessarily agree with that, but I do think that this is something you can't peel away one side or another because it takes two to tango. And this is what I've talked about this before, like in terms of relationships, by definition you're talking, it's not you, it's not a relationship with yourself. And so it also. And this, this is talked about a little bit in the article. We'll have it, it's piece from the Atlantic. We'll put it in the show notes. But this kind of, these kind of attitudes, some, some think it's not a static personality type. It's how you're enter how you perceive the, the people you're interacting with. And that's going to be macro and micro because it's really talking about the people that you're closest with. But your macro view is going to influence that to some degree. But to me, when I see this, I actually look, I think it's actually much more simple than all of the other factors that we could talk about, political factors, societal developments and so forth. I just think we're not as close with each other anymore in the sense that so much of what our interaction is through a screen. And I'm not even talking all about social media, I'm talking about television, movies, everything like that. Like our, the way we entertain ourselves, the way we kind of, you know, form ourselves is through a screen a lot of times and not through just personal interaction. And I'm going to sound like an old man here just because of the example I'm going to give, but I know for myself, for example, when I was younger, we played video games a little bit. You know, we did all that, but the vast majority of play was interacting with other kids. Like it would be, you know, basketball or football or doing this and that. Like it was, we were all interacting. And so there's so much like you got to learn how to identify, okay, that dude's a liar. I can't, I can't rock with that dude on the line, or that dude is a solid dude, you know, or, and so forth. And then even if you go, if you expand all that, go get older, so much interaction, it was harder to entertain yourself by yourself, I guess is what I'll sum up. And so it required you to interact a lot and learn about, okay, well, here are the kind of people that I, that I kind of rock with. Here's the kind of people I don't. And then I can identify those kind of people readily. And so I Can't have close relationships with people I want to and not have close relationships with people I don't. And that's the part I think. I don't think this should rise and fall like a tide like it. Unless there's some kind of developmental piece missing where we're not able to get the pick up on these signals easily. And that's what came down on it.
[00:44:42] Speaker B: So I think you're right. I think definitely, you know, we shouldn't just focus on things like politics and the stuff I was talking about initially because I think that's part of it. But I do think it's much greater than that. I think you're absolutely right. I remember a study, it's about probably close to a decade ago and they had did a study with kids in middle school, so around 12, 13 years old type of kids. And they did one week. For one week, group of kids was not allowed to actually interact other than texting.
And the other group for one, only seven days was not allowed to touch a phone. And they could only interact through actual like, yeah, talking in person and all that they said in just seven days. Because what they were able to do then with the, you know, kind of high resolution cameras and slow motion stuff is really break down the microseconds of how people react to facial expressions. They found within seven days the group of kids that was only texting and not dealing with any with like minimal human interaction already lost a step in how to read certain facial expressions at the micro level. And so what I'm saying is so, so to your point. So if that's after seven days, then imagine, I mean, and this is a sad part, I think for both of us can appreciate this and maybe some people listening and, and I'll say this because I don't know, we talked about this recently as a parent. Right. Like, so I've got two sons. One is 24, he'll be 25 soon, the other one will be 12. Actually tomorrow is his birthday. So let's say these kids are 12 years apart.
My older son, the best thing he had was a Game Boy.
[00:46:23] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:46:24] Speaker B: Around this age. Yeah, let's say maybe around 10. Right. Because he was born in 98. So let's say. And this will maybe I thought about this and the iPhone was released, the first one in 2008. The iPad was in 2010. So by the time my son was 12, the first iPad's coming out and we didn't have all the tech with the apps and the games that we have now. Right. So he still grew up in a little bit more of what we like, we recognize type of technology environment.
I realized that I was in a different world when the kid that's 12 now or tomorrow, so this would have been about 10 years ago. He was 2, I think, because he couldn't talk yet. And I remember he was in diapers, would have still had a pacifier. And he's, but he could stand because I had my flat screen TV at the time sitting on a, like a nightstand in our bedroom. And I, I was in the bathroom and I could hear him grunting. And I was wondering what the hell is this kid doing? And I looked and he was frustrated because he was trying to swipe the tv, thinking he would get to a different show or something. And he was grunting because he's frustrated that it wasn't swiping.
[00:47:33] Speaker A: So he had developed already a very sophisticated way.
[00:47:37] Speaker B: Correct. Yeah.
[00:47:37] Speaker A: He could interact with that screen. Very sophisticated. Very sophisticated.
[00:47:40] Speaker B: Correct. And that's when in my mind I was like, holy crap, this kid is already upset. He can't swipe my TV and he's not even 2. And so my point is, you know, he knows how to get into iPhones. And so what I realized is you have to be very, we all have to be very conscious as parents with this stuff.
[00:47:58] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:47:58] Speaker B: And let's talk about the harassment online and bullying and all that stuff that we've, all that we've dealt with as a family. Right. And my point is, it made me realize, and I talked to my wife about this. We remember we had the term latchkey kids when we were kids. Right.
[00:48:09] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:48:10] Speaker B: They still exist, unfortunately. And the amount of people that are raised and the, the, the screens are used as a babysitter.
[00:48:19] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:48:19] Speaker B: And I think this is going to get worse is my point, that people have ability to interact interpersonally and read emotions and all that.
[00:48:25] Speaker A: And where they're studying this is with college kids. And they say that's just the easiest place to study it. But you know, they surmise it's happening but across, you know, age ranges. But yeah, to me it, this is a symptom of less human interaction. And I, I think the example of the Game Boy is a good example. Or you go back even further, there's just only so much of that stuff you could do by yourself. Yeah, it just, there's just a limit. Like, but with the iPad, you could be on that like, you know, hours by yourself, entertain there all day. Yeah. And so like it, the, the, the harm, so to speak, can be worse because it's so much more immersive. And then obviously the companies, the software companies and you know, they, they're better at, They've gotten better and they, this is, their objective, is to keep your attention and so forth. And so, yeah, I, I look at this and I'm just like, yeah, man, the, the human touch, we got to be careful not to lose because a lot of that, I mean, look, we talk about AI and all this other stuff. Well, human beings are, from an interaction standpoint, are becoming more like computers, you know, and then AI is becoming better and better at interacting and so forth. So in the future, it may be that AI doesn't become that much more amazing than it is now. And why we can't, we may not be able to tell the difference between an AI and a person. It may be the human beings kind of lost in some ways the personal touch that used to define the species. And so, and so I look at it and, and just the, the, the attachment styles, there's a secure style, which is, again, that's somebody that can, you know, you feel like you can trust and others can trust you. There's a dismissing style, which is you're. That's an over commitment to independence. The preoccupied style, which is you want intimacy, but you fear rejection. So you're clingy, you know, and you're looking for validation through that. And then the fearful style, which is you, you also want the intimacy, but because of distrust, you actually push people away. So, you know, one of the kind of. Well, I wonder. I'm getting somewhere with this.
[00:50:18] Speaker B: Okay.
[00:50:19] Speaker A: And so, you know, you have. They kind of almost operate in a quadrant in a sense, in terms of how they overlap. But I want to ask you, for you, which one of these do you think more describes you?
[00:50:30] Speaker B: I don't know, man.
I can't, I can't give that away.
[00:50:36] Speaker A: I can't give that away. That's too secretive. Yeah, no, that's all good. Well, I mean, I, I would hope for myself that I'm the secure style and I actively work against trying to be or against being the dismissing style. Like, that's. I know in myself, like, I need to make sure that. Because I don't necessarily want to be. I think it's important to be independent and, you know, that I, I need to, I've always, you know, in my, my mind, I mean, always as an adult, been like, okay, I need to make sure I'm okay by myself. I can't, I can't be the clingy person, you know, and so I want to make sure I'm okay by myself. But I've also always tried to make that point to, to also have the. To be. I want to be known as somebody you can trust. And I try to trust people until they show me I can't. And that's if they show me either actions towards me or the, the thing I realized a long time ago. Just pay attention to how people treat other people and that'll tell you all you need to know. Because most people mess up with that because they think, oh well, they'll do that to that person, but they would never do that to me. Yeah, well, I'll tell you, if somebody does something to somebody else, they would do it to you too. So I'm somewhere between the secure and the dismissing. I'm always trying to be more in the secure style and not slip into, you know, the dismissing style where I'm like, oh, you know, I know this person's going to, you know, this person is. I saw him be dishonest once. So, you know, I'm gonna, I can just be independent by myself forever, so. Because that's not a good way to be.
[00:51:56] Speaker B: No, it's, it's interesting because, you know, there's a couple other factors I think we could say play into this. One is environmental. And I don't mean environment like climate change. I mean like the amount of millions of kids in our country over the last 30 years that have been prescribed drugs like Ritalin and Adderall and you know, Prozac and Xanax. Right. Like that does alter brain chemistry and behavior.
[00:52:20] Speaker A: Right.
[00:52:20] Speaker B: So I'm sure that's a part of it because when people are on these drugs, they also that their brain chemistry is different. So clearly the way they relate to other humans and emotional level and all that could be affected.
And I do think that there is, you know, the sad part is like many other things we've, we've discussed on our, on our podcast over the years is this is all like you're saying the study is good because it recognized all these changes which as we're, we're kind of posing that this must be something changed in our environment. Right. Like I said, maybe it's the last 20 years between some of our cultural shifts post 9 11. Maybe it's some of the drugs, you know, the prescription drugs that have been thing. Maybe it's some of this the way that we relate to screens. But I'm sure it's all these kind of things kind of, you know, amalgamated Together in a sense. And. And so what I really think is, is the concern would be that, you know, humanity hasn't changed. Like when did the show sapiens. Human beings still need the same emotional connection with other human beings to feel things like happiness and to feel contentment. And so that's what I'm saying.
[00:53:30] Speaker A: All those things.
[00:53:31] Speaker B: Yeah. Like, what are we gonna do as a society knowing that maybe because of the way our society is, we've created these kind of avenues or maybe roadblocks really, for emotional connections.
I think it. Because as we're talking, I know we want to wrap here. I can't help but thinking of these recent shootings we've heard of. Of people getting lost, like in driveways or just accidentally.
[00:53:56] Speaker A: Yeah.
The wrong door and somebody shot.
[00:54:00] Speaker B: Yeah, killed. You know, either they were killed or somebody shot to kill him. And I just thinking, like, that's what I mean. Like that level of distrust you've been sitting home ginned up about and out of paranoia that somebody who literally just. Car lights coming down your driveway cause you to shoot, you know, bullets at them first without even waiting to just see if they get out the car. Like, you know, you're armed. So at least you could. You could maybe just aim your gun at them and let them get out the car and tell you what's going on. And maybe they'll just say, hey, man, I lost. I don't know my way around here. You could. You could point them somewhere else.
[00:54:29] Speaker A: Well, no, that's an excellent point because I think I wanted to make sure. I don't know if I made this point clear. Like the. When I talk about the screens and the technology, I'm not necessarily in. The screens make you less social. It's just that they allow you to be less social. They. And then our society in general, because I would point to physical proximity, like where people are just more spread out, you know, like that go from a more urban environment to a suburban environment. There's less kids around and so forth, depending on where you are. And so I think that. Or just less people around, you know, like. And so I think all of that plays into, like, I think that if the more. The less close physically we are to each other, the less we interact with each other in person. The more stuff like this would, you know, the more your trends will go like this. So. But I think we can wrap from there, man. We appreciate. Right. For 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. Until next time, I'm James Keys doing Dave Atlanta. All right, we'll talk to you next time.
