fbpx

Ep.232: Political Discourse

Cannabis Economy Podcast
Ep.232: Political Discourse

Ep.232: Political Discourse

We find ourselves in a cold civil war – it’s difficult if not impossible to have productive political discourse with folks outside of ones own personal point of view. It’s increasingly obvious that we the people are being played against each other. When anything happens one side applauds it and one side abhors it. It’s in fact incumbent on We The People to find common ground with each other to ensure that remain the United States of America. And so Charlie Rutherford returns from Ep.13 as a guy in the cannabis industry, but also my friend who comes from the right. We engage in political discourse without raising our voices, calling each other names or terminating our friendship. This conversation was recorded just before the inauguration.

Transcript:

Speaker 1: Political discourse. We find ourselves in a cold civil war. It's difficult, if not impossible to have productive political discourse with folks outside of one's own personal point of view. It's increasingly obvious that we, the people are being played against each other when anything happens. One side applauds it and one side of it, it's in fact incumbent on people to find common ground with each other to ensure that we remain the United States of America, and so Charlie Rutherford returns from episode 13 as a guy in the cannabis industry, but also my friend who comes from the right. We engage in political discourse without raising our voices, calling each other names were terminating our friendship. This conversation was recorded just before the inauguration. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the hammer can economy. That's two minutes in the word economy, political discourse,

Speaker 2: and it go away at shall charlie,

Speaker 3: right? Thank you very much for waiving whatever. You just moved over my illness. Sure. Make it go away. It's good feeling and good cheer. Yeah, man. How you doing this morning?

Speaker 2: I'm doing good. Uh, or I should say I'm doing well. Um, you know, we got a, a big day upon us here, uh, with the new president. Right. And so you and I figured out we should, we should probably talk about it with microphones.

Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think that today's even more perfectly time than last time. I know it was fresh, but I think this one will really be any more visceral on your end.

Speaker 2: Oh, it's a, it's going to be completely visceral. And, uh, and I guess let's, let's begin. Um, you know, I, Eh, you and I come at politics from, from alternative sides. I like to try to think of myself, uh, in the middle, but a admittedly, you know, um, at least to from when I was born, I'm coming from the left and I think it's fair to say that you're coming from the right. Is that fair? Uh, and so then here we are with this, uh, this, you know, a fleeting thing called reality, um, which is somewhere in the middle and we kind of got to figure this out. Does that make sense?

Speaker 3: And we're still friends.

Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the best thing is that we actually really like and appreciate each other as humans.

Speaker 3: My wife and your girlfriend have probably gotten more salutations from someone. They've never met me.

Speaker 2: Tell your wife I say hi. Oh, exactly. That's exactly right. Alright, so, well, let's go back to election day. Um, because when, when you told me the story of election day, um, you know, describe your relationship with the candidate on the right. You know, my relationship with the candidate on the left was mad. This isn't perfect, but, uh, I'm going to go for her as opposed to him. Where were you coming from before, you know, you sat down to watch the results?

Speaker 3: Well, I think I put myself in the camp of every American that flip flopping, if you will, or the differences between some of the remarks and the same subjects doesn't concern me a bit and so it wasn't my horse, but it was, I subscribed to an idea that you should support the candidate that most closely as your values or interests mention with. And so that changed a few times throughout the primary process. And, uh, even though I thought the chances were small, um, I was, uh, I was pulling for trump. And by the way, I should probably say that all of these opinions are my own and not those necessarily,

Speaker 2: you know, because you look at a life only one way above it, of course, looks at life two ways.

Speaker 3: Um, the myopic one person in this office.

Speaker 2: Indeed. All right. So, so, okay, so you sit down for a, for election results and all of a sudden look what's happening.

Speaker 3: Yes. So I invited a buddy over. We're in the game room, we're playing, we're playing pool or having a little scotch because we figured that if we're gonna, if we're gonna wake up with a headache in the morning, uh, we may as well stay up for it, but then all of a sudden these really important states, these swing states start showing up in the trump column. And this is all of a sudden getting, getting exciting. And it's certainly exciting for my wife who were keeping up as we're kind of cheering these, these results. And so we're sitting here looking at each other in disbelief. Going, Gosh, you know, some of those stories about the polls being wrong or the pole's not being able to measure some kind of silent trump coalition that's apparently happening.

Speaker 1: Political discourse. We find ourselves in a cold civil war. It's difficult, if not impossible to have productive political discourse with folks outside of one's own personal point of view. It's increasingly obvious that we, the people are being played against each other when anything happens. One side applauds it and one side of it, it's in fact incumbent on people to find common ground with each other to ensure that we remain the United States of America, and so Charlie Rutherford returns from episode 13 as a guy in the cannabis industry, but also my friend who comes from the right. We engage in political discourse without raising our voices, calling each other names were terminating our friendship. This conversation was recorded just before the inauguration. Welcome to cannabis economy. I'm your host Seth Adler. Check us out on social with the hammer can economy. That's two minutes in the word economy, political discourse,

Speaker 2: and it go away at shall charlie,

Speaker 3: right? Thank you very much for waiving whatever. You just moved over my illness. Sure. Make it go away. It's good feeling and good cheer. Yeah, man. How you doing this morning?

Speaker 2: I'm doing good. Uh, or I should say I'm doing well. Um, you know, we got a, a big day upon us here, uh, with the new president. Right. And so you and I figured out we should, we should probably talk about it with microphones.

Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think that today's even more perfectly time than last time. I know it was fresh, but I think this one will really be any more visceral on your end.

Speaker 2: Oh, it's a, it's going to be completely visceral. And, uh, and I guess let's, let's begin. Um, you know, I, Eh, you and I come at politics from, from alternative sides. I like to try to think of myself, uh, in the middle, but a admittedly, you know, um, at least to from when I was born, I'm coming from the left and I think it's fair to say that you're coming from the right. Is that fair? Uh, and so then here we are with this, uh, this, you know, a fleeting thing called reality, um, which is somewhere in the middle and we kind of got to figure this out. Does that make sense?

Speaker 3: And we're still friends.

Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the best thing is that we actually really like and appreciate each other as humans.

Speaker 3: My wife and your girlfriend have probably gotten more salutations from someone. They've never met me.

Speaker 2: Tell your wife I say hi. Oh, exactly. That's exactly right. Alright, so, well, let's go back to election day. Um, because when, when you told me the story of election day, um, you know, describe your relationship with the candidate on the right. You know, my relationship with the candidate on the left was mad. This isn't perfect, but, uh, I'm going to go for her as opposed to him. Where were you coming from before, you know, you sat down to watch the results?

Speaker 3: Well, I think I put myself in the camp of every American that flip flopping, if you will, or the differences between some of the remarks and the same subjects doesn't concern me a bit and so it wasn't my horse, but it was, I subscribed to an idea that you should support the candidate that most closely as your values or interests mention with. And so that changed a few times throughout the primary process. And, uh, even though I thought the chances were small, um, I was, uh, I was pulling for trump. And by the way, I should probably say that all of these opinions are my own and not those necessarily,

Speaker 2: you know, because you look at a life only one way above it, of course, looks at life two ways.

Speaker 3: Um, the myopic one person in this office.

Speaker 2: Indeed. All right. So, so, okay, so you sit down for a, for election results and all of a sudden look what's happening.

Speaker 3: Yes. So I invited a buddy over. We're in the game room, we're playing, we're playing pool or having a little scotch because we figured that if we're gonna, if we're gonna wake up with a headache in the morning, uh, we may as well stay up for it, but then all of a sudden these really important states, these swing states start showing up in the trump column. And this is all of a sudden getting, getting exciting. And it's certainly exciting for my wife who were keeping up as we're kind of cheering these, these results. And so we're sitting here looking at each other in disbelief. Going, Gosh, you know, some of those stories about the polls being wrong or the pole's not being able to measure some kind of silent trump coalition that's apparently happening.

Speaker 2: Yeah, that's a real thing. A real thing. So then, you know, basically it was a celebratory evening for, for you essentially. Is that basically what we're hearing?

Speaker 3: Did it end up that way? Yes.

Speaker 2: All right. So what, what, uh, specifically let's actually talk about issues and policy. We'll of course get to cannabis because that's what brings us and really what brings everyone together with cannabis. Um, but you know, what issues are you excited about? Um, now that you've got, you know, a guy that's really at least to begin with as far as his picks, as far as the, you know, what he's saying, you know, governing from a conservative perspective.

Speaker 3: Well, it's just philosophically about what I see as the role of government in our lives. And to me government really has two jobs. One of them is to keep me safe from threats, foreign and domestic. And the other job primarily is to get the hell out of my way. And so I've, the other, I generally characterize the other side of that a government could be the solution to all of our problems and I just don't happen to feel that way. So I am a small government kind of guy, a low tat, lower tax kinda guy, uh, less regulation kind of guy. And you'll notice that none of those things are really social issues because in a world that is in a political world that always fought over these social issues and social issues or things that are never ever going to be settled, people are going to love who they want to love. People are going to want to do things with their body that other people might not agree with. And so to fight the political battles over things that'll never be one or silly to me. And so I, I prefer to focus on what should the role of government in our lives.

Speaker 2: So obviously that is where we kind of line up on social issues. Absolutely do whatever you want. Um, that has nothing to do with anything really, you know, uh, whoever you want to love, whatever you want to do as far as, uh, you know, regulations and such and less is more. Um, I can see, uh, that point of view. But, you know, as we've always discussed, I come from a philosophy as opposed to an IB philosophy. And I feel like that is generally, if, if, you know, if you make one broad statement that, that might be where, um, you know, uh, where the two philosophies kind of differ. You know, if, if, if you look at it from the left, it's kind of more of a, we philosophy if you look at it from the right, it's more a, an eye philosophy, you know, pull yourself up from your own bootstraps and go type of thing. Is that fair?

Speaker 3: I believe in a philosophy we on my side is we as the people, not we as me and slash or an individual in the government because my feeling is that the government has become so big and so good at handing out free stuff. It has created an expectation for people that they're okay with that level of lifestyle. That's the, what should be a safety net, has been turned into a hammock and it's just comfortable enough for a certain amount of the population. And so what I would prefer is that people don't keep buying the idea that they've got it bad because other people have it good. And so I believe in the, I just think that it should be. We, the people instead of we the government, we with the government.

Speaker 2: Got It. Okay. And I of course agree with we the people, what the whole thing is founded on and you know, you and I, uh, you know, also, uh, are both patriots no matter which way. I mean, I love the United States of America. I think that, uh, I think that we are great, uh, already, um, but, uh, you know, sure, we've got our issues. But, uh, understood this part. You say it again.

Speaker 3: Yeah.

Speaker 2: I have to, uh, but, but point taken though on the hammock versus the safety that I, uh, I love the idea of a safety net. I, you know, I don't love the idea of a Hammock, so, you know, we're, we're, we're basically there, um, here's where I'll jump into a policy as far as, you know, nominees and such. So I watched the street food on Cspan, um, of the education secretary, at least the nominated a, the nominees, and um, she was fine saying that she had no experience with the job that she was going into. In other words, you know, she had, has not participated in any way in public education and that is what you will be in charge of for me. That seems weird to, um, to do it that way, you know, when. And then if you, if you look at the energy, Rick Perry is a, a guy that, uh, that's the oops moment, right?

Speaker 2: As far as getting in digs. I got to get them all in. Um, you know, he, he couldn't even remember the fact that he was going to do away with the department that he is now nominated to lead. So as far as safety net versus safety hammock, we're on the same page with where do you come down with the, um, we're going to have people in charge of these pieces of government that are against these pieces of government that don't believe in these of government. Like the UN, Nikki Haley says she doesn't understand why we would give money to the UN. She's nominated to head up the, the UN relationship. Where do you come down with that? Because it confuses me, I guess is the best way to put it.

Speaker 3: Well, I guess it comes down to how well do you think the people who supposedly know something about their positions and did support the departments that they were in charge of? How well do you think? How are we ranking right now as it, as it relates to education across the globe? We're like 25.

Speaker 2: We are nowhere where we should. We should be number one. We are nowhere close to that. I'm totally with you there.

Speaker 3: How are we doing in our role in the world? Are we in more, more wars or fewer wars than we were when Obama took office? So do we have a better energy policy or a worse energy policy that encourages expansion and it encourages in, in, uh, innovation, or are we in one that penalizes one at the, uh, the benefits some that are chosen that are on the safe list at the expense of others that are on some kind of a crap list. And so I think what you've described as bugs, I look at it features. I want somebody with a fresh mind to come in and say, why do we do things this way? Because the answer of, Oh, we've always done it is unacceptable because I also see government doesn't create anything. Government is at least the bureaucracy side of things is a blood second parasite on the body of the American people. Anything that reduces it is good in my life.

Speaker 2: No. But as far as feature versus bug, I take your point and you know, I was kind of a part of the choir there as far as a education. Hey, we got to do better than, than, than we're doing. All right, so, so let's, let's see, you know, how these things go now with cannabis, uh, you and I obviously talked right after, uh, uh, the sessions hearing. And what was fascinating to me is that he said what he said obviously only once, and I took a completely different meeting than you took my, the meaning that I took was that, you know, he's going to do whatever he wants. That was made apparent to me by the fact that he said, uh, I'll use my best judgment. He also said that, uh, you know, we are, um, the congress has, you know, set the, the fact that, um, you know, this is illegal. So if they want to change that law, they should change it. Um, and so what that meant to me was, okay, fine, I take your point, that's a, you know, if you're going to be the attorney general, you got to follow the laws that we have. I didn't so much the, I'll do whatever I want thing. Now

Speaker 2: let's, let's dovetail that with what you heard from the very same words.

Speaker 3: I personally would prefer somebody in office who is more pro business and potentially less cannabis friendly than someone who is potentially more cannabis friendly, but certainly less business friendly because politicians, as you and I know are driven purely by by principals and sell more by polls. And so my feeling is that coming into a country that desperately needs jobs, one of the bright shining spots, however small or large it is, is the cannabis world and it's been working pretty darn good based on not really having any federal oversight. So my sense, my hope in this is that since the attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president and the president has, tomorrow's president has at least said, let's leave it up to the states, which, which isn't necessarily any better or worse than what we had under Obama or will. We may have gotten a three, but he's going to have a huge focus on expanding. I'm expanding business that I tendency to think that they're going to fight other things other than something other than cannabis.

Speaker 2: Alright, so you're bullish based on the fact that hey, states' rights used to be a kind of a conservative thing. Now I'm, I'm, I'm squarely behind states' rights. 10th the 10th amendment is one of my favorites. Um, and, and let's see, let's see what happens. Let's see.

Speaker 3: Does that mean that, that you'd be okay with me back to New York?

Speaker 2: Uh, I mean, yeah, do whatever you want. I mean, I prefer for you not to have the pistol when we're in public. I definitely wouldn't want it to be in a place that serves alcohol. Um, but like if you're in Minnesota with your gun, like enjoy it, you know, like that's my, it's the same thing as if you want to marry a guy, go for it. What do you know? That's fine. Um, so that, that's where I am on that. Right? So, so sessions is a, he's also a politician. He's going to say whatever he needs to kind of get to the next day. Let's see what he does. You're kind of, uh, from the school of, um, he's, he's, he's going to support business and cannabis is business.

Speaker 3: Listen, I would have the same type of feeling of optimism that even if Hillary had won, this isn't unique to one, this is just because I wake up everyday looking for reasons to be happy instead of looking for reasons to be disappointed. So thanks. So as from where I sit, it happens to be the guy that I would have preferred to see when did, when, yes, I am a little bit nervous on sessions, but I just really think that for somebody that is as pro business and something that has been a, has the growth opportunity that this does and was saying, you know, what else really was he going to say and that hearing other than my job is to enforce the rule. Now we also know that there is some discretion on what they do and don't enforce. And I'd have a tendency to believe that somebody is serving at the pleasure of a president who, uh, encourages states rights, but they, you know, what lay off, we don't need to remove, remove the coal amendment. We don't need to know that kind of stuff. So that's the way that I wake up everyday anyway. And so it just so happens that it's a little bit easier to, um, my envelopes on somebody who was elected from the side that I was kinda pulling for.

Speaker 2: We're doing very well here. We're communicating is always the microphones happened. It happened to be on you. However, you asked me a great question yesterday when the microphones weren't on. It had something to do with what would I call a success. I want to give you the opportunity to ask me that same question again and then I'm going to ask it right back to you. So from this incoming administration, what was your question exactly? Let me make sure we get it right.

Speaker 3: Yeah. Because I'm not immune to the question that I'm about to ask you because if you would've asked me when Obama got elected in old age and 12 again, I'm. And my skepticism was high. If you would've asked me. Okay, listen, what are you going to consider a success? I would have had to come up with an idea for you. So I'm trying to turn that to you and say, I'm hearing all of your concerns, they're not unwarranted. I get it. But what would you give him credit for? What would you consider a success in any areas of policy?

Speaker 2: I answered this in, in real time yesterday. If employment keeps going down and the amount that the average person

Speaker 3: makes keeps going up throughout his entire run.

Speaker 2: That's a success. Now, you know, there are also things that wouldn't be successes. That's not what you're asking me. So I don't want to Parse it and say, you know, and then if you know, these civil rights are attacked and that you're, that's not the conversation that we're having. We're saying what would be successful? And those are my answers. Um, you know, uh, less unemployment, however it's measured and I know that that's a whole thing, but we're not even going to get into it. Um, and uh, and more average dollars in, you know, the Americans, uh, each American's pocket. Um, I, I would definitely consider that a success. Now for you, uh, w, w what's your answer to that? Same question.

Speaker 3: Reducing the size of government that is going to probably ruffle a number of feathers, some of the things that he's thinking about completely cutting out, but reducing the size of government, reducing the overlap. But then I share the same things with you. Okay. You're a pro business presidency. These one off silly things for a specific company to stay in the U. S or expand in the US is silliness. Let's have some overall policy changes that make it easier for every business to do business in the US and remove the things that are scaring them overseas, which has been a, been a problem for a number of years. So instead of penalizes people more for going to a place that's more friendly. Let's make it more friendly here. Let's get people to work. Let's get them off of, uh, off of government welfare, government assistance. Um, we've given people a taste of what it's like to have insurance when they maybe didn't have it before. And so that's going to be a tough thing to remove. But can we make it a lower cost? Easier to get better and better coverage at a and, and be able to help people

Speaker 2: right now. I'm going to throw this in because again, I guess it's my show and here's, here's something that I'm looking forward to. If he's able to keep a unemployment down and lower than when he steps into office, he will join only Reagan as a Republicans in the last 60 years that have decreased unemployment during their presidency. So, uh, this would be unique.

Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, what kind of time are we giving? Are you giving him some next Friday, six months or a year?

Speaker 2: Well, I just, I'll wait for it to blip up and then I'll say, nope, that's it. It's up. Whenever they end of his term. I mean, you know, hey, it could be four years. It could be eight years. So whenever he's done, if it's underwear, he started, you know, let's, let's call that a success. Um, I, I want to cover one last thing. Um, and, and here is, you know, you know me, I like to be contrarian when I can. Here's my take and I just kind of a thought of this. Here's my take on the whole twitter thing and I wonder what you think. So if we can't trust the polls, which we can obviously then how are we supposed to trust, you know, a favorable ratings and this and this and that. I don't take, when I see a new story about it, it doesn't. Why would I read it? You know? Um, he doesn't think so either. So that's where we were, where we might agree. Here's what I think the number that matters is as far as favor ability, it's his twitter followers. So He's got like 20 point 3 million followers right now. If he has less twitter followers in four years, then that's the number to look at. Or if he has more than that's a number to look at. Well, what do you think of taking his twitter account as actually the only empirical number that matters?

Speaker 3: No, I believe that, uh, I cannot believe that. I personally liked the idea of trying to talk more directly to the American people because they think you'll, I think the world is going to find here and probably no one would disagree that all of a sudden then the next four years the press will find itself a little bit more skeptical than they may have a previous eight years and so I don't disagree with the idea of talking to the American people instead of expecting people who don't like you to get it right

Speaker 2: and we are exhibiting the type of behavior which I think is going to be helpful for anyone else, which is we obviously don't share the same political philosophy. Not once have you raised your voice. Not once have I raised my voice. We've had a nice, wonderful conversation here. We still love each other and we were able to talk about issues. I mean, how much, you know, how important do you think that is just for everybody that. Well, let's put down the swords and you know, as far as the, the type of language and type of tone we use with political discourse and let's just actually talk this out.

Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean I've had some heated discussions on a Ducati versus Moto Guzzi your gun, but it has to have a hunch about why politics is it and I'm going to use this chance to get a little dig in and I think it's the role of politics in a conservative life or in someone from the left slide. For me, it's a hobby for me. It's something I'm interested in. I do know that it affects my life and I do know that to have a mild understanding of it at least is just good civic responsibility on the left since the subject is often the savior or the thing for it. It's got a more important in the lives of some people on the left and so that's where I think that when things can get heated up, it just is a little bit more difficult to tone it down or cool it down because maybe leave.

Speaker 3: Some of my liberal friends have a tendency to internalize things a little bit more because it's so important. I mean, it is their life and they see the role of government as being so much more important than other things. And so it's not to say that the fight started because of the people on the left, but when I am saying is that when you have emotions that run high in anything, whether no matter which side they come from, they have a tendency to sometimes get out of. But I, I, you know what, I think you're a closet conservative myself.

Speaker 2: Let's talk it out. Why do you, why do you, why do you think that?

Speaker 3: Uh, no, I, uh, you know, that's the funny thing to any of your listeners here. People are going, okay, well really what's the difference between these people because it sounds like they're agreeing or not agreeing. They're just maybe not agreeing on the house. So, uh, that's the, that would be the fun thing for somebody much smarter than me to analyze, okay, what, where are we really different? And so where does that put me? Where does that put you? And so what I do definitely know is that we're all Americans and we're in the same fricking Pam. Okay. We might disagree on some of the goals and we definitely disagree on how to get there, but to walk around with a chip or angry, I just, I'm not built that way. Um, life will continue whether I'm happy or not. And it's a heck of a lot more fun when I'm happy.

Speaker 2: Very true. You know, my mother, well our had a saying that says a determination is key. Compassion is vital and a smile gets you through. So, you know, the smile part of that, that's important. But how do I remain happy? As happy as I can be?

Speaker 3: Yeah.

Speaker 2: So, uh, I guess we're up to the final question here. Charlie. Um, you know, uh, I've asked you the other question will reference the, the episode number you were very early on. And by the way, if you haven't heard Charlie referred story, go listen to the episode that's referenced in the copy associated with this episode because it is quite a story, but on the soundtrack of your life, Charlie one track one song that's got to be on there.

Speaker 3: Oh man, guns by wild bell.

Speaker 2: Oh, I'm not a, I'm not familiar with it, but throw down your guns that, that would seem to be very, uh, very liberal point of view.

Speaker 3: New Album for temporarily anyway. Has Thrown Lana del Rey in my life. Oh Wow. Oh Man. It is just magical. Her voice and the music. It's great. So I'd encourage anyone to check out wild bell.

Speaker 2: Well that's a, that's a great suggestion, Lana del Rey, of course. Uh, if you're, if you're interested in, in being sedate, you know, if you're in an Indycar, a mindset, a lot of doors for you. And, and I guess I'll, I'll just match you as far as gun referential songs. I'll do 30 to 20 blues by a Robert Johnson. How about that? Yeah, check that one out. You can also check out, by the way, I'm a colon Hodgkinson a WHO's a bassist, also does a version of a 30 2:20 blues with only base. But uh, but I digress. Charlie. I think we're done here. Um, it is always a pleasure talking to you and I think we should just kind of keep checking in, you know what I mean, so that at least we can have a reasonable conversation with each other, uh, about politics every once in a while with the microphones on. What do you think?

Speaker 3: Let's do it. Let's do it shortly after the start of each quarter when the quarter numbers come out. Celebrate together or separately.

Speaker 2: I love that accountability. I love it. Thanks so much, man. I'll talk to you soon.

Speaker 3: Sounds great, Jeff. Thanks man.

Speaker 1: And there you have political discourse. Thank Charlie Rutherford, obviously for uh, you know, having that actual conversation with me. I hope that you got something from it. We'd love to hear engaging. Can't economy.com. We have always been Adams and Jefferson as the United States of America. It's encumbered upon us not to become Hamilton in birth. Thanks for listening.

Read the full transcript:

Become a member to access to webinars, quarterly reports, contributor columns, shows, excerpts, and complete podcast transcripts

Become a Member

Already a member? Login here.

Subscribe now to get every episode.

Cannabis Economy is a real-time history of legal cannabis. We chronicle how personal and industry histories have combined to provide our current reality.