Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of Your Wrong with Molly Hemingway and
David Harsani. Just a reminder, if you want to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. We love to get
your mail, right Molly, we got the best mail this week. Now.
I'm speaking specifically about that guy who has had enough of US A because
he doesn't like that I mock American voters. B because he's sick of your
Bible study excursions, but mostly because you mocked and sided against the Confederacy.
I didn't mock. I decided I sided on the side of the United States
and against the Confederacy, and that bothered him, so he has deleted the
podcast. And sometimes, when you know, we get a lot of favorable
mail, which is so lovely and so nice. Sometimes when you get a
critique, it's a really good critique and you want to take it seriously and
you want to respond, and even if someone's really angry, you want to
win them back. And on this one, I was like, I think
I'm going to I'm just going to have to let this guy go. He
sent me a recommendation Jews of the Confederacy. Yeah, I don't know if
I'm going to read that there were Jews and you know what, you know
what. I know you're going to read it because you read everything and that's
you know, and I know it's going to interest you and you're going to
read it. So I have to say. I was like, that's interesting,
But I have a pile of books I'm reading that I think will come
before that one. I'm pretty firmly growing up in the North and generally averse
to slavery. I'm pretty much a fan of the Union. So I was
telling you, David that growing up in Colorado and California, the Civil War
was taught almost as a foreign war, like it's just so alien to what
we experienced in not that there weren't aspects of the Civil War that reached even
Colorado, but we just didn't study it like the way people are here.
When I first moved to the East Coast, I remember hearing someone talking about
the War of Northern Aggression, and I did not know what they were talking
about. And then also just like talking about the North or Yankees a lot.
I went to a cracker barrel in the nineties and they offered me sweet
tea, and I was like, what's that? And they said, y'all
ain't from around here, is you. It's like it's like biscuits like that
gross kind of like dough that's in that gravy. That's not what is that?
What biscuits are down here? I don't know. But my first time
in Alabama, I was asked if I wanted something I like. I think
southern food's amazing. But I was asked if I wanted something fraud or double
fraud, and I was like, this is a good place. This is
great. I like to be I like grits. Grits are good. I'm
not a super big fan of grits, but I do love soul food.
And I think, you know, the greens and everything, like the barbecue
places where it's just good. And they have like fancy southern food too,
which is great. This is not what we came here to talk about,
David. We come to talk about whatever we feel like. Actually, whenever
you decide by the way, I don't want to give the impression that I
don't understand the complications of the of the Civil War and that there were lots
of problems on both sides and all that kind of stuff. I just am
firmly in the Abraham Lincoln camp, and that bothers some people. We are
here at the Federals, I say, well, I don't want to speak
for everyone against slavery, Thank god. I think that's a safe a safe
bit. Yeah, get to some I wouldn't say more serious, serious topics.
I think today we should start with all the kerfuffle in Texas over the
border and the barbed wired fence. I would say this, there is a
misconception out there, and I would say it's not a misconception, it's a
disinformation about how Texas. This bothers me most I guess not most, but
bothers me is that lots of Democrats now say look, Republicans are also ignored.
They even say also are ignoring the Supreme Court. That's not true.
Texas was not ordered to do anything. Supreme Court vacated a lower courts injunction
of the federal government from removing razor fence. It says nothing about how Texas
can't put up more and they should. I think it's a mistake for chip
Roy and I forget who else to say Texas should ignore the Supreme Court when
we're not there yet. That's a constitutional problem we're going to have if we
get there, maybe, but we're not there yet. Right now. Texas
is not ignoring the Supreme Court. It's defending its border as it's supposed to
according to its own laws and frankly federal law as well. You agree with
that, So I agree that there was misinformation about whether Texas was failing to
follow what the Supreme Court said. That was undoubtedly true. You had a
bunch of Democrat activists and politicians like Beto O'Rourke saying that by putting up fencing
on the border, that that was disagreeing with the Supreme Court. Well,
that's not true in any way. First off, you know, the Supreme
Court merely said that the US government can continue to tear down the fencing put
up by Texas until such time as they're instructed otherwise by a decision from the
Supreme Court. So there was nothing in there about whether Texas could put up
the fencing or not. Nothing at all. So it's inaccurate to say that
they were going against the Supreme Court. Having said that, I'm not sure
if I am upset with people discussing what you would do if you had a
Supreme Court saying that you couldn't defend your own state border. I think it's
okay to talk about whether you would sort of sacrifice your state for a very
bad ruling from the Supreme Court. It's a treacherous area, but like it's
okay to talk about I think, I think talking about what happened first of
all. I mean, yes, that's how we frame it. And I
actually agree with you that I believe the Biden administration wants to undermine enforcement,
but their case to the Supreme Court is that defense undermines their ability to enforce
federal law. So it's more complicated even than conservatives make it out to be.
Though I agree with them, I think the Biden administration doesn't want and
really have enforcement there. What gave you that feeling? If the Biden administration
didn't want to enforce the border, do you have any evidence to support this?
There is no border right now is a part of it, And you
know, I always have to I hate to have to speak this way,
but I will. I am a big fan of immigration. Actually I'm a
big fan of a lot of immigration, but I'm not a fan of lawlessness.
And that's what you have right now. I mean it's a crisis.
It's bad for it's bad for the for the country. It undermines the rule
of law, it will undermine people's People who are fans of immigration will be
less fans of immigration if you just allow everyone to just pour over the border.
You know what I'm saying. This hurts in that way too, And
it's bad for the people who come over as well. They will not you
know, they have to live. They don't live as real immigrants. They
live. They will their first act is a league to come in here is
a will most often be illegal because they won't show up for their court dates,
et cetera. So I just think it's it's a really big crisis.
Maybe I believe that Trump won in twenty sixteen over this issue, and I
think he can win again over this issue if things don't change. To just
see the stories about in the media about how the administration's turning the tables on
Republicans and are because they wanted you know, they're being undermined. You know,
they're the Republicans are undermining enforcement. They won't pass a bill in the
Senate. Maybe we should talk about that separately. They won't let them enforce
you know, in texts so on. But yeah, actually, can we
just take a little bit of a step back to the talking point no,
no, to the talking point last week which Mitch McConnell put out and all
of the media people dutifully regurgitated, which is Mitch McConnell and his band of
Republicans they could fix the border if only Donald Trump would let them. Donald
Trump was the reason they couldn't fix the border. That is one of like,
even for even for Team Mitch, that's pretty stupid. And yet you
had people being like, yeah, Donald Trump's killing this, killing this thing
that would fix the border. Well, to your point, what's being discussed
is a bill that Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, and the
Republican senator stupid enough to go along with it, Lankford, say they need
to fix the border. This is actually not true in any way. And
we know this because on day one of taking office, Joe Biden issued a
flurry of executive orders either doing like new things or tearing down, step by
step, brick by brick, everything the Trump administration had done in an attempt
to control the border. And by the way, during that Trump administration,
you might remember that Donald Trump wanted five billion for the border and couldn't get
it even from the Republicans in the Senate and the House. You know,
so Mitch McConnell can shove it up a stovepipe that he really cares about the
border, but only Donald Trump is keeping him from doing it. So if
Joe Biden had the executive authority to make our border completely porous after it was
after it was beginning to be secured, then he also could just reverse course
and you know, go back to how things were during the Trump administration that
he campaigned he was going to destroy, that he worked through courts to destroy
that he'd worked through executive action to destroy the thing that Congress has. So,
like the bill says will give the president authorities to tackle the border.
I'm sorry people not smart enough to figure this out. If you got a
president like Joe Biden who campaigned on a pledge to open the border and then
worked to open the border, giving him more authorities to close the border is
not actually going to fix the border. And like Republicans who are such idiots,
and I'm sorry for being so negative about them all the time, but
like year after year after year, when they pretend to care about the border,
they will they will work on these massive bills that give Democrats everything they
want to open the border. And they say and then someday down the road,
we're going to do something to fix the border. And that day down
the road never happens, and they do it over and over and over again,
and they seem kind of surprised that finally, at long last, many
Republican voters are like, hey, we're on to you on this and we're
not playing this game again. Yeah. I mean, people should remember,
first of all, the bill was probably terrible. I don't think we actually
saw the text of it. But Biden doesn't need any bill to do a
far better job, at least of enforcing the border. And the first thing
he did was overturn remain in Mexico policy, which would have kept immigrants on
the other side of the board or refugees on the other side of the border
while they were you know, their cases were adjudicated. It was a deal
with like Guatemala and El Salvador and Honduras. I think the Trump made that
Biden left that had them holding immigrants refue's there and so on. There was
a ton kind of stuff. But even besides that, I saw Biden saying,
listen, I've done all I can. I can't do anymore. You
know, this is as far as my power goes. The same guy who
will ignore the Supreme Court over and over again on like forgiveness, but yeah,
exactly all of a sudden cares about the limits of his constitutional power.
First of all, he has the power to do more. You'll remember when
Trump, which I didn't love this actually, but Trump diverted money that was
meant for like the military or whatever, for border wall stuff, and everyone
was like, this is the coming of the next coming of Hitler right away,
even though this court's appealed his move and that he could do it.
You Abiden ignores the Supreme Court all the time, and no one seems to
care very much. So well, if you're a regular listener to this program,
you know, I talk a lot about the gaps I feel like are
in my knowledge from my public school education to my secular college education. Things
like his economics, the great works of literature, even the meaning of the
US Constitution. Did you study these things in school? In many cases you
may not have, or if you're like me, a you might need a
refresher and b you just might not think your education was that good to begin
with. Time and technology have changed a lot of things, but they have
not changed basic fundamental truths about the world and our place in it, no
matter how badly today's teachers might want to act like it's otherwise. That's why
I'm so excited that our friends at Hillsdale College are offering more than forty free
online courses in the most important and enduring subjects. You can learn about the
works of C. S. Lewis, the stories in the Book of Genesis,
the meaning of the US Constitution, the rise and the fall of the
Roman Republic, or the history of the ancient Christian Church with Hillsdale Colleges online
courses all available for free. You heard me right, They are free,
and I have recommended so many of these to my own family, my own
friends. They are truly excellent. Hillsdale College is an authority I look to
for wisdom all of the time, especially on these subjects that again I feel
like our gaps in my knowledge. I personally recommend you sign up for C.
S. Lewis on Christianity. That is a seven lecture course where you'll
examine some of Lewis's classic works. Those include Mere Christianity, my personal favorite,
The Screwtape Letters, and another excellent one, The Abolition of Man to
see what Lewis had to say about scripture, prayer, suffering, joy,
Heaven and Hell. The course is also self paced, so that you can
start whenever and wherever and role now in C. S. Lewis on Christianity.
To discover Lewis's core lessons regarding the truth and the goodness of the Christian
faith and how you can apply those lessons to your own life, go right
now to Hillsdale dot edu slash Federalist to enroll. There is no cost and
it's easy to get started. That's Hillsdale dot edu slash Federalist to register Hillsdale
slash Baturalist. Can we also just take a step back and remember that the
whole way this border bill got going was because of Mitch McConnell's desire to continue
funding the war in Ukraine, you know, in perpetuity. The whole the
military industrial complex doesn't make money if there isn't conflict to feed the money.
So rather than Mitch McConnell working for a negotiated end to that war. He's
sort of like working to continue it. And he thought that the great idea
would be to pretend to care about the border, and in exchange for that
he would get like a huge refill on these un un like these coffers of
money that nobody knows what's happening, Like what was the headline just yesterday about
another fifty million that went missing from our aid to Ukraine, And he had,
you know, he got what's Langford's first name, the Senate from Oklahoma,
totally forgetting it, the jay and he got Langford to go along with
it. Langford not the brightest bulb in the sanctorial u earlier. Jim Langford
just like kind of a it's it's sad because he replaced Tom Coburn, who
was this like super based senator from Oklahoma, which is itself a super based
state. And Jim Langford is very weak and is easily bullied, and that
explains how Mitch McConnell got him to go along with like, you're going to
be the public face of this so that people conservatives will think this is a
good bill. And it was never really about the border at all. It
was all about how to how to spend money to help Biden's border crisis,
and by help I mean amplify it while then giving a pass so that they
can do what they really want, which is Ukraine funding. But I don't
know how it's going to go. Like, obviously it'll pass the Senate,
and then Mike Johnson will have to pick it up for Congress, and he
has a majority of what like two and a half people, and so will
he Will he even take it up or will he fight it? He doesn't
seem to be the strongest guy either. What do you think is going to
happen? No clue? With a two what is it? A two seat?
Two seat majority? It's four? I think? I do wonder.
I mean, obviously some of them are going to be moderates, but aren't
there some Democrats that may not want this kind of deal either? So I
don't really know how that plays out anymore. Honestly, it used to be
easier to get a sense of this because there are actually more bills and more
real compromises and stuff, so you would get a sense. But nothing really
happens anymore, So it's difficult to know for me. I know that you
like it when nothing happens. By the way, I like it when nothing
happens, or I wo should say this. I think nothing is better usually
than something. Yeah, that's I would say. I'm not a huge fan
of nothing, but it's almost always better than whatever. These idiots who are
on the hill put together when they're like when they get their minds together.
So did you see Mike Rounds is that's name in North South Dakota who said
that the Russians on social media had sunk this and helps sing this bill with
Republicans listen. I think the Russian thing is so ridiculous, but I'd like
to contain it to the Democratics. Like, if you're a Republican talking about
Russian bots, you are really you should not be a politician anymore, David.
The Republicans in the Senate were basically half of the Russia. I mean,
they were at least as responsible for the Russia collusion early on. Democrats,
for sure they are. And also I just want to say they're bad
on so many things. I've spoken with some free speech senators who say that
in private, people will be like, we've just got to tackle this disinformation
problem, and the free speech senators will be like, do you mean free
speech? Like you want to tackle free speech? Like do you hear what
you're saying? You don't want people debating proper courses of action because you agree
with them, And they're like, no, the Russians are really behind this.
So worth a reminder, And Matt Tayebe and his crew have done great
work on this, as have we of how much that Russia collusion lie.
The lie that Donald Trump stole the election by colluding with Russia in twenty sixteen
still bears fruit even among the low IQ Republicans who comprised the US Senate,
Like a bunch of people came out and said, we can't tell you,
we can't prove this in any way, but you're just gonna have to believe
us that Russians are the reason why Americans say they care about the border.
And a bunch of people, you know, a bunch of Washington Posts and
New York Times would amplify this and say, gosh, that sounds right.
There's no way that Americans really care about the border. They're being manipulated by
Russians. And to this day, years after all of that was revealed as
not even like a hoax, but like like a really poorly done hoax by
these Democrat propaganda groups Republicans like apparently Mike Rounds regurgitating it like a good little
puppy. You know. I'm in the middle of writing a book and I'm
covering that in my book, and it just going through the hysteria, Like
do you remember what was it? Was it Cambridge and analytics or whatever,
like just the hysteria over some bots and Facebook ads and stuff like this.
I mean, it was just insane. Quickly, want to say, one
thing on the wall so or the border. Hungary is a small country in
Europe. During the mass migration of people from the Middle East into Western Europe,
Hungary was along the way. Hungary put up a wall and they immediately
stopped a small country with not a lot of money. I know it as
a shorter border, but it could stop virtually dead any kind of in,
you know, a refugee problem in its own country. The idea that the
United States, with all its wealth and tech knowlogy and everything that we have,
couldn't if they wanted to stop this on the border is ridiculous. I
used to not care about this issue very much because the numbers weren't that high.
But now this is a this is a crisis, it's a cultural crisis,
it's a law law, law and order crisis, and something needs to
be done, and obviously no one wants to do anything. I don't really
I'm so against even if I was four, and I'm not as against giving
Ukrainian aid, you know whatever. I just I don't want to get into
that. This bill should not be this should not be connected in any way.
It doesn't make any sense that this is this is connected. It's just
almost like a self defeating uh you know. One. You know, I'm
not a fan of the neocons, but I think there's there would be an
argument for it. You know, they want to defend and protect Ukraine's borders,
and they know that Americans would like to defend and protect our borders before
we do that. And so if I were them, I could see the
logic of being like, how about we give these people what they want to
we can go protect the country that we want to protect. Like it's not
insane, you know, you were just saying there used to be all this
legislation when people were working together, and I understand. I think most people
understand that you have to do compromises and stuff. Yeah, but things done.
Maybe I remember it, maybe I'm misremembering, but it used to be,
Hey, listen, let's work on this bill, and then we're going
to help you on this bill. I think that's actually what's happening here,
isn't it? Or no, well, aren't the two bills connected? Like
aren't they one? Okay? All right? I think the general idea was
we take care of you here, you take care of us, and they
forgot that. They forgot that saying you're taking care of things is not the
same thing as actually taking care of things. I mean, even as they're
even Biden's out there saying we can't you know, I need this bill to
do anything. He's he's he's going to the Supreme Court to stop Texas from
from from closing the border. I see the media trying to flip this on
its head and saying Republicans are stopping you know whatever they're dumb headline are.
But I just don't. I think Americans and just innately know that one side
wants an open border and the other doesn't. It's not just that Democrats have
you know, say what you want about them. They have been very clear
that they want open borders, so saying, you know, we want open
borders, we want open borders, we want open borders. Oh, the
Republicans are keeping us from closing the border. It just goes against everything they've
been saying four years. You have Democrat congressmens saying we need these illegal immigrants
to beef up my numbers so I don't get redistrict so that the seat doesn't
get lost through redistricting. Like you have people openly saying we need low wages
that come from having an open border, and anyone who in any way tries
to close the border is the worst monster in the history of the world.
Like, the messaging doesn't work because it's been hysterical opposition to any border of
any kind for like what ten to forty years. Yeah, I mean,
I just I don't want to get into an argument over wages and stuff like
that, but whatever the I just think Americans do not like lawlessness, and
they don't like what's going on down there, you know what I mean.
I know, did you see all those polls after the Iowa and New Hampshire
caucus in primary where they were saying that the number one issue for these people
was the border for the Republican voters, and I think it actually is what
you just said. It's yes, the very real issue that having an open
border and having an embrace of breaking of laws and all of that is bad
than like the effects in different states has been very difficult for people to handle.
But I also think it's just the chaos of an open border that makes
people feel extremely vulnerable and threatened as well. You remember when Desantas sent those
refugees up to what was it Cape cod Or, they had a meltdown because
they had a few immigrants there. I think sending a lot of these people
essentially are legal immigrants up to these major cities has been a hugely effective way
to let the rest of the country feel what this problem is about. I
think we underestimate how much of that has might move this debate towards Republicans in
a general election. Maybe we don't underestimate it. Maybe I underestimated it initially.
So that brings us to the Republicans moving forward with the impeachment of Homeland
Security. What is it Secretarytary majorcas what's his first name? I don't know.
It's funny, Andrew. I think what's first name? Andrew. That
doesn't Alejandro alex A, Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, you're I'm
getting I'm getting older. Cut me some slack every time I can to make
fun of me for not remembering names. I'm like, oh, just you
wait, just you wait. I've always been terrible with names. I fear
for what's going to happen in the coming years with me. So see a
lot of pieces in the Wall Street Journal and elsewhere saying that it's kind of
useless to impeach him, So Republicans move forward with impeachment on like Friday night
or something. I don't understand what Republicans are doing, like dumping news on
Friday nights and over the weekend. Have you noticed this lately? I think
that that's like against You do that with things you don't want people. Do
you think if they do? You think that if they did it at a
different time of day or a different day of the week, the corporate media
would do a good job of covering what they're doing. I think I think
they would do an excellent, in depth job about all his failures. Listen,
I honestly don't think it's going to make much of a difference they let's
say, step down tomorrow. They just put some other terrible person in there.
You know, I just don't know that like it's going to make much
of a difference. But I think it does make a statement that there's something
going on year and forces corporate media to at least talk about you, talk
about him in some way. What do you think? So? I personally
think that Mayorkas should have been impeached on day one of the when the Republicans
took office or took over the House a year ago, that by doing that
they could have done that. It was an impeachment that everybody agrees with.
I mean everyone who cares about laws and borders agrees with. It presses the
issue of what it means to lose control of our border and all of the
national security problems. It might have even led to the Biden administration pretending to
care about the border last year, as opposed to waiting until a few months
before the elector this year, which is the election year, and they would
have gotten like a dry run. So they could have done my orcuss in
January, they could impeach Merrick Garland in May, and then they could be
ready to impeach Joe Biden now, So kind of impeachments take practice and effort
to do them properly and learn from your mistakes and everything. So while I
wish my Orcis would have been impeached on day one of the Republicans taking over,
I have no problem with it happening now. And also it's like better
late than ever. I have like an almost on the spectrum kind of like
feeling about whether or not he should be impeached. And what I mean by
that is, whereas normally I can think through political concerns, I just think,
objectively speaking, someone who has done so much, so many bad things
to destroy our border should be held accountable. So I'm just for it.
But that does relate to the thing I just said, which is you can't
really single handedly destroy the border. It is clear that the Department of Justice
has been coming up with the legal justifications or destroying our southern border, and
Merrick Garland has, oh, I don't know, like forty other things he's
done to harm the country. So you wouldn't just want to go after my
Orcus, you'd want to also go after Garland. And ultimately it is Joe
who is authorizing all of this, and so he shouldn't be able to escape
from this either. But yeah, I'm all for it. I think anyone
who cares about their country would be for it. And I noticed on that
note that Ken Buck who is campaigning to be a CNN contributor, which is
like the saddest thing I can say. And I say that as an actual
TV contributor, Like, I love my job, but I'm sorry, but
if you're selling out what you believe in order to do that work, that
is disgraceful. And he is a disgraceful politician, and he's just just you
know, it's just awful and represents my parents. So that makes me very
sad. But he was like, I don't know, I kind of like
what my orcis is doing. I think it's great to have an open border.
CNN, will you hire me? So, I mean, that wasn't
exactly what he said, but that was the subtext of what he said.
The watch dout Real Wall Street Podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps
unpack the connection between politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
Are we seeing the downfall of Marxism? You can believe black Rock and put
your money into DEI and ESG but the free market will eventually win out every
time as they gain power to implement societal change. You're starting to see it
fail. Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting
you financially. Be informed. Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. He's
awful. He's always been awful. I covered him in Colorado when I lived
there. He's always a lightweight my opinion. But anyway, let's tuck a
little bit about the three that three American soldiers who were murdered by Iranian proxies
in Jordan. I believe it was, yeah, Jordan on the border of
Syria. Now I get the argument that America that a lot of people especially
now don't believe American troops should be in Jordan at all, And maybe I
agree, right, but I think the ones you have Iran killing Americans that
deserves a response. I'm not saying go invade Iran. I'm not saying,
you know, build a new nation there or topple the regime. I'm just
saying that I think they deserve to pay a price. And what drives me
crazy. And all week this has been going on is Biden and Biden administration
officials are out there constantly talking about what they're going to do and how they're
going to respond, which is clearly just some kind of like part is in
effort to make him look like the commander in chief, and in the end
they're probably not even going to do anything that matters. You know, Oh,
I don't know. I think like people like him want nothing more than
to get involved in a sprawling, lengthy Middle East war, and this is
a good way to get into one. I disagree not with Miyan. They
love Iran in there and that administration, but that wasn't I wasn't saying with
Iran, right, So they'll probably come up with some convoluted way to respond.
My problem with going out and saying we're going to respond, We're going
to respond. It's like, just shut up and do it. Yeah,
exactly, shut up, do it, and then maybe don't even say anything
afterward either, like you don't talk about it, you just what is it?
Walk softly and carry a big stick. Did we know the solemny thing
was going to happen? No, it happened, and it was amazing Okay,
but that's a good example here. I think there are a couple good
examples from the Trump administration if we can just take a step back again and
think through what was happening in foreign policy in the Trump administration. I do
remember in twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen, one of the talking points from the
media and other Democrats was that if Trump were elected, a nuclear war would
break out, right, like, we are really possibly going to have a
nuclear war because a madman will take over our foreign policy. And instead we
had the first time in however long that a republic that a president hadn't started
a new war. In fact, worked to get us out of wars and
worked to and it was like really complicated stuff that they were doing in terms
of their foreign policy, but worked to have peace increase, most notably in
the Middle East, which was, as we all know, is a difficult
task. And so you had this four years of you know, occasionally fraught
moments with North Korea threatening war and other people threatening war and US having a
very decisive and strong response without it resulting in long drawn out wars. And
so when it comes to Iran, there was the situation where they had shot
down one of our drones. Do you remember that? And all of the
military industrial complex was like, it's on, we need to go to war.
Tom Cotton was like bomb Iran, you know. Lindsay Graham was like
bomb Iran. And Trump almost did it, and he I think I put
this in my book, but I can't remember, but I definitely, you
know, was talking to him about it, and he said that the response
plans that were drawn up were the kind of thing that could provoke a greater
conflict. So no question that you have every right to respond, but you
also have the authority and responsibility to think about how you're going to respond and
how to do it in a way that serves your country's interests as well.
And I think the Solemani situation is a good example of this. You had
this leader of the bad guys killing all sorts of troops for many, many
years with his roadside bombs, and then we just took him out and it
was a devastating blow to Iran. They were very upset about it, but
it wasn't the kind of like, don't make a lot of money off of
it if you're the defense contractors. Just a single strike on a very bad
guy and then you leave. But it was really effective for our national security.
I would love and I pray that there are some sane people in the
Biden administration who are thinking through how to respond decisively without doing it in such
a way that it actually leads to less national security for us because we get
embroiled in some kind of escalatory conflict. Yeah, I don't think Iran has
any I think they were. Well, let's take a step back and just
say that you mentioned Trump's policy and what I think he was excellent that he
did, and actually I was very skeptical of this. I think you were
a bit as well when we met with people on this, but that he
just bypassed the Palestinian situation completely, which meant bypassing Iran's influence and made peace
or helped make peaces obviously being ongoing for a while. But he's trying to
say in their defense, they actually went to the Palestinians first. They just
had a backup plan for if and when the Palestinians said no, go Shu,
they always say no go so I know. But my point is being
they actually did the right thing of saying like, hey, this is kind
of about you, so do you want in and I said no, and
they were like, Okay, well we're not going to be held hostage by
your no. We're going to keep going. But they did the right thing
by going to them first. In my view, for a piece, I
don't, yeah, but I think that making peace between the Sunny world and
Israel, which has basically happened. They just went around Palestinians, and Israel
was basically a piece with all these skull states, basically a piece with Saudi
Arabi even though they have no real deal in place. But what did right
away Biden emboldened Iran, helped fund Iran, made the Palestinians the center of
all discussion again. And look at what happened. I saw a piece the
other day in Bloomberg that showed right when Biden came in, they allowed Iran
essentially to start selling the oil everywhere, including China. They were just flush
with cash. Emboldened. They attack Americans like hundreds of times. People don't
realize this is not just you know now. They do it over and over
again, and I think a really big, devastating blow would put them back
in their place. I think they understand power. They don't understand or care
about the rest of this nonsense. They don't really want to deal. They
think their regional power, they want nuclear weapons. It's an incredibly dangerous situation.
I don't have all the answers. It's foreign policy. Also, we
have a responsibility, a historic responsibility, and keeping shipping lanes open. That's
just is what it is. And the Red Sea over there, it's just
a hugely important place in the world, and the United States has some kind
of responsibility I think to ensure that the shipping lanes are open. No one
else is going to do it. That's the truth. You know, Britain
can't really do it. We have to do it. You may disagree with
that. I don't know. Actually, it was funny. I was talking
to one of my kids who was preparing for a debate this weekend. The
debate question is resolved that the number of troops in the Middle East, which
they referred to as Western Asia, should be substantially reduced, and so we
were working on both the affirmative and the negative arguments. And one of the
things I was talking to my kid about was how you know, literally,
since like eighteen oh four, the US military has been used to secure shipping
routes. You know, the Barbary pirates had to be dealt with off the
coast of Libya. Marines get their start. When was that? Sorry did
name? Yeah? I don't know when. Eighteen twenty. I don't know
when exactly that was right? Sorry, yeah, yeah, oh yeah.
My point just being even someone who really doesn't like the neo con interventionist like
flailing, never ending war policy is a big fan of securing shipping routes,
and I was like talking to her about how she can use it in both
in the affirmative and negative case. How to defend shipping routes is another issue.
The troops that are on the border of Jordan and Syria are not being
are not there to secure shipping routes. That's more about our involvement in the
Syrian civil war. And one of the arguments made by people who don't like
a heavy like press, you know all these troops scattered throughout the Middle East,
is that they're basically sitting ducks there and that they can be targets of
strikes. And so the idea there is more like if you're gonna go go
big, but don't do this like small smattering of troops spread all throughout,
particularly at times like right now where we are spread so thin everywhere. Not
does that make sense? Like you kind of either want to go big or
go small here This in between stuff is not working for us, or it
results in the kind of strike that can lead us into a and into a
nuclear war with Iran, and smart people should be thinking about how to avoid
that. There will be a There will be a war if Iran gets a
nuclear weapon or is that the cost real cusp of it because Israel cannot allow
that. I mean, I think that's just for them. Okay, So
again, David, we had And by the way, I'm not as anti
the Iran deal as almost everyone else on the right is, Like I saw
the logic in it. I'm not saying I agreed with it, but I'm
just not as anti. But the logic of the Trump administration, which of
course was very anti aron deal really made sense. Pivoting away from Iran as
the central power that controls the region, pivoting towards Saudi Arabia, also not
a great country, but one that would work with us to secure peace in
the region. When we did that, we had if there were any escalatory
actions, it was like an escalation toward peace, and now we have like
NonStop escalation toward conflict. And it's the entire posture of the Biden administration.
It's not just this situation, it's like everything they have done since day one
that has led us to this really bad situation here. Bad. They're not
solely responsible for the bad situation with Russia invading Ukraine, but that policy that
they support that went back decades is respond is a key responsibility for that mess
there. And I just don't trust them to do the right thing at all.
I view them as people who are so weak that they just are constantly
like supporting all sides. You know, take the situation with the Huties and
how Biden removed them from the terror list. He stopped working with the Saudis
in their proxy war against the or you know, working with them as against
the Hutis and the rebels that are destabilizing Yemen. So he's like on that
side of things, but then when they bomb all the shipping routes, then
he's directly involved in bombing them, do you know what I'm saying? Like
it's like he supports the Palestinians and the Israelis we're funding both sides. It's
he he's helping out Iran while also being at being in great conflict with Iran.
Like it's just a muddled mess and there's no clarity and there's no strength
in it. Yeah, I have a lot to say there. I agree
with what you're saying. In general, I don't know what the right policy
is, go big, go small, not be there at all. But
I do know that if someone kills an American soldier, we should say,
like now, there's going to be a heavy price to pay for that.
Like, I don't care what you if you believe we should be there or
not. Once we're there, you don't hurt Americans. They're not doing anything
to Iran really, right. So that's just my view of it, And
I will say I'm happy you mentioned Israel. Yeah, oh sorry, Well,
actually, let me really quickly do a little tit bit there. To
me, it's this might sound insane, but it's like a bar fight.
You know, sometimes your friend gets in a bar fight and you have to
like just help out the friend and then find out later what went on.
I totally agree that, even if you don't think it's the wisest policy to
have Americans scattered throughout this region. If you so much as touch a hair
on the head of one of our soldiers, you will regret that for the
rest of your very short remaining days. We keep acting like we're some middling
power or something. We are in superpower, not even a superpower. We're
the only real superpower still in my view. Obviously there are other nuclear powers.
Iran is not a nuclear power. Yet you don't go around shooting at
American soldiers and killing them. You've killed hundreds during the Obama administration. I'm
happy you mentioned just so. Yes, Biden also started funding the Palestinians immediately.
All most of that goes to Hamas, you know he I'm not saying
Biden's at fall for what Hamas does, but I'm very skeptical this would have
happened under during the Trump administration. You know, maybe it would have,
maybe it wouldn't have, But I just want quickly wanted to mention a story
we didn't talk about, is that the literal un employees killed Jews and we're
with Hamas, and then Israel sent a intel eigence dossier, a real one
to the administration that shows like fifty percent of people working for the UN and
Gaza are are basically tied to Hamas. I mean, and Trump had Trump
had gotten us out of that deal the UN wra he had stopped funding it
through having taxpayers funded. And one of the first things Biden did was funded
again, like everything polished on his National Security Council, a former top official
of the group, who of course would have known that they were involved in
all of this. Everyone knew. Yeah, every good morning for decade.
I was reading an AI report on that situation from twenty thirteen. Now I
get their neo CON's over there, but they had all this evidence that everyone
knew that Hamas had strong ties to the UN there. But I'm just this
just goes to show you that almost every move they made and listen, because
they're pro Iran. This is why Rob Malley, who brought Iranian I would
call them spies. I don't know what else to call them, pro Iranian
people who I promised to help Iran into the administration. One of those people
still works at the Pentagon. I media doesn't even talk about it. I
mean, it would be crazy. Imagine just imagine if someone had written a
letter to putin say I'm going to do everything I can help you and then
was in the Pentagon. Wouldn't it be a pretty big news story, you
think? So it seems like more and more collusion than anything that happened under
Trump, which is a low bar since there was no collusion. But yes,
yeah, so anyway, like you know, I actually think Trump should
have hit back harder when they shut down the drone, But I understand his
reasoning. He did kill Solomani, which was great. And if you can
make how can you say, if you can make the leadership of a country
pay rather than just it's civilians and so on, that's that's the best way
to go about it. So yeah, And I would to clarify from the
early you know, when I was saying I wish they would talk about it
less. I would be okay with saying something like you won't know where and
you won't know when. But I wouldn't sleep super comfortably if I were you,
because we're coming. That to me is an okay statement to make rather
than these like you know, for the last several months, my message to
the Iranians who are thinking about doing bad stuff is don't. If he said
don't once he said don't like sixty Times, John Kirby, who is always
like having to clean up cream, John Pierre's messes with my messages, don't
you just Anthony Blinkett, my messages don't Well, they did, they did,
so maybe less of this like the I think they think they're being tough
when they talk this way, or they thought they were being tough yesterday when
they were like, we're going to come after you. It's not really tough.
It's just seems very like all talk and no action. So they need
to work on their their game. They could have prevented who knows, they
may overreact now knows because they don't know what they're doing. But they should
have reemptively stopped this stuff by sending a message earlier. But what did they
do. They just reward Iran. They think they don't understand the Middle East.
They think if you help these people, they're going to view you as
a friend. No, they're going to view you as weak. And that's
what Iran now views the United States as weak. So and there are devastating
consequences with that potentially. So I don't know. I think Trump's you know,
Trump's foreign policy was pretty good. I mean, everyone there are there
is this like contingent on the on the on the right that now you know
is against like doing anything, you know, bombing anyone for any reason,
and that is just stupid. We still are a world power, we still
have to protect our interests deside what we're going to do. If I can
just make a comment on that, I think there are a lot of people
who, well, who are you, are exactly like you say, They
are just almost anti military use of military. They frequently call themselves restrainers or
they believe in restraint, and I understand the need to restrain from interventionism,
but I hate that term and that approach because I think a much better approach
is like focusing on your national interest and using whatever resources you have to make
sure that your national interest is taken care of. And sometimes that's military action,
and you want to have an extremely strong national defense to assert that your
interests are protected globally. And that's not a restraint view. And sometimes people
who have a national interest focus get lumped with those other people because they're arguing
against a particular neo con interventionism. But it's very, very different, and
I personally would argue that the vast majority of Americans are people who believe in
the use of military in a really thoughtful way, by which I mean not
in the way that a lot of the people in Congress or in the defense
industry want to use them. But they also believe in the use of the
military to assert your interests. I think that's like the middle ground, very
dominant position of Americans, probably even in both parties, where you're like,
we need to think about what's in our interest and defend our interests, and
sometimes that's going to be the military, but not in the way that we've
been fighting wars for the last few decades. I agree. I think that
most Americans are not ideological about foreign policy, meaning they don't have some they're
set ways. Sometimes they think forces needed, sometimes they don't. Just depends
on the situation. And I'm like that, So maybe that's why I think
everyone's like that. But I mean I take each you know, people are
like, well, you thought you said this about this situation, but you
say something about Ukraine. Yeah, because Ukraine is a different place than Israel
and Palestine and Iran, and these are different situations with different out potential outcomes
and so on. Also, if I can say this is why I hate
those terms hawk and dove. So hawk is someone who wants to use the
military, and dove is someone who wants only p and I just think both
of those positions are kind of childish and not wise, and we should we
should be wise predators, you know, one way. I don't know if
that sounds too like bloodthirsty or war hungry, but we should be wise in
when we are going out there. Which so none of those like the the
extreme positions put out. But I don't like it when you call someone a
hawk who believes in oh, I don't know, like decades long occupation of
an area, no desire to actually win a war and secure victory and get
out like that doesn't seem like a wise predator. So I don't like the
use of the term to describe people who are just for these like sprawling ways
of giving money to international non governmental organizations and feeding defense contractors. Like there's
nothing wise about that, So stop using a wise animal to describe it.
Let's do culture. Do you want me to start? Do you want to
start? I want you to start. David did a lot of stuff this
week, so let me start with this. I went to Norfolk, Virginia,
and the Chrysler Museum, which is actually a really nice museum. They
had a Paul McCartney's photographs from nineteen sixty for when they came to visit America.
So he was like a photography, you like photography, and they have
all his like photographs from when they first came to United States. So they
came to New York, famous lyche Stadium played the actually took street scenes,
you know, pictures of New York. I love looking at old pictures of
New York, you know, I'm a big fan of that. And then
they went to d C as well, which I didn't know that I knew
or not, And so there's pictures of DC. And it is funny how
much that that's it. He has been built up over since that time,
you know what I mean? So that I mean it was an actual small
until very recently, I would say, right, yeah, so that was
pretty interesting. It's it's not a huge now, but it's pretty nice.
Curious you say he took pictures. Of course, he was famously married to
Linda Eastman of the Eastman Kodak you know, right, folks, So like
that was later, I believe, right, I'm just wondering if that related
to how they met or anything. I don't know. I'm gonna be honest.
I'm not a huge I'm not a I shouldn't say I'm not a huge
Beatles fan. I'm not a Beatles fan really at all. So I like
the White Album, or used to. I never would listen to the Beatles
today, so I don't know much. I'd never read any books on them
or anything. I do very much like the Beatles, but I always felt
very strongly that the Beach Boys were sort of a hidden there was a hidden
brilliance in the Beach Boys where I think a lot of people were always like,
oh, Beatles, Beatles, Beatles. And I'm just mentioning that because
Mike Wilson's are wait what is his name? The beach Boy guy's wife died
yesterday. Wow, yeah, Will Simmons his first name. I don't know.
Yeah. I mean I would prefer to listen to pet Sounds over anything
the Beatles did, obviously. I always thought the Stones were better, and
I actually think Brian Wilson Brian, sorry, Mike, and I'm a big
fan of the Kinks, so I thought those bands are all better than the
Beatles. I'm also just fascinating how good the Beatles are together, and then
how they weren't so amazing apart, and how much they made in such a
short period of time. They were prolific when you really think about how short
that, yeah, their their existence was. I would say that Paul McCartney
just I don't like this kind of music, but just from a pop music
perspective, was much more talented songwriter than John Lennon if you look at their
solo careers, right, yes, yeah, and yet John had something ren
Saqua about like that madded the magic to it, like they really it's really
cool how great they were. And I was watching this thing of a middle
school teacher who was confused because her students wanted to hear John Denver's Country Roads,
and she's like, this makes no sense why they're so into this music.
And I think that with the Baby Boomers, you had them like so
into the Beatles, so into the Beach Boys, and then they would have
sort of say, nothing matched that in the seventies or eighties. But when
you think about the current musical situation, which I listened to a lot of
current music, and some of it is just amazingly, like mind blowingly good,
but that big pop music stuff is frequently auto tuned, It is produced
within an inch of its life, and you lose the like human connection that
just makes you want to like cry and like you feel it so deep in
you with a lot of this overproduced stuff, and so to go back,
you know, And I know a big story of big part of the is
about some of what they were doing production wise that I had never been done
before. But there's like a way you can go too far, I think,
and that young young kids are kind of hungry for more of the connection
that you could get with live music played by talented artists as opposed to producers.
I was just thinking about this actually, because the reason I liked the
music I liked when I was growing up was because I thought that pop music
was way overproduced and it sounded fake, and I like the kind of like
rawness of you know, and I guess humanity of normal music. But it's
interesting, I think because of the streaming. Like I think we've mentioned this
before, but if I wanted to experiment with music when I was a kid
in the eighties, I had to like literally come up with some money and
take a chance on something. It wasn't that easy. I can go on
YouTube and listen to it. But today kids can like go in any direction.
They want listen to anything they want, and that's I think open them
up to a lot of music because you see a lot of these bands that
not a lot of folks liked when when I was young, But now they
go on like reunion tours and like kids are in the audience and you know
what I mean, So they've like rediscovered all this music. I think that
that a lot of people because whatever was on the radio or MTV is what
we had, right, so you either listen to that or you have to
go like right, you'd be like, oh, I like it. I
like three bands from this label, so probably this band is also on that
label will be good, bigger. That's exactly what I did. I Yeah,
I have to trust label, like these indie labels that they were going
to sign bands that I liked, and sometimes they were terrible, right,
and then you just spent twelve bucks, which was a lot a lot of
money for you then you know, or whatever it was. You know.
So so I think streamings opened it up for a lot of people. And
that's interesting that they you know that they're rediscovering stuff that's like that. You
know that I love seventies music. It sounds much more intimate, you know,
than like you see these like you mentioned this new music, you'll see
like there's eighteen songwriters and like fifteen producers, and you're like, this is
ridiculous. So yeah, I guess I don't know where I'm going with that.
But anyway, it was interesting to see those photographs. I didn't think
they were great. I gotta be honest. I like the street scenes a
lot better than like the photos of Ringo or whatever. Maybe because I've seen
so many Beatles photos over the you know, and such a like, it's
just oversaturated with that stuff. So I went to a museum too, actually
nice two museums. They weren't well. The first one was not so nice.
It was the Hershorn, which is so dependent on what is touring at
that moment, and it only has like three exhibits at any time, and
one of the floors was about to change out, so it was more like
two. You know, if you are into gender theory, you would love
the Hershorn right now, and if you're not into it, it's just kind
of boring. And I was there with my kids, and I was talking
to them about how sometimes like the greatest art happens with constraints, and we
were discussing how maybe one of the problems with art right now is the lack
of constraints leads to a boring you know, it kind of makes everything boring
and then also just flattens everything. And so one of the things they had
was some kind of like video exhibit of exploring how gender isn't real or what
like boring, Oh my lord. And I was talking them about how,
like, for me, being a female, if you understand that you're either
male or female, and that being male or female doesn't actually define what type
of person you are, Like there are certain things that it defines, but
then there's a lot that it doesn't. That's actually much more liberating than when
you have to say, like, I'm gender non binary, queer conforming,
like left days are male right days or female Like it makes you just it
makes you a much less interesting person. The most transgressive thing an artist can
do is draw a picture that everyone recognizes of a man and a woman,
right, That would be like the most rebellious thing they can do. And
I'm a big fan of like abstract expressionism and stuff like that because I like
it whatever. I just think it's cool to look at. But are today
is always trying to like lecturing me whenever I go to some modern exhibit,
and it's so annoying, don't you think? Yes? But also like,
oh, oh, you want to challenge our understanding of what it means to
be a woman by making a banana with seeds. Oh, I've never been
so provoked in my life. But then we also went to the Freer Gallery
in DC. Have you been there? I don't know. I have to
say one thing. I can't believe I'm saying these words. That's great about
DCS that you can just visit museums for free. I don't know if this
one is, but just all all these great museums, I'm obsessed with pointing
out that it's not free, that you have already paid for it with your
test sellars, and so there's not an additional charge when you go. I
hate that you're the one who maade that point. Okay, but yes,
having said that, the Freer is one of my favorite museums on the on
the mall, and it is it has a focus on Asian art, it
feels i've been there, like going to a museum from one hundred years ago
where actually educated people put together the collection and thought about the right amount of
words to explain it. And it has, you know, all sorts of
different kinds of Asian art. And then it's sort of mostly well known for
the Peacock Room, the Whistler Peacock Room where they recreated the dining room with
the peacock wallpaper and the art and the artifacts. It was. So I'm
not super in like in my personal life, I don't have a lot of
Asian art other than this big camphor wood chest that my husband got from his
grandfather who had like you know, picked it up in Laos or something.
I don't know which is beautiful, but it's very It was very inspirational for
us, and it made us think about different things we could do with our
home decor and and other art that we're working on as a family. And
I just loved it. That's great. Yeah, I think I've been there.
I'm a big fan of going to museums. It is inspirational and even
if you're just laughing at the nonsensical modern art installations speaking of low so that's
high or middle brow culture. I'd say let's go low brown. Now.
I saw this comedian on Netflix. I watched a special Dusty Sleigh. Have
you ever seen this guy? I tried watching that because the thing on Netflix
said that it was family friendly. So I was watching it with some underage
people who live in my house, and it was all and he's clearly a
recovering addict. That the jokes were all about drug use and alcohol use,
and I'm like, why did they call this family friendly? I mean,
there's nothing family friendly about drug I guess. I guess because he doesn't curse,
and it's not about sex, right, yes, And I mean we
talk about drugs and alcohol because we're hemingways, so we have to because of
the family situation. So it's not like I'm averse to talking about it.
But I also felt like it was normalizing abuse of drugs and alcohol. But
I think it so colored my opinion that I'm not able to think clearly.
Did you like it? It was okay? You know it was. I
think he, you know, was talking about Middle America a lot, you
know, so I kind of liked that. I'm sick of, like,
you know, comedians who just talk about in New York or whatever, So
I don't know. It was all right. So did you see the part
where he was talking about doing a Ted Talk on it was Great The bright
Side of Life when they were and he's explaining that he didn't prepare, but
the lady like right before him, super prepared. But she was talking about
what was she talking about, like going to the bathroom, hooping at a
wal Mart or something, I forget what it was. And then he opened
with that. But and so when they played it, there was no context,
so people just think that he was So we went and looked at the
Ted Talk. Yeah, and it is actually even funnier than he describes because
yeah, he just walks out and he's like, I'm pooped in a lot
of Walmarts and then he just moves on and mays no sense, but everyone
laughs because the person before was taped. Yeah, but they Yeah, so
that was one of the funnier things he talked about. He was okay,
he was. Also, we did we did like the Afghan thing where he's
growing up in a trailer. His grandma makes all these Afghans and he said
they're like blankets. They're like for when you're hot and cold because like the
breeze can come in, and he accidentally is viewing his grandmother changing and he
throws a blanket over his head, but he can still see everything, so
it looks like he's actually trying to see his grandmother. Sorry. And also
he was like, this forms you as a young man when you see your
grandmother naked, and he's like, and that's why I'm not a boobs man,
you know. But yeah, he talked about Yeah, I just like,
I don't know. Then there's a lot about drugs. There's a lot
about drugs, mostly about marijuana on right, So I don't know. I
was just panicking and I didn't pay attention. Yeah, no, I get
it, I get it. It seems like you did enjoy that though pretty
much this is the funniest thing I've ever seen. No, I really did.
And that's actually what bothered me though, was like I was kind of
getting into the first part and I'm watching them with kids, and then I
actually had to turn it off, so I don't I don't know. It
was okay. I watched two Oscar Best Picture Oscar nominees. One I finish
was Killers of the Flower Moon, which again beautifully made I think it's way
too long. I think the script falls apart in the second half. I
think that's a there's a huge script problem with that movie. I don't really
get it. Secondly, I watched The Holdovers Ooh, which it was fine.
It was it was okay, it was okay, it's fun to watch.
I just don't really And maybe maybe my expectations of a Best Picture nominee
are too high, or maybe there's no there are no movies that meet that
standard anymore. I don't know. Then I watched a movie called Call Call
the Wild with Harrison Ford. Have you have you seen this version of it?
Is it the Jack London Calls Jack London book? I went and went
and read with the Jack London book. I've never read Jack London books.
I have no interest in them. But I read the plot and it is
much more politically incorrect than this movie might lead you to believe, with the
killing of Indians and so on or eskimos or whatever. Then this is what
I really wanted to talk about. Was I watched a show called Love on
the Spectrum. Have you ever watched this? It's like a reality show.
I've heard about it from other people and I've never watched it and probably never
will, but go on. It's really sweet and it's nice to see people
with you know who struggle finding other people were like them and finding love and
so on. But you know, some of it's a struggle, it is.
At first, I thought it was going to be just exploiting these people,
but I think they actually handled really well. They're on you know,
various extents on the spectrum. Sometimes I'm a little uncomfortable with it because I'm
like, I kind of do what this person's doing, you know a little
bit, and I'm not comparing myself. These are real struggles, but I'm
like, I have trouble like knowing when to hug someone like this or that,
and I'm like, oh my god. But overall, I actually thought
it was a sweet show, and it kind of there's some down syndrome people
as well. And I always get angry when I see how sweet and loving
they are that people want to them get rid of kill them, and that
always makes me angry. And I think a show like this allows people to
see how human and great they are, you know. So I don't know.
So that's what I watched. Oh that other comedian that we talked about
recently. Who was the one that got fired from Saturday Night Live for not
being a left wing for Shane Gillis Shane gi Yeah, and I think he
has something in there about that's great. Is uncle who has down to and
he's just kind of joking about, like, why would you not want this?
This is like living your best life. He's like the happiest guy wherever
they are. I love the thing about him, sneaking sandwiches and everywhere,
and yeah, it just it does make me mad when I think about that.
But so I think a show like this, which just shows the struggles
that these people and their families go through and how they also you know,
yearned for the same sort of relationships and life that everyone else, you know,
they see around them has is is a positive thing, you know,
And so it's okay, I'm you know, whatever, that's it for me.
You have anything also you've did. I was traveling a lot in Georgia
and Florida last week and then I didn't have like a ton of time.
But I did see a movie with my h that he wrote about that was
unbelievable. It's called The Second Civil War and it was a made for HBO
film from I want to say, like the late nineties. I think it
was ninety eight or seven your market. And first off, it has Phil
Hartman, and I believe Phil Hartman is like the greatest person in the history
of the world, so I will watch anything he plays the president. And
it's a satire of a politics of exploitation where you use immigration to affect political
outcomes. It is a satire of the cable news complex that exploits situations for
ratings. And it's really well done and it was like watching a document like
a very funny documentary of what's going on right now, except that it also
leads to war where people are killed. So the premise is that Idaho,
which has already been flooded with one hundred or sorry with one million immigrants,
closes its borders as the President is sending a plane filled with child refugees from
a nuclear blast in Pakistan to the to the state, but they close all
their borders and it then the advisors to the president are like, you have
to be strong on this, so you have to like push back. And
also they're dealing with like if this immigrant group comes into this state, that
will help your electoral prospects there and you know all that kind of stuff,
and it just gets into the absurd where the sort of bumbling governor of Idaho
played by Bo Bridges, who's having an affair with the Mexican reporter for the
cable news network that's there. He kind of like there's like a subplot there,
but there are funny things like Rhode Island has been taken over by millions
of Chinese immigrants, and then they join Idaho's battle to stop the flood of
immigration because they're like, we can't handle any more immigration. So of course,
like the presidential advisors think they're going to be on one side, but
they're on the other. And then they think they've got this sick member of
which is actually how you say, seek sick member of Congress from Alabama who
also sides with Idaho because he doesn't get the funding he needs for his for
his temples down there. You know, like there's all sorts of like absurdity.
You've got black activists in LA that shoot at the at the Mexican mayor
of Los Angeles because you know, it's just like all the things like everything
gets not the way you expect it to go, and it's very well done.
So is it medic but like do they play it straight? But it's
just like satirical or is it like just an outright comedy. It's it's it's
just satire, okay, and you have people battling over it and like not
being too cartoonish on either side for being a satire, there's the cartoonish aspect,
but like they do a good job of presenting both sides. And where'd
you watch us? Is it on like HBO Max or I don't know how
to turn on my TV, much to my husband's chagrin, So anything I
watch he has prepared and placed on the TV, and I have no idea
where he think. So if you want to watch this movie, you'll have
to talk to Mark Hemmingway or ask Mark Hemingway on Twitter how to go about
it? All right? That that actually sounds pretty interesting. I'm going to
look look for that. And there's a piece if you want. If people
want to read on at the Federalist dot com, we should also mention again
you always remind me, but I think we should say give out the email
address. So radio at the Federalist dot com is where you can reach us.
We always like to get your mail, and until next week we'll talk
to them. Be Love's a freedom and interest for the level Ji