We're back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emily Dashinsky,
culture editor here at the Federalist. As always, you can email the show
at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on ex at fdr LST.
Make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcasts, and of course to
the premium version of the Federalist dot com as well. We are joined today
by Eke, Calvin Beisner, and David Leggetts. Legates. I got it
right because on the second try, because David told me before we started taping
here that it was like Bill Gates. So the case is called Climate.
The book is called Climate and Energy. They're the editors of super interesting new
collection. It is called Climate and Energy, the Case for Realism. Welcome
to you both, Thank you very much. Thank you Nat to be here.
Yeah, no, absolutely, So I'll start with you, Cal if
you could just tell us a little bit about your background and your career before
we dive in, and then I'll go to you David, that would be
awesome. I guess you could call me a mongrel, a mutt, an
intellectual mutt. I have a lot of academic background in philosophy and classical history,
and classical languages, in economics and economic ethics, and political philosophy,
in history, but also in theology, and probably have done more work,
though not in a formal academic setting, on environmental science and environmental stewardship,
and particularly on climate change than anything that I did for my PhD. So
I'm an interdisciplinary guy, and I have the great fun of getting to work
with the roughly seventy different scholars, about a third of them natural scientists,
about a thirty economists, and a third philosophers and theologians who are associated with
the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. I get to pull together all
the different perspectives that they bring on various different problems. Awesome, David,
How about you. I'm an academic. I've been in academia since nineteen seventy
eight. I've been at the University of Delaware, the University of Oklahoma,
LSU, and it just got so bad that I had to get out.
So I took the retirement plan, got out, and I've come to the
Cornwall Alliance and never looked back. Fantastic. Well, if you guys could
tell us a little bit, And I don't know who wants to take this
first. But just about the Cornwall Alliance and the work that you guys do,
I think that would be super interesting too. That's probably a perfect question
for cal And we're a network, as I mentioned of about seventy scholars,
scientists, economists, philosophers, theologians, etc. Our mission is to educate
the public and policymakers on biblical earth stewardship, economic development for the poor,
and the gospel of Jesus Christ, together with the biblical worldview, theology and
ethics that undergird that gospel. Our focus really is on two things. One
proper earth stewardship. What is it that we are intended to do? For
instance, by Genesis one twenty eight that says that God blessed Adam and Eve
and instructed them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it
and have dominion over everything in it. Some folks think that Christians consider that
license to just rape and pillage the planet. That's certainly not true. Since
we're made in God's image. God intends our dominion to reflect his own.
He started with nothing and made everything, started with darkness and made light,
started with chaos and made order started with non life and made life, and
so our calling is to reflect him in that we should be about the business
of enhancing the fruitfulness, the beauty and the safety of the earth to the
glory of God and the benefit of our neighbors, so that we're addressing the
two great commandments to love God and to love neighbor. And then the second
major area of our work relates to economic development for the poor. What are
the things that are absolutely indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty?
And those are first five different social institutions, private property rights, entrepreneurship,
free trade, limited government, and the rule of law. And a
second, a very important material physical condition of rising out of poverty is access
to abundant, affordable, reliable energy at massive scale. And unfortunately, an
awful lot of the environmental movement opposes both those five social institutions and that access
to abundant, affordable, reliable energy, and therefore stands in the way of
lifting billions of people out of poverty around the world. Did you have anything
to add to that, David No. I think he's a spokesman, so
I just let him Talkabils. I'll start with you then, David, on
the book you tell us about. I mean, the title is very straightforward
in this book, but a little bit about why you guys wanted to edit
this book, put this book together, why it's so timely, that would
be fantastic. Well, there's a lot going on in climate change in particular,
and me being a climatologist and Al being a theologian and an ecologist.
The idea is that we wanted to bring together scientists on both ends of factum
climate and energy to be able to talk about what is going on specifically with
this climate change narrative. I mean, a lot of what you hear,
particularly in the news media, particularly on radio and so forth, is really
that the world is coming to a screeching halt. It's all because humans are
producing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is somehow an evil gas. And
unless we take draconian actions now to stop all this from happening, that we
are going to be in a disastrous state in twenty to thirty years. And
it's always down the road. It's never happening. I mean back twenty thirty
years ago, it was going to happen in the early twenty tens, and
so forth, and now it just keeps getting pushed away. And that's part
of the issue is that this really isn't a science question anymore. It's become
an argument that's been made in order to exact some corporate control. The idea
is that if you look at the true science, you see that the humans
do effective planet, but we're not defecting our planet in a sense that the
planet is going to become disrupted, that we're going to have massive thunderstorms and
hurricanes and tornadoes and floods and droughts. This is not happening and it's not
likely to happen, and that in general, warmer conditions are better for civilization.
Warmer conditions are better for growing, for feeding people, and essentially getting
into the energy side of things. The offshoot of this is that we need
to stop technological advancements. And clearly, what has happened since the early eighteen
hundreds, when about ten percent of the people lived above the poverty line,
Now we're going to o case, we're only about ten percent of the people
are below the poverty line. And that's been through the industrialization, through the
development of inexpensive energy. And I'm afraid that what we're about to do is
to turn all this back. And so the idea of the book was to
have a number of experts talk about their various fields, explaining the problem to
lay people so they can understand what's going on and therefore realize that it's not
fear that should be driving us, but rather we should be paying attention to,
as we said, putting God first and caring for neighbor and cal Is
there anything you want to add to that question about basically why you guys felt
at this moment. This collection was so important. I think part of it
is to bridge the divide. There are really two opposite ends of a spectrum
regarded regarding climate change. One might be described as catastrophist or alarmist. You
know, climate change is an existential threat. Human activity is the overwhelming majority
cause of it, and therefore if we just change our conduct, we can
limit the climate change and divert the disaster. The other in the end of
the spectrum is denialism, just saying the whole thing is a hoax, there's
no such thing as climate change, or if there is, human activity has
nothing to do with it, and we just don't need to pay any attention
to it whatsoever. Our perspective is that anthropogenic global warming is real, but
it's unlikely to become catastrophic. It could, but won't necessarily be moderated,
prevented, or even reversed by a new natural cycle of global cooling, or
it might be augmented by a new warming cycle. The cost benefit ratio of
adapting to whatever future time we face is better than the cost benefit ratio of
mitigation. That is, mitigation being trying to control global temperature by substituting wind,
sol or and other renewable energy sources for the hydrogarbon fuels also known as
fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, whose abundance, affordability,
and reliability lifted much of mankind out of poverty and short life spans over
the past two centuries and are needed to lift the rest. And then,
finally, if we choose adaptation, that is, adapting to whatever climate change
happens over mitigation that is trying to control climate, then our life will likely
be much better at the end of the century than today is today, or
ever has been. You know, that broad into aperture, I think is
one of the things that is so obviously missing in the climate debate and has
been for a really long time, you know, sort of the scope of
human history. And one question I was excited to pose to both of you
is basically, what have you found or what in your experience is the most
persuasive argument or the most persuasive way to argue against the kind of the dominant
narrative that is pushed from Hollywood to the media on this question. And I
don't know who wants to start, maybe since Cal just want we can go
back to you, David, I would have to almost say, facts is
usually where I start my presentations, is that what you're here in the media
is that hurricanes are becoming more intense, more frequent, more thunderstorms, more
tornadoes, more floods, more droughts, more and more and more of all
of the disastrous things. And when you start to actually look at the data,
you see that there's really cycles that set up. We go through periods
of warming, we go through periods that it's cooler, we go through conditions
where we have lots of aumantic hurricanes, and then for maybe ten, fifteen,
twenty years when they aren't quite as frequent. But when you look at
the long term cycle of these things. We aren't seeing more hurricanes, we
aren't seeing more tornadoes, we aren't seeing more floods we're droughts, or we're
not seeing any more precipitation. We're not seeing any of these disasters occurring.
Which we're always told that this is happening right now, and then the next
step is, well, okay, if it's not happening now, it's just
around the corner because climate models say that it is. So we look at
climate models that climate models are very complex systems. They're attempting to simulate a
very complex system that is probably the most complex thing we can look at except
maybe for life itself, and we don't really understand a lot of how it
works. But we put these models together and then we find that really they're
driven by two things. One they are set up to overstate the carbon dioxide
warming and secondly that they're driven by a warming scenario usually that's much greater than
anybody believes carbon dioxide will increase. So as a result, when they track
current temperatures, they always overstate the case, or as we say, they
tend to run hot, and so in effect, we have data that's not
showing a current trend and then we have a model that we know is inherently
fawed and doesn't follow the real world. And so those seem to be the
two major features upon which the argument is based. And the third then becomes
the third leg of the try it, if you will, becomes the actual
physics of the problem, and we can look at how carbon dioxide warms the
planet, what it does. And when you start to look at those kinds
of things, you realize that God's creation is very well developed. I mean,
he said it was good, and certainly it is, and so there's
a lot of checks and balances that go on, and essentially it's a very
well regulated system. And so that's what I hope that the book conveys,
is it essentially the disaster scenarios just are fabricated and not realistic. American jobs
are good, bad, and ugly. The Watchdout on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy
and how it affects your wallet. Don't look at that headline number that the
politicians are spewing on TV. Although more Americans are employed, they're all working
for the government. Even worse, most of them are part time employees.
Whether it's happening in DC or down the 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. Yeah, you know,
one of the reasons I was excited to ask that question is it seems
like right now is a really exciting time and we can get to that in
a minute, where people are accessing information that's contra to the dominant narrative.
And I imagine you guys have had experiences where when you present facts that aren't
presented or aren't presented fairlier accurately in the media, people might have light bulb
moments. So cal has that happened to you, and if so, what
do you find to be the most powerful? Yes, that happens quite a
lot, actually, And David just touched on the problem about climate models and
how they don't really match reality. I've often found it helpful to refer to
a graph that our friend doctor David Doctor Roy Spencer, who's a principal research
scientist in climate at the University of Alabama and a NASA Award winning scientist developer
of the NASA satellite Global Temperature Monitoring system. Roy put out a graph,
oh about fifteen years ago that became quite famous. It showed the difference between
the simulations from climate models and the actual observations of global temperature, and the
models were running two, three, four times as much warming as the observations,
and so he titled the graph ninety five percent of climate models agree observations
are wrong. Now that's funny because it's the exact opposite of scientific method.
The late Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feinman explained that the key to science is
that we try to figure out how nature works by first making a guess.
Then we make predictions of what we think we should observe. If the guess
is right, then we observe in the real world. And Fineman pointed out
if the prediction, if the observations contradict the predictions, then our guess is
wrong. And it doesn't matter how beautiful the guess is or how smart we
are, and I would add, or how many people agree with us.
If the observations contradict the predictions, the guess is wrong. So when I
see people looking at the difference between the model projections and the real world observations.
They then begin to think, oh, my goodness, we really don't
have much reason to fear dangerous warming in the future. And that's exactly right,
because if the models are wrong, if they do not accurately depict how
the climate system works, which is very clear, then they provide no rational
basis for any predictions about future temperature, and therefore also national basis for any
kind of policy. And by the way, Roy's Graft came out about ten
or fifteen years ago, the same continues to be the case. In fact,
the latest models diverge from real world observations even more than did the earlier
models, despite the fact that we've had another decade or so of development and
spent some more billions of dollars trying to improve the models. So I find
that people tend to find that very helpful. From a biblical worldview perspective,
I point out, as David hinted, look, an infinitely wise God designed,
an infinitely powerful God created, and an infinitely faithful God sustains the Earth,
including its climate system. And when he had created everything, he looked
at it all and behold, it was very good. Now do we think
that a very good climate system would be one where if you increased the proportion
of one gas in it, carbon dioxide, from twenty eight thousandths of a
percent, which it was before the Industrial Revolution, to forty two thousandths of
one percent, which is about what it is today, that would cause climate
catastrophe. I don't think so. That's like saying a brilliant architect will design
a building so that if you lean on a wall, all the feedback mechanisms
and it will multiply the stress of your weight until the building collapses. No,
I don't think so. And the fact is that we find in nature
that natural systems all tend to work such that if you perturb them and disturb
them, then the feedback mechanisms inherent with them will bring them back to stability
rather than forcing them off into utter disaster. Now, another huge question that
really I wrestle with as someone who thinks about media a lot, is why
both of you think that the media, in the face of facts, is
having a hard time covering this story accurately, covering this story fairly. Obviously,
ideology has to be a huge part of that, but at a certain
point, the facts and the ideology have to clash when you're in a newsroom,
that is, you know, talking to different scientists, and maybe you
guys actually have a take on that. Maybe it's because they're listening to the
wrong people. What do you think about that, David, I'll start with
you. There's I mean, we could go on for hours I'm talking about
this. I mean there's essentially several different types of people. They're the people
that are the true believers. They will believe this regardless of what the facts
say. There are the useful idiots who go along with it, and then
there are I think the benefit from having this narrative, and I think the
media is sort of fall into that third category. They benefit from this narrative.
I mean, there's an old saying in journalism, if it bleeds,
it leads. The idea is disasters make the front page, and good news
stories are what you phil uses filler late in the newscast if you just don't
have anything else to put in there. And so the idea is that we
are destroying the planet. This is common sense. And I usually tell the
story I got started in this at the University of Oklahoma and it was the
one hundredth anniversary of the Oklahoma forming of the Oklahoma the University of Oklahoma,
the Land Run and they had a meeting and brought in a number of top
people talking about where they thought their disciplines were going in the next twenty thirty
years. And they brought in Bob Correll from the federal government, and he
was lamenting the fact that a lot of money was going to places, so
to people to do solid earth geophysics so they could dig big holes in the
ground, and for interplanetary astrophysics so they could build big, big telescopes and
so forth. And he said, you know, for a long time,
atmospheric science has been a weak step child. But we are on the verge
of getting lots and lots of money like we've never had before. And I'm
waiting for him to say, and this is how we're going to use that
to further you know, better on knowledge of tornado, forecasting of weather conditions,
I mean, all sorts of things he could have said. And he
essentially said, we better not kill the goose that's laying the golden egg.
Keep telling the media that the end is coming up, that it's a disastrous
thing, and we'll get more media, more money for it, and as
Dick Linsen is demonstrated, this sort of is a positive feedback process. The
scientists say the end is near, media play it up, and then scientific
organizations say, well, we need more funding to review this, and goes
to the scientists who are pleased. The universities are pleased, they make them
more proclamations, and it just keeps going round and round. So I think
it's a process that seemingly everybody wins except the American people. What do you
think, cal Well? I think David got a lot of it very clearly
said there. As a former journalist myself, I'll just speak a little bit
in defense of the journalists here, not saying that they tend to be right,
but saying they've got a really hard job. As a journalist, you
may cover three or four different stories every day, and that means changing stories
over and over and over again. That doesn't give you much time to do
in depth research on much of anything. Even journalists who specialize, say in
an environment or maybe even in climate change, very rarely have the time to
do in depth research that would enable them to see past the headline grabbing statements.
So when you get, for instance, the chairman of the UN inter
Governmental Panel on Climate Change saying that I'm sorry, no, I'm thinking to
the wrong person. The Secretary General of the United Nations saying that the most
recent assessment report from the Inner Governmental Panel on Climate Change was code read for
humanity. Now, you can go through all the scientific assessment report and never
find anything like that, but the journalists won't know that. They'll just get
the press release quoting the Secretary General again, other press releases, and so
that's a part of the problem is that just journalists don't have the time to
go into great depth. But also again as a former journalist, son of
a lifelong journalist, I'll repeat, yeah, bad news is good news.
Good news is no news because bad news draws eyeballs, and eyeballs are what
you have to promise to advertisers, and advertisers pay your bills. Our either
view, I'll go back to you, David on this one. You know,
as we were talking about earlier, right now, it does seem like
books like yours are breaking through what previously was this narrative so aggressively maintained by
gatekeepers who I think that's a fantastic point. Cal you know, in itself,
the job is very, very difficult. Then you throw a sort of
ideology into the mix and the new business models, and some of it not
new, but you throw business models into the mix. It's kind of a
toxic recipe right now for getting climate reporting right. But just the sort of
explosion in podcasts and new media and new information getting out in new ways,
it seems to me like it has really had an effect on the climate discussion
and is really reaching more and more people. So I just first wanted to
ask you both, is that your experience. Are you optimistic right now that
books like this one are reaching new audiences and that people are hearing kind of
the other side of the story. I'm generally pessimistic by nature, but everybody
tells me, and I'm starting to realize that maybe we are turning the corner
that for a while, you know, the mantra was at the end of
the world and so forth, and now, I mean, there's only so
many times you can tell people the sky's falling and it doesn't fall before they
finally say, you know, I think I'm being had, And I think
that's where we're starting to get. I mean, constantly we were told Glacier
National Park will have glaciers, England will no longer have sea snow. And
you know, all of this was supposed to be right around the corner.
They made forecasts for it, and of course they keep pushing it and pushing
it and pushing it. And at some point, that's why I say,
people say that, you know, this guy is no longer really following.
You're selling me a bill of goods. And I think that's possibly where we
are now, is that people are starting to say, yeah, I don't
buy this anymore. The science really isn't settled, because the science is never
settled, and I think that the consensus that's a non consensus, has been
essentially overplayed. And I think that's what that's where we're setting up for a
change. What do you think would call Yeah, I'm going to add to
that that I think a lot of people are beginning to realize not only do
I not buy it ideologically, but I don't want to buy it financially when
they're watching energy skyrocket, which, by the way, President Obama, when
he was campaigning for office the first time around, promised would be the case
if he were elected, that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket because he would embrace
the notion of forcing us away from fossil fuels and toward wind and solar.
As people see their electric bills, their gas bills, their gasoline costs rising,
more and more of them are just unwilling to go there. It's really
interesting. If you pull the American public as to their concern about climate change,
many of them will say that they are highly concerned about it. But
as soon as you put a price tag on it, would you be willing
to spend a dollar a month extra on your electric bill to reduce climate change?
Suddenly all of that alarm disappears. And so what we're seeing is that
the kinds of policies being pushed to fight climate change are the policies that will
deprive people of the abundant, affordable, reliable energy indispensable to keeping them out
of poverty or if they're poor, now lifting them up out of poverty.
And so as that becomes more and more clear, people become more and more
open to the message that you know, that's not necessary. And what I
find often is very very helpful is to help people just to recognize, look,
at this point, if you have an income equivalent to say, the
bottom five percent of Americans. You can thrive in any climate, from the
Arctic Circle to the Sahara Desert to the Brazilian rainforest. But if your income
is about a dollar or two a day, you can't thrive in the best
tropical paradise. What that means is that poverty is a much greater threat to
human health in life than anything related to climate and weather. And that's because
wealth enables us to protect ourselves from all kinds of climate and weather disasters.
That's evident from the fact that over the past one hundred years, the rate
of human mortality caused by weather disasters has fallen by over ninety eight percent.
So if it's a choice between prosperity and preventing a tenth of a degree or
two tenths of a degree of increase in global average temperature, almost everybody will
choose posterity. And it's a perfectly rational choice. And you know, I'm
curious also on this kind of big quick picture question about you know, is
the centerpiece of the debate carbon emissions and what happens in India, in China,
as we you know, bust our butts here in the United States to
the point where we have electrical good problems in certain places in the country,
where we have, you know, serious crises, energy crises in certain places
of the country because of this green transition. What is there to be done?
We're sort of how should we think about, you know, as you
as you mentioned, not being so far blinded by the idea that well,
there's nothing anthropogenic about any of this, there's really nothing going on, but
also ensuring that enough people have access to all of the wonderful technology that does
alleviate poverty, that does alleviate hunger, that does alleviate suffering, if it's
medication, whatever it is. How should we think about striking that balance correctly,
while at the same time recognizing that some of this with other countries is
also totally out of our control. That's that's kind of a complicated ones.
I'll throw it to every once immersed David, go ahead, Well, I
was going to say, since you grew up in India, you have a
fairly good grasp on exactly what's going on over there, so maybe better for
you to come Well, let's be careful not to exaggerate the case. I
didn't actually grow up in India. I lived there for a year as a
little child in Calcutta. But while there, because of the terrible poverty problems
in India and the filth that always accompanies that, my mother became very very
ill, actually paralyzed for a time, And so every day I had to
be taken to the home of an Indian family where I would spend the day.
My ayah or nurse would take me by the hand and we would walk
down the blocks. This was early in the morning, and we were out
before the trucks came around, which meant that all along the way I was
stepping over the bodies of people who died overnight of disease and starvation. That
gave me an appreciation of the problems of poverty that I think goes well beyond
typical Americans who've never seen any such thing up close personally. So what I've
recognized is that frankly, we need to help people to understand that human health
and longevity depend far more on overcoming poverty than on controlling climate. And we
can see that as we see the absolutely lockstep correlation between economic development anywhere and
life expectancy rising and infant and child mortality rates falling. We can also see
it by the fact that there is no such correlation between changes in global temperature
or any other sort of climate thing and human health or life expectancy. People
just keep living longer and longer and being more and more healthy despite changes in
climate. So you know, what makes better sense to try to control global
climate or to try to make people wealthy enough that it doesn't matter what happens
in the climate. It also helps to remember, by the way, of
course, that when we're talking about climate change and we are defining that as
a change in global average temperature, the change that is in mind is fractions
of a degree. Now we can't feel that, you know, our typical
mercury thermometers can't even show it. And yet we're told that somehow or other
this is to be a disaster. That's craziness. All all see changes much
greater than that, from nighttime low to daytime high, certainly from summer high
to winter low. And you know, there is a silver lining also to
greenhouse driven global warming, and that is that it happens primarily towards the poles,
primarily in winter, primarily at night, not toward the equator in summer
or in the daytime. In other words, low temperatures rise much more than
high temperatures. If the high temperatures rise at all, the result is longer
growing seasons, and we can farm closer to the poles, which means more
food for everybody, which helps the poor more than anybody else. David,
anything to add, No, not at all. Well, you just solved
the problem. Cal, I wish that were So is there anything either of
you wants to that we did touch on today and maybe from the book that
you want to make sure listeners understand, or any reason you think that it's
especially important for people to pick up a copy of the book. I would
mention a couple of things. First off, I think one thing that makes
this book extra valuable is that every chapter begins with a short chapter summary.
Tends to run about a page and a half to two sometimes two and a
half pages, written for non experts, so that ordinary people like me.
I mean, I am not a trained scientist, though I've read a whole
lot more on climate science than I ever did for my PhD. But it
is this makes the book very accessible to non experts, so I think that's
an important thing. Another important thing is simply that it does it does try
to be even handed. As I said earlier, it's not alarmist, it's
not denialist. It's realist. And I think that should appeal to an awful
lot of people. It also should be a good tool for policymakers, members
of Congress, people in the administration, people in state legislatures and state governor's
offices and whatnot. This is something that I think many of them will find
very helpful as they consider policymaking. And if I can add this little bit
too, you know where can this book be had well, of course at
Amazon or Barnes and Noble and various other booksellers. But the Cornwall Alliance for
the Stewards of Creation, which is the think tank nonprofit that developed this book
as our way of saying thank you when people make a one hundred percent tax
deductible donation literally any size to us during the month of April, and our
supply lasts will be glad to send them a free copy. And I think
that should make the book a little extra appealing. Free is a good deal.
David, did you want to add anything, No, I just said
I want to agree with what KL said that in part we get the idea
that this is a very polarized discussion, and it's sort of like the old
CNN crossfire. You get one person on one extreme side and another person on
the other extreme side and have the two of them yell at each other for
an hour. That's not necessarily how climate change works. It's how it works
in the public sphere. But in science when you start to read and look
at what's going on, I think the realist position is really where it is
to say, you know, it's a hoax. No climate has always changed
and climate always will change, and I think that is a problem to try
to play it off as a hoax, but to try to play it off
as the end of the world is also serious problem. So really it's a
middle ground, essentially saying that the climate varies, climate changes, but in
fact what we're going to see is something that's probably a little bit better off
than it was last year. With climate change is something we all should look
forward to and not be scared to death of. Well, the book once
again is called Climate and Energy the Case for Realism. Make sure to grab
your copy. David and cal thank you so much for your time today.
You're welcome, Thank you, and I hope that all your listeners will go
to Cornwallalliance dot org and learn more about what we do and take advantage of
that possibility of a free copy. Sounds great, Cornwall Alliance, make sure
to check out their website and get your own free coffee. What a great
deal. I'm Emily Tashinski, culture editor here at The Federalist. We'll be
back soon with more. Until then, be lovers of freedom and anxious for
the frame po